Jerry wrote on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:26:09 -0800:

I've never understood why Uncle Al seems to be so respected by members
of the sci.physics.* newsgroups.

Personally I do not know if he is respected or not since i never run a
poll.

I just know he has some interesting ideas. He knows relativistic stuff
many self- (or not so self-) claimed expertises on relativity ignore and
he often provide useful references to up to date literature on the topics
he is interested on.


--
I follow http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

On Feb 21, 12:26 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
dlzc wrote on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:43:08 -0800:



Dear Juan R. González-Álvarez:

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

And?

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."

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. 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.

Reformulate your question to a more meaningful expression.

In pure GR, there are no "non-geometrical 'coordinate force' " since
all the effective forces are geometric in nature.


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...

Your question is nebulous enough to be meaningless. There are dozens
of non-GR theories of gravitation - you have to be more specific. If
you want an explanation of why a certain CLASS of theories are
excluded by observation while confirming GR, be more specific.


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

G_uv = R_uv - 1/2 R g_uv = 8piG/c^2 sum n=1...N m U_u U_v [where there
is a sum over m_i masses].

Good ****ing luck solving that.


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

GR is a geometric field theory. There is no difference.


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

Open up Wald and look - you have referenced Wald before so I know you
have it. OTOH, you didn't understand Wald the last time you referenced
Wald, so I dunno.


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

Open up Wald, MTW, Carroll, D'Inverno, etc and look. Perturbations
propagate at c. If you want a non-perturbative answer, you'll have to
re-formulate your question since it isn't meaningful to ask how "fast"
gravity goes.


David A. Smith

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

[#] This is usual name in literature, including that by celestial
mechanicists and astronomers. Therefore do not repeat the old mistake of
blaming about geometry...

Jerry wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:28�am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez 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.


I've never understood why Uncle Al seems to be so respected by members
of the sci.physics.* newsgroups. His ability to spew out superficially
impressive jargon fails to hide the fact that he is really not any
sort
of expert in relativity. Chemistry, yes, especially organic
chemistry...
but physics??? He lost any residual respect I might have had for him
when he started the "Toodling near lightspeed - NOT!" thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...eddb852dcab01e

Of all the things you could get butthurt about, you chose this?

[...]

On 21 feb, 10:14, Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:28�am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez 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.

I've never understood why Uncle Al seems to be so respected by members
of the sci.physics.* newsgroups. His ability to spew out superficially
impressive jargon fails to hide the fact that he is really not any
sort
of expert in relativity. Chemistry, yes, especially organic
chemistry...
but physics??? He lost any residual respect I might have had for him
when he started the "Toodling near lightspeed - NOT!" thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/1beddb85...

Of all the things you could get butthurt about, you chose this?

[...]

I understand Juan R. González-�lvarez's idea. He wanted to
hold a cockfight here in sci.physics.relativity between two
well-known bred roosters, namely "Uncle Al Cock" and
"Tom Roberts Cock", for the purpose of gambling, exciting
and entertaining the audience, as far as cockfights are not
allowed in sci.physics.research. Good idea Juan R.!
It would be interesting to hold pro wrestlings too and see
how Uncle Al "Gigant Chloride" wins, applying his
submission maneuve on Tom Roberts "The Tiger of Zenda"
:-)

On Feb 21, 1:30 am, Albertito wrote:
On 21 feb, 10:14, Eric Gisse wrote:



Jerry wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:28�am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez 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.

I've never understood why Uncle Al seems to be so respected by members
of the sci.physics.* newsgroups. His ability to spew out superficially
impressive jargon fails to hide the fact that he is really not any
sort
of expert in relativity. Chemistry, yes, especially organic
chemistry...
but physics??? He lost any residual respect I might have had for him
when he started the "Toodling near lightspeed - NOT!" thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/1beddb85....

Of all the things you could get butthurt about, you chose this?

[...]

I understand Juan R. González-�lvarez's idea. He wanted to
hold a cockfight here in sci.physics.relativity between two
well-known bred roosters, namely "Uncle Al Cock" and
"Tom Roberts Cock", for the purpose of gambling, exciting
and entertaining the audience, as far as cockfights are not
allowed in sci.physics.research. Good idea Juan R.!
It would be interesting to hold pro wrestlings too and see
how Uncle Al "Gigant Chloride" wins, applying his
submission maneuve on Tom Roberts "The Tiger of Zenda"
:-)

Tom is nice, Uncle Al is not. It wouldn't be an interesting fight.

Eric Gisse wrote on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:59:50 -0800:

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

B) Note i am just replying you for fun *now* (see point A). I am working
hard on a paper since last week and i need some diversion.

C) Note i will not reply your usual nonsenses in a future when I was
again following guidelines and just waiting sensical answers.

D) I am clever enough to know you will fail to understand this.

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

Reformulate your question to a more meaningful expression.

In pure GR, there are no "non-geometrical 'coordinate force' " since all
the effective forces are geometric in nature.

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

B) "1)" contains a note labelled [#]. Usually this mean reader would go
to an endnote and read it. You did not. I copy and paste it here

[#] This is usual name in literature, including that by celestial
mechanicists and astronomers. Therefore do not repeat the old mistake
of blaming about geometry...

C) "This is usual name in literature" . You never read, ok. But then do
not reply something where you are a clear ignorant

D) The note also says "do not repeat the old mistake of blaming about
geometry..." but you ignored and repeat the mistake.

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...

Your question is nebulous enough to be meaningless. There are dozens of
non-GR theories of gravitation - you have to be more specific. If you
want an explanation of why a certain CLASS of theories are excluded by
observation while confirming GR, be more specific.

Clear like pure water: "What experiments confirm geometric GR and
invalidates non-geometrical GR?"

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

G_uv = R_uv - 1/2 R g_uv = 8piG/c^2 sum n=1...N m U_u U_v [where there
is a sum over m_i masses].

ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, this was very good one.

I repeat again: "Write the *full* relativistic N-body equation of motion
for bodies under gravity."

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

GR is a geometric field theory. There is no difference.

And if had one you would not notice it, therefore may a correct reply
from your personal perspective. I will be benevolent with this one.

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

Open up Wald and look - you have referenced Wald before so I know you
have it. OTOH, you didn't understand Wald the last time you referenced
Wald, so I dunno.

and close it and then ask again. "Non-relativistic limit of GR geodesic.
Or more easy geodesic equation for linearized GR."

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

Open up Wald, MTW, Carroll, D'Inverno, etc and look. Perturbations
propagate at c. If you want a non-perturbative answer, you'll have to
re-formulate your question since it isn't meaningful to ask how "fast"
gravity goes.

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

David A. Smith

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

[#] This is usual name in literature, including that by celestial
mechanicists and astronomers. Therefore do not repeat the old mistake
of blaming about geometry...

Albertito wrote on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:30:59 -0800:


I understand Juan R. González-�lvarez's idea. He wanted to hold a
cockfight here in sci.physics.relativity between two well-known bred
roosters, namely "Uncle Al Cock" and "Tom Roberts Cock", for the purpose
of gambling, exciting and entertaining the audience, as far as
cockfights are not allowed in sci.physics.research. Good idea Juan R.!
It would be interesting to hold pro wrestlings too and see how Uncle Al
"Gigant Chloride" wins, applying his submission maneuve on Tom Roberts
"The Tiger of Zenda" :-)

Hay que joderse!

Eric Gisse wrote on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:32:43 -0800:


Tom is nice, Uncle Al is not. It wouldn't be an interesting fight.

Yes, i already knew that Uncle Al is not a French city from its own
website.

http://www.answers.com/nice&r=67

It wouldn't be an interesting fight.

You did look Goodzilla movie?

On 21 feb, 10:44, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Albertito wrote on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:30:59 -0800:



I understand Juan R. González-Álvarez's idea. He wanted to hold a
cockfight here in sci.physics.relativity between two well-known bred
roosters, namely "Uncle Al Cock" and "Tom Roberts Cock", for the purpose
of gambling, exciting and entertaining the audience, as far as
cockfights are not allowed in sci.physics.research. Good idea Juan R.!
It would be interesting to hold pro wrestlings too and see how Uncle Al
"Gigant Chloride" wins, applying his submission maneuve on Tom Roberts
"The Tiger of Zenda" :-)

Hay que joderse!

O carallo 29 :-o

On Feb 21, 4:14Â*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:28�am, Tom Roberts wrote:

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.

I've never understood why Uncle Al seems to be so respected by members
of the sci.physics.* newsgroups. His ability to spew out superficially
impressive jargon fails to hide the fact that he is really not any
sort
of expert in relativity. Chemistry, yes, especially organic
chemistry...
but physics??? He lost any residual respect I might have had for him
when he started the "Toodling near lightspeed - NOT!" thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...eddb852dcab01e

Of all the things you could get butthurt about, you chose this?

That was merely the last straw. When he goes around insulting my
favorite newsgroup posters, I can get really riled.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

On a different topic, you're almost through with your undergrad
degree, aren't you? Where are you planning to go afterwards?

I was in a really aggravating situation with some disallowed
transfer credits, so for a while I didn't know if I was actually
going to graduate this year, but things finally got straightened
out. To give you an idea of just how STOOPID the whole situation
was:

Advisor: "We can't allow this one. It was an upper level course,
and you took it while you were still an undergraduate
without having taken the necessary prerequisites."
Me: "But I got an A!"
Advisor: "You shouldn't have been allowed to take the course.
Your advanced placement advisor gave you wrong advice."
Me: "But I got an A!"

Jerry