Dear Juan R. González-Álvarez:

On Feb 21, 2:26*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
dlzc wrote on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:43:08 -0800:
On Feb 19, 9:26*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:28:02 -0600:

Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
On the thread about gravity at molecular level, on
sci.physics.research
Tom Roberts did some
comments on Uncle Al post. Uncle Al reply has been

"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all
of its parts."
Cannot agree more!

Apparently you missed the fact that Uncle Al did not
answer the question (he responded with an incoherent
spew of jargon indistinguishable from nonsense).

Insults from Uncle Al are of no account.

What insults on the extract i reproduced? Ignorance is
. not an insult just a mind state.

You took a quote out of context.

Out of context?

The phrase was complete, includes a final "." and i said
exactly from *where* i got it. Therefore anyone
(including they two) could add something more in the case
i had missed words (I did not).

You did. Tom Roberts asked Uncle Al why he expected a vector product,
when an analog difference is already known. He was asking for
information, much as I have asked from you. Rather than an answer,
Uncle Al simply calls Tom Roberts "ignorant". Note that Uncle Al
misunderstood a question as a statement.

You made a post directly aimed at both
Tom Roberts and Uncle Al.

And?

Why is this your problem? Are you qualified to answer Tom's question?

Reason which i reproduced Uncle Al quote here was
because it very much define many posting by Tom Roberts.

Instead wasting time replying Tom Roberts postings here
and in sci.physics.research i would just say

"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of
its parts."

"Your is the response of a troll, and very much in contravention of
the 'standards' you claimed you follow".

The ignorance is yours to cure.

See below.

Ignorance can be eliminated by injecting some
knowledge.

Yes, please.

Below i make some technical questions Roberts never
replied but you could now!

Since you agree with him, perhaps YOU can answer
the question I asked. *If not, that says far more
about you than about me, and our relative states
of "ignorance".

I did a similar mistake in the past discussing with
you both here and in sci.physics.research newsgroup.

So you snipe and run, and never stand on whatever
"facts" you fling in people's faces?

But i usually follow point ((5)) of guidelines linked
below now.

How nice. *Follow your own philosophy now.

...
Of course, some of your post are also really good. I
have nothing to add to those also.

Yet you feel competent to lean towards one over the
other? *I think you well and truly have walked into
the wake between two mud wrestlers, and will at least
get soiled, and will most likely end up having
difficulty proceeding further. *Uncle Al could not
understand and answer the challenge, but you seem to
feel you can.

This should be fun to watch.

I also did the mistake of doing efforts to ask
every time i was asked whereas my many specific
points regarding special and general relativity
are completely ignored. E.g. Roberts has never
replied to me many question i have done.

I see. So like a little child, you fling whatever insults you can
muster? Was that part of tehe code you claimed to follow? I don't
recall that there.

The list may be huge but now i remember perfectly:

1) Explicit expression for non-geometrical
"coordinate forces" [#] in terms of gravitational
potentials for the specific case of time-
orthogonal system of coordinates.

What does this have to do with the thread? What does this have to do
with your insults and bad manners? What does this even have to do
with chirality?

2) What experiments confirm geometric GR and
invalidates non-geometrical GR? some time ago
Roberts tried to convince us that curved spacetime
had been measured...

Did you happen to notice that Tom agreed UA's experiment needed to be
run? We cannot "prove" theories, we can only disprove them.
Measuring curvature is trivial. If "non-geometrical GR" predicts an
effect identical to curvature, then yoru need is still not met. Use
your head.

3) Write the *full* relativistic N-body equation
of motion for bodies under gravity.

Like you could understand or recognize it should I bother to generate
it for you?

4) Equation of motion in field GR and
differences with geometric GR. By commodity works
on weak fields.

You have so far answered neither Tom's request, nor mine. Your
personal hearburn is not my problem.

5) Non-relativistic limit of GR geodesic. Or
more easy geodesic equation for linearized GR.

6) What is the 'speed' of gravity (and why?).

Infinite, IMO. Because that which is attached to each bit of matter
as "contribution to spacetime everywhere" does not know spacetime...
it *is* spacetime.

In advance, thanks by all clever knowledge we will
receive from you.

You are welcome. I try not to embarrass others with what I myuself
cannot understand.

David A. Smith