Einstein-Aether Theory
Authors: C. Eling, T. Jacobson, D. Mattingly

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410001

=========[Abstract]=========================

We review the status of "Einstein-Aether theory", a generally
covariant theory of gravity coupled to a dynamical, unit
timelike vector field that breaks local Lorentz symmetry.

Aspects of waves, stars, black holes, and cosmology are
discussed, together with theoretical and observational
constraints. Open questions are stressed.

=========[/Abstract]=========================







--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

mountain man:
Einstein-Aether Theory
Authors: C. Eling, T. Jacobson, D. Mattingly

Whats your point? Here's the deal (and I've told you this before,
so I don't understand why you have so much difficulty with this
concept). Post your own arguments, based on your own understanding
of the subject using your own words. That would seem quite reasonable,
considering that I do that and I'm just a physicist who, according the
kook cliche book, is indoctrinated, unoriginal and can't think for
myself. Despite all those apparently insurmountable handicaps, I
manage. References are not proxies for thinking. The authors are
not posting to this newsgroup and I have no interest in discussing
what you think the authors said. If you knew that, you could have
said it yourself. I'm not interested in discussing what you think
someone else said.

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
mountain man:


http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410001

Einstein-Aether Theory
Authors: C. Eling, T. Jacobson, D. Mattingly

Whats your point? Here's the deal (and I've told you this before,
so I don't understand why you have so much difficulty with this
concept). Post your own arguments, based on your own understanding
of the subject using your own words.


Firstly, what makes you think there exists any deal
whatsoever? Listen carefully --- there is no deal:

I will post precisely what I decide to post, and most
certainly what I post will not be in any accordance to
your prescription

Secondly, do I have to have a point in order to post
a reference to a physics paper in usenet.sci.physics ?

If you dont like my posts, then ignore them.


That would seem quite reasonable,
considering that I do that and ...

....[SNIP]...


What you do is your business.
What I do is my business.
Let's keep things that way.

Thanks,







--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

QuoteForTheDay:

"Surely the good man is the bad man's teacher;
and the bad man is the good man's business.
If the one does not respect his teacher,
or the other doesn't love his business,
his error is very great.
This is indeed an important secret."

----- Lao Tsu, China, about 350BC

"mountain man" wrote in message ...
"Bilge" wrote in message
...

[snip]


What you do is your business.
What I do is my business.
Let's keep things that way.

Ah, so *that* is why you open a thread with a title like
"Einstein-Aether Theory (Attn: Bilge)".
Strange.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
"Bilge" wrote in message
...

[snip]


What you do is your business.
What I do is my business.
Let's keep things that way.

Ah, so *that* is why you open a thread with a title like
"Einstein-Aether Theory (Attn: Bilge)".
Strange.



Not necessarily, as in an earlier thread you will find
the following exchange:

bilge wrote:
Ive criticized your posts because your
posts lack physics content. You are certainly free to remedy that
by posting articles that contain some physics. However, rather
than do that, you would rather make false statements to create a
strawman.

to which I responded .....

I will answer the above by _continuing_ to post
articles that contain some physics. For the record,
I'll mark the next article to your attention.


I hope this satisfies your curiousity.






--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

mountain man:
"Bilge" wrote in message
e-al.net...
mountain man:


http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410001

Einstein-Aether Theory
Authors: C. Eling, T. Jacobson, D. Mattingly

Whats your point? Here's the deal (and I've told you this before,
so I don't understand why you have so much difficulty with this
concept). Post your own arguments, based on your own understanding
of the subject using your own words.


Firstly, what makes you think there exists any deal
whatsoever? Listen carefully --- there is no deal:

I didnt say there was a ``deal.'' However, you and that numbskull
stowe complain about the types of replies you receive. The ``deal''
(which is actually just a figure of speech, but your literal reading
of it works), is, if you don't want what you post referred to as
crap, don't post crap. From your reply, I assume you would rather
post crap than be taken seriously.



I will post precisely what I decide to post, and most
certainly what I post will not be in any accordance to
your prescription

Secondly, do I have to have a point in order to post
a reference to a physics paper in usenet.sci.physics ?

If you dont like my posts, then ignore them.


That would seem quite reasonable,
considering that I do that and ...

...[SNIP]...


What you do is your business.
What I do is my business.
Let's keep things that way.

Thanks,







--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

QuoteForTheDay:

"Surely the good man is the bad man's teacher;
and the bad man is the good man's business.
If the one does not respect his teacher,
or the other doesn't love his business,
his error is very great.
This is indeed an important secret."

----- Lao Tsu, China, about 350BC