On the thread about gravity at molecular level, 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!

"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:14:33 +0100:

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!



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

Juan R. González-�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.

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".


Tom Roberts

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

Juan R. González-�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.

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

Ignorance can be eliminated by injecting some knowledge.

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.

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

Guidelines are one of the reasons which i have not replied many of your
last postings checking "Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all
of its parts."

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

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

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| 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.
|
| 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".
|
|
| Tom Roberts

Assertions from Roberts (or Einstein) are of no account.

On Feb 19, 5:26 pm, "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.

Ignorance can be eliminated by injecting some knowledge.

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.

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

Guidelines are one of the reasons which i have not replied many of your
last postings checking "Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all
of its parts."

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

--
I followhttp://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

i no mind callin people names

i call gladly anybody names, as long as
i have somthin ta put on it,

but you put nothen

so you must be a gay, a selfestablished relativity
baboon callin people names without putting somthin
on it

i learn nothen from you

you are insignificant

and uncle al is not an uncle, dont let his name fool you

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. You made a post directly aimed at
both Tom Roberts and Uncle Al. The ignorance is yours to cure.

Ignorance can be eliminated by injecting some
knowledge.

Yes, please.

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.

David A. Smith

On Feb 19, 9:28*am, Tom Roberts wrote:
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.


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

I thought he was joking about molecules racemizing near the speed of
light, but it turned out that he was dead serious.

The only explanation that I've been able to come up with, is some sort
of belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The way that Uncle Al tears into the anti-relativity crackpots can
indeed be amusing.

So yes, Uncle Al is "on the right side." The question is, do we WANT
him on our side? Personally, I'd rather not.

Jerry

dlzc wrote on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:43:08 -0800:

Dear Juan R. González-�lvarez:

On Feb 19, 9:26Â*am, "Juan R." González-Ã�lvarez
wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:28:02 -0600:

Juan R. González-�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.

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.

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...

3) 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.

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

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...

"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:26:42 +0100:

I also did the mistake of doing efforts to ask every time i was asked

I also did the mistake of doing efforts to *reply* every time i was asked