On Apr 16, 8:40*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez

I am not following open threads (except this one until its dead) on
sci.physics.relativity but, as said, i will continue posting research

But you are lying , Juan****o

You just opened another **** thread with another paper that you
dregged from arxiv:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...a390e8068705b#

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:02:25 -0700 (PDT), Dono
wrote:

But you are lying , Juan****o

But you are an ass kisser, Donut head. ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

On Apr 16, 11:13*am, Traveler wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:02:25 -0700 (PDT), Dono
wrote:

But you are lying , Juan****o

But you are an ass kisser, Donut head. ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

Better than the ****-eater you are , "Louis"

Tom Roberts wrote on Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:38:45 -0500:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Tom did a very bold statement, he said that one cannot measure
gravitational forces. I did not asked him for a proof (i know Tom
cannot give one), but i asked him for something more simple: I asked
Tom to write the expression for the gravitational force.

This is an EXPERIMENTAL challenge, not a theoretical one: describe how
to MEASURE the "gravitational force" on an orbiting satellite. Use any
expression for "gravitational force" you wish, and any definitions or
theoretical context you wish. But describe how to MEASURE that force,
and be sure to measure the force itself, not any consequences of it
(geometrical or otherwise).

Once again, you were the one saying one could not measure gravitational
forces.

If you start making so bold claims one would wait that you are at least
capable of writing the expression for the force.

Can you Tom? Or *as usual* you are writing about stuff you never never
never studied?

BTW in the context of GR there is indeed a simple proof that
"gravitational force" cannot be measured:

In GR the "gravitational force" on a test object is:
f^i = m G^i_jk U^j U^k (bewa neither f nor G are tensors)
where G is the connection, m and U are the object's mass and 4-momentum,
and one must use appropriate coordinates (e.g. local Cartesian coords.
at rest on the surface of the earth). Inherently, any measurement is an
invariant (i.e. is independent of any coordinate choice). The above
"gravitational force" is NOT invariant, and thus cannot be identified
with any measurement.

Why do you repeat this argument again?

You were clearly said that the expression for the force is *coordinate
independent* in NON-GEOMETRICAL approach to gravity.

Why do you insist on doing bold claims about stuff you never studied?

Why do you insist on doing the stupid thing of applying arguments
extracted from geometrical GR (where there is not gravitational force)to
NONGEOMETRICAL formulation where there exist a gravitational force?

Moreover you continue submitting more and more and more nonsense in an
endless spiral, and when you received a reply as

"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
--- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts in sci.physics.research Feb 2008

at this newsgroup or in sci.physics.research you look perplexed and
hungry.


Your ignorance of those topics is so impressive that you even are NOT
aware your 'force' (you *only* wrote the RHS of the geodesic equation on
*geometrical* GR)

f^i = m G^i_jk U^j U^k

do not even mach DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS with astronomers standard
definition!!!

How you wait I can learn you something if you lack even the 101?

Follow my advice tom, leave research stuff and focuses on undergraduate
misunderstandings. You are doing a good job in that case.

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

Top-posting stopped :-)

On 16 abr, 11:58, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
What he is saying in
* *http://metaresearch.org/solar%20syst...iles/proof.asp
shows that he is a astronomy fraud.

I've asked you what such article has to do with the topic under
discussion. You've answered: "fraud, mental condition,
incompetence...", implying that Flandern, in this discussion, was
appealing to fraudulent experiments and/or arguments, for example, but
you did not show proof for your accusation. And you still didn't.

Anyway, this is just a kind of "red herring" fallacy, combined with
"he is wrong in this issue, because he is wrong in that other
(completely disconnected) issue". I don't even want to read articles
about artificial structures on Mars because I have no interest in the
subject.

What he is saying in
* *http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V10N1TVF.pdf
between pages 78 and 83 shows that he doesn't even understand
the basics of special relativity.
What he is saying in
* *http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...TVFSeries.html
shows that he has no idea about basic mathematics.


I'll let him defend himself against those.

You still have to show what is wrong with the published experiments
showing that the speed of gravity is much greater than c.

Hi Juan and all.
A few days ago, in this thread, I posted
diagrams explaining how GR responds to
the aberrated location of the graviting
body, that are so simple I could explain
it to a High School student.
Since that is a "plausible" explanation, it
eliminates any need for "instanteous" gravity,
furthermore I did a worked example using the
geodesic. So far neither you Juan, TV Flandern,
or anyone has produced a shred of evidence for
an "instanteous" conjecture, nor has anyone
been effectively able to refute my explanation.

Juan and TV Flandern asked good questions, and
I think they have been well answered in accord
with GR, at least to my satisfaction, and I can
be very strict about that kind of thing.
I'm getting the impression those guys don't like
the answer, lol, that I can do nothing about.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
[snip]

Prime Mover wrote in message

Top-posting stopped :-)

Try harder.

Dirk Vdm

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:15:12 -0700 (PDT), Dono
wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:13*am, Traveler wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:02:25 -0700 (PDT), Dono
wrote:

But you are lying , Juan****o

But you are an ass kisser, Donut head. ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

Better than the ****-eater you are , "Louis"

Look, donut head. ahahaha... No need for you to get bent out of shape.
You should be proud to be part of an illustrious ass kissing
community. They're great company. Ask that ass kissing pederast, Dirk
van de merde. He knows from experience. ahahaha... BTW, what does
Hawking's ass smell like today? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

Prime Mover wrote:
As Tom Van Flander has said, gravitational potential and gravitational
force are
two distinct concepts and as such their speeds does not have to be the
same.

I disagree. If "gravitational force" is to be the spatial gradient of
"gravitational potential", then they cannot have different "propagation
speeds".

None of the phrases I quoted are well-defined in GR, but
Van Flandern is oblivious to this fact. They can all be
well defined in an APPROXIMATION to GR that uses Newtonian-like
coordinates, and he confuses that with GR itself. In that
approximation, and in Newtonian mechanics, both "gravitational
force" and "gravitational potential" are instantaneous action
at a distance, and if one assigns a "propagation speed" to them
it is infinite.


In fact, these are such a clear statements and concepts that I am
impressed that there
is any room for discussion on this issue.

When different people use different meanings of words, the discussion
can extend forever, as they talk right past each other. TVF seems to be
incapable of recognizing the puns he uses, even when pointed out to him,
so he repeats his same invalid claims.


By the way, I read his papers on the subject and I saw no apparent
fraud, quite the contrary. They were fairly conducted, in my opnion.

Including his nonsense about Cydonia? Any "astronomer" who writes such
drivel is not trustworthy in my book. I don't mean the fact that he is
demonstrably wrong, for that can happen to anybody -- I mean the fact
that he claims "proof", and was as strident in claiming that as he is
"speed of gravity".


Tom Roberts

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:38:45 -0500:
This is an EXPERIMENTAL challenge, not a theoretical one: describe how
to MEASURE the "gravitational force" on an orbiting satellite. Use any
expression for "gravitational force" you wish, and any definitions or
theoretical context you wish. But describe how to MEASURE that force,
and be sure to measure the force itself, not any consequences of it
(geometrical or otherwise).

Once again, you were the one saying one could not measure gravitational
forces.

RIGHT! You seem to disagree, so TELL US HOW TO MEASURE IT!

No tricks, not evasion, just TELL US HOW TO MEASURE IT!


If you start making so bold claims one would wait that you are at least
capable of writing the expression for the force.

In GR the "gravitational force" on a test object is:
f^i = m G^i_jk U^j U^k (bewa neither f nor G are tensors)
where G is the connection, m and U are the object's mass and 4-momentum,
and one must use appropriate coordinates (e.g. local Cartesian coords.
at rest on the surface of the earth).

That's a clear refutation of your claim above.


Why do you repeat this argument again?

Because the poster to whom I was replying apparently had not seen it before.


You were clearly said that the expression for the force is *coordinate
independent* in NON-GEOMETRICAL approach to gravity.

You make big claims, but cannot support them -- all you do is spew
insults and claims of your own superiority. But you have not given one
shred of technical evidence about your claims.

And in another thread on another subject you made big
claims about the paper claiming a "need for instantaneous
and retarded interactions" in E&M that proved to be
completely wrong, and unsupported by the paper. So I
am fully justified in being skeptical of your claims here.


Why do you insist on doing bold claims about stuff you never studied?

Look above at what I claimed -- I _HAVE_ studied this. And your wild,
unsupported claims give no incentive to study the "force" or "field"
approach you seem to be advocating ("seem to be" because you have given
not a single technical detail).


Why do you insist on doing the stupid thing of applying arguments
extracted from geometrical GR (where there is not gravitational force)to
NONGEOMETRICAL formulation where there exist a gravitational force?

Because GR is the current best theory of gravitation, and YOU have never
given any cogent reason to use or study any other approach.


Moreover you continue submitting more and more and more nonsense in an
endless spiral, and when you received a reply as
"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
--- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts in sci.physics.research Feb 2008
at this newsgroup or in sci.physics.research you look perplexed and
hungry.

Your memory is faulty. I responded directly to Uncle Al, challenging him
to support his insult and his entire experimental program. He still has
not replied. I have made the same challenge to you, and YOU have not
replied, either.


Follow my advice tom, [...]

Not a chance! Why would I want to emulate a crackpot like you? Put up or
shut up: answer my challenge, or admit you cannot. But stop evading.


Tom Roberts