Jerry wrote on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:14:28 -0800:


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

I did not remember any complaint from you when anyone insults your non
favorite posters. Just a note.

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!"

You would be happy. Advisor is just preparing you to enter into the
academic science universe.

Jerry

Albertito wrote on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:12:06 -0800:


O carallo 29 :-o

O carallo [do] 29 #-)

On Feb 21, 2:14 am, Jerry wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:14 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...hread/1beddb85....

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.

Seems an odd choice though. I disagree with his idea given that -
locally - nothing can and will change, but it isn't especially dumb
even if you don't take into account the typical value of "dumb" on
this newsgroup.


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

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

Yes - I was hoping for this spring but it turned out to be a little on
the optimistic side. I have no idea what, if anything, I'm doing for
grad school.


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

I'm going to be unhappy if that situation hits me because the same
conditions apply.

Eric Gisse wrote on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:36:57 -0800:

Me: "But I got an A!"

Jerry

I'm going to be unhappy if that situation hits me because the same
conditions apply.

Don't worry you did not get an A. Did you?

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

On Feb 21, 5:36*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:14 am, Jerry wrote:

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

Seems an odd choice though. I disagree with his idea given that -
locally - nothing can and will change, but it isn't especially dumb
even if you don't take into account the typical value of "dumb" on
this newsgroup.

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

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

Yes - I was hoping for this spring but it turned out to be a little on
the optimistic side. I have no idea what, if anything, I'm doing for
grad school.

My residency situation is still in limbo. So long as I didn't
know if I were actually graduating, other students were in
front of me. Because of my administrative difficulties, I'm
almost guaranteed to have to accept a residency in Lowest
Slobovia or other such dump...

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

I'm going to be unhappy if that situation hits me because
the same conditions apply.

I've been fighting the administration for over three
years. If you're going to have problems, find out now!

Jerry

Troll dlzc trolled:

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.

Uncel al was not replying query but the ignorant statements surrounding
it...

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?

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."

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

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

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.

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

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?

First question did not reply


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.

Second question did not reply

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?

Third question did not reply

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.

Fourth did not reply

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

Fiveth did not reply

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.

Nonsense.

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.

Still waiting some clever knowledge from you.

David A. Smith


--
http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif

On Feb 21, 1:43 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
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).

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


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.

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


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...

Why? My statement isn't true in general.


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

I did read it...


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

...but I didn't care.

Look, all the quantities that can be called "forces" in GR are results
of the geometry. There is no avoiding that. If you want to clump
everything that affects the motion of a particle, take everything
other than d^2x^i / d\tau^2 in the geodesic equation and call it
"force". Just be prepared to deal with the eventual complaint that
those are not real forces just like the Coriolis force isn't an actual
force.


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?"

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


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."

I did. The field equations determine the system.


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."

Open it up and look. Why do you ask questions whose answers are within
easy reach? 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.



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?)."

c - because that's how fast perturbations propagate.


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...

Tom Roberts wrote on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:28:02 -0600:

snipped

There is two new posting by Uncle Al on the thread about gravity at
molecular level on sci.physics.research

Looking forward your postings...


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

--- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts. Feb 2008

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