Eric Gisse wrote on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:22:18 -0800:

A) Note that i am not following guidelines in this thread (see bottom
part of of my messages).

Note that I have always ignored your guidelines and will continue to do
so.

Do you ever worry about overflow when you are that full of yourself?

Read your reply to A)

A) "pure GR" is written zero (0) times on 1). You start doing
assumptions. Bad start...

Why? My statement isn't true in general.

Reply or don't original question but don't lie.

I did read it...

And decided to repeat the mistake

Look, all the quantities that can be called "forces" in GR are results
of the geometry.

Hum!... No.

What part of my request to be more specific confuses you? "non-
geometrical GR" is too broad of a subject.

Thus, what experiments confirm geometric GR and invalidates [too broad]
non-geometrical GR?

I did. The field equations determine the system.

I did not asked for a field approximation to gravity i asked for the
*full* relativistic N-body equation of motion for bodies under gravity.

Writing the geodesic equation for linearized GR is only a
test of someone's knowledge if you ask them to derive it in front of
you.

It is a test of how people like you believe on gospel.

c - because that's how fast perturbations propagate.

I did asked "What is the 'speed' of gravity (and why?)" twice

Can't read?

David A. Smith