Mike wrote in message

On Apr 23, 9:07 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Mike wrote in message



On Apr 23, 5:53 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:52 am, Mike wrote:

[snip]

I do not agree. The change will have an instantaneous effect at p.

The literature disagrees.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067v1

This paper is full of misunderstanding and I do not expect you to have
read it and understand it cause you never graduated hiugh school.

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...hysics101.html

Perfectly correct. Put on your glasses old fart and go look for the
centripetal force reaction in the inertial frame you imbecile. You
still haven't learned Newton's third law.

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rainHoles.html

Dirk Vdm

On Apr 23, 4:55*am, Mike wrote:

[snip critic troll's brain farts]

Since all you have are insults and denials combined with arrogant
stupidity and a steadfast determination to not read the literature, I
don't really see much point in continuing this.

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 9:07 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Mike wrote in message



On Apr 23, 5:53 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:52 am, Mike wrote:

[snip]

I do not agree. The change will have an instantaneous effect at p.

The literature disagrees.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067v1

This paper is full of misunderstanding and I do not expect you to have
read it and understand it cause you never graduated hiugh school.

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...hysics101.html

| Perfectly correct. Put on your glasses old fart and go look for the
| centripetal force reaction in the inertial frame you imbecile. You
| still haven't learned Newton's third law.

| Mike


The local village idiot is listened to by Cardinale, Hogbin and
Your Basic Moron. What a proud following.

On Apr 23, 9:49*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:55*am, Mike wrote:

[snip critic troll's brain farts]

Since all you have are insults and denials combined with arrogant
stupidity and a steadfast determination to not read the literature, I
don't really see much point in continuing this.

Who's talking about insults!!!!!!!!??????????????????

Here you go again:

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...24a9cdf16c4daf

Mike

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:50:23 -0700:

Hi Juan

On Apr 23, 4:35 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
carlip-nospam wrote on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:10:12 +0000:

sniped the same misunderstandings.

Using a deeper analysis, employing a Unified Field Theory class solution
briefed here,

http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf

we are able to merge the effects of electricity and gravitation via GR
in an inseparable way, as magnetism was unified with electricity via SR.

That further verifies my previous analysis above (using diagram's) that
variations of material structures propagate that change visually and
gravitationally at the speed of light "c".

It is wrong.


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

On Apr 23, 11:20 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:50:23 -0700:



Hi Juan

On Apr 23, 4:35 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
carlip-nospam wrote on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:10:12 +0000:

sniped the same misunderstandings.

Using a deeper analysis, employing a Unified Field Theory class solution
briefed here,

http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf

we are able to merge the effects of electricity and gravitation via GR
in an inseparable way, as magnetism was unified with electricity via SR.

That further verifies my previous analysis above (using diagram's) that
variations of material structures propagate that change visually and
gravitationally at the speed of light "c".

It is wrong.

Prove it. Wrong is different than being
not right. Not right permits plausible.
All you need to do Juan, is prove GR is
implausible.
The burden of proof falls upon you to
show why GR is implausible, that is what
you cannot do yet.
Do you know what plausible means?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:40:42 -0700:

That further verifies my previous analysis above (using diagram's)
that variations of material structures propagate that change visually
and gravitationally at the speed of light "c".

It is wrong.

Prove it.

It has already proven by different authors that the 'speed' of
electromagnetic interactions is not *and cannot be* c. We already know
what is wrong with your 'proof'. But you do not heard us.

Take a look to the Physical Review E paper and to International Journal
of Modern Physics papers *I cited* in my 19 Apr.

That rigorous mathematical and physical analysis has been confirmed using
a Liouville space extension of mechanics, and also extended to gravity.
One obtain basically the same conclusions: the speed of gravity is not c.

I already explained what are the physical and mathematical problems with
Low/Carlip analysis of gravitational interactions and how a more
*general* and *rigorous* model do *not* support their claims about speed
of gravity.

The geometrical extension of EM dualism have the extra credit of proving
the limitations of a *geometric* approach to gravity. The own concept of
spacetime arises as an approximated description from a more general and
fundamental theory.

All you need to do Juan, is prove GR is implausible.

I did not said that GR is implausible. You *misread* me.

The burden of proof falls upon you to show why GR is implausible, that
is what you cannot do yet.

You continue *misreading* me. You would read i really wrote. Start from
my message of day 19.


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

"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:33:54 +0200:

There several typos in my message. E.g.

It has already proven by different authors that the 'speed' of

may be

It has already been proved by different authors that the 'speed' of


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

"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:33:54 +0200:

The geometrical extension of EM dualism have the extra credit of proving
the limitations of a *geometric* approach to gravity. The own concept of
spacetime arises as an approximated description from a more general and
fundamental theory.

Sorry, it is

The *gravitational* extension of EM dualism have the extra credit of
proving the limitations of a *geometric* approach to gravity. The own
concept of spacetime arises as an approximated description from a more
general and fundamental theory.


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

On Apr 24, 3:33 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:40:42 -0700:

That further verifies my previous analysis above (using diagram's)
that variations of material structures propagate that change visually
and gravitationally at the speed of light "c".

It is wrong.

Prove it.

It has already proven by different authors that the 'speed' of
electromagnetic interactions is not *and cannot be* c. We already know
what is wrong with your 'proof'. But you do not heard us.

Take a look to the Physical Review E paper and to International Journal
of Modern Physics papers *I cited* in my 19 Apr.

That rigorous mathematical and physical analysis has been confirmed using
a Liouville space extension of mechanics, and also extended to gravity.
One obtain basically the same conclusions: the speed of gravity is not c.

Needs evidence.

I already explained what are the physical and mathematical problems with
Low/Carlip analysis of gravitational interactions and how a more
*general* and *rigorous* model do *not* support their claims about speed
of gravity.

My own independent calculations support
Low/Carlip's conclusions.
In addition to 99.999999% of experiments.

The geometrical extension of EM dualism have the extra credit of proving
the limitations of a *geometric* approach to gravity. The own concept of
spacetime arises as an approximated description from a more general and
fundamental theory.

That's fine.

All you need to do Juan, is prove GR is implausible.

I did not said that GR is implausible. You *misread* me.

OK, good. then we're all in agreement.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker