Hi Juan, thanks for the links.

On Mar 23, 6:18 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
"Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:33:32 +0100:

One of conditions of GR *connections* is precisely g_ab = g_ba, which
does not hold for particles rotating around.

The connection is not g obviously, correct it like

"One of conditions of GR *connections* is precisely gamma_ab = gamma_ba,
which does not hold for particles rotating around."

The thing that buggered up Einstein (and Moffat)
was the use of the nonsymmetrical *connection*,
they are a serious problem.
What I use is nonsymmetrical metrics with symmetric
connections, which is quite beautiful.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:57:56 -0700:

Hi Juan, thanks for the links.

On Mar 23, 6:18 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:33:32 +0100:

One of conditions of GR *connections* is precisely g_ab = g_ba, which
does not hold for particles rotating around.

The connection is not g obviously, correct it like

"One of conditions of GR *connections* is precisely gamma_ab =
gamma_ba, which does not hold for particles rotating around."

The thing that buggered up Einstein (and Moffat) was the use of the
nonsymmetrical *connection*, they are a serious problem.
What I use is nonsymmetrical metrics with symmetric connections, which
is quite beautiful. Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,

It seems that Steven Weinberg also rejects to consider nonsymmetrical
gammas as something fundamental:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/st...hysicists.html


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

Hi Juan.

On Mar 24, 4:14 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:57:56 -0700:

One of conditions of GR *connections* is precisely g_ab = g_ba, which
does not hold for particles rotating around.

The connection is not g obviously, correct it like

"One of conditions of GR *connections* is precisely gamma_ab =
gamma_ba, which does not hold for particles rotating around."

The thing that buggered up Einstein (and Moffat) was the use of the
nonsymmetrical *connection*, they are a serious problem.
What I use is nonsymmetrical metrics with symmetric connections, which
is quite beautiful. Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,
It seems that Steven Weinberg also rejects to consider nonsymmetrical
gammas as something fundamental:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/st...ird-physicists...

I think the reasoning was that a NonSymmetrical
metric required a NS Christoffel, and that NSC,
has been a bitch for Einsteins team and also
Dr. Moffats. Dr. Moffat came to our place for
dinner, and did express a frustation with NSC's,
that I shared. So what I/we did is made the NSC
vanish.
To cover my ass I did a brief post on how to do
that in another thread (NS Christoffels's), and
still use the NS metric.

Weinberg and Yablon are focused on 5D, that's
fine, that's choice. I feel confident to be
able to transform a 4D + 1 compact D to a
a NS 4D. Neither is right or wrong, IMO.

I favor the development of 5D because Yablon
and Weinberg see that as the easiest math to
use inside sub-atomic particles, so the "NS's"
above are an adjunct to 5D.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:40:47 -0700:

Hi Juan.

On Mar 24, 4:14 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:57:56 -0700:

One of conditions of GR *connections* is precisely g_ab = g_ba,
which does not hold for particles rotating around.

The connection is not g obviously, correct it like

"One of conditions of GR *connections* is precisely gamma_ab =
gamma_ba, which does not hold for particles rotating around."

The thing that buggered up Einstein (and Moffat) was the use of the
nonsymmetrical *connection*, they are a serious problem. What I use
is nonsymmetrical metrics with symmetric connections, which is quite
beautiful. Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,
It seems that Steven Weinberg also rejects to consider nonsymmetrical
gammas as something fundamental:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/st...ird-physicists...

I think the reasoning was that a NonSymmetrical metric required a NS
Christoffel, and that NSC, has been a bitch for Einsteins team and also
Dr. Moffats. Dr. Moffat came to our place for dinner, and did express a
frustation with NSC's, that I shared. So what I/we did is made the NSC
vanish.

Weinberg (and Feynman and me also) line of reasoning is more against
rejecting geometry as a basis for gravity.

This is why Weinberg and Feynman (and me also) are considered heretics by
relativists (see above blog).

To cover my ass I did a brief post on how to do that in another thread
(NS Christoffels's), and still use the NS metric.

Have care Ken, "i-study-physics" already misunderstood you wrote :-)

He also seems unaware of Einstein early work on NS metrics.

Weinberg and Yablon are focused on 5D, that's fine, that's choice.

Weinberg points apply to both 4D (QFT, GR) and 10-11D (superstring M
theory).


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

On Mar 24, 11:22 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:40:47 -0700:



Hi Juan.

On Mar 24, 4:14 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:57:56 -0700:

One of conditions of GR *connections* is precisely g_ab = g_ba,
which does not hold for particles rotating around.

The connection is not g obviously, correct it like

"One of conditions of GR *connections* is precisely gamma_ab =
gamma_ba, which does not hold for particles rotating around."

The thing that buggered up Einstein (and Moffat) was the use of the
nonsymmetrical *connection*, they are a serious problem. What I use
is nonsymmetrical metrics with symmetric connections, which is quite
beautiful. Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,
It seems that Steven Weinberg also rejects to consider nonsymmetrical
gammas as something fundamental:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/st...ird-physicists...

I think the reasoning was that a NonSymmetrical metric required a NS
Christoffel, and that NSC, has been a bitch for Einsteins team and also
Dr. Moffats. Dr. Moffat came to our place for dinner, and did express a
frustation with NSC's, that I shared. So what I/we did is made the NSC
vanish.

Weinberg (and Feynman and me also) line of reasoning is more against
rejecting geometry as a basis for gravity.

This is why Weinberg and Feynman (and me also) are considered heretics by
relativists (see above blog).

To cover my ass I did a brief post on how to do that in another thread
(NS Christoffels's), and still use the NS metric.

Have care Ken, "i-study-physics" already misunderstood you wrote :-)

He also seems unaware of Einstein early work on NS metrics.

Weinberg and Yablon are focused on 5D, that's fine, that's choice.

Weinberg points apply to both 4D (QFT, GR) and 10-11D (superstring M
theory).

I have a stack of disc magnets on my desk
to remind me of the problem. I also have a
grand-daughter. One day our grand-children
will ask why those magnets repel / attract.

Do you want me to use a pile of 11D horsy-
poop as intergeneration propagation of info-
mation?
That sounds like the perfect formula to send
the kids into psychology, and I wouldn't
blame them!
I know it's not simple, but let's keep things
knowable to the interested student.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:53:19 -0700:

Do you want me to use a pile of 11D horsy- poop as intergeneration
propagation of info- mation?

I have zero evidences for existence of extra dimensions. I was only
making a remark about Weinberg thoughts (who believe on 10 and 11D
worlds).


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

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:28:03 +0100 (CET), "Juan R."
González-Álvarez wrote:

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:53:19 -0700:

[Ken S. Tucker]
Do you want me to use a pile of 11D horsy- poop as intergeneration
propagation of info- mation?

[J. R.González-Álvarez]
I have zero evidences for existence of extra dimensions.


[G.Hammond]
J.R.Yablon claims to have discovered evidence that the
Kaluza-Klein 5th dimesnion (4th spatial dimension) is the
cause of intrinsic spin, specfically of the charged leptons;
notably the electron.
Do you have any short, straight, comment about that pithy
prognostication!

On Mar 25, 3:28 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:53:19 -0700:

Do you want me to use a pile of 11D horsy- poop as intergeneration
propagation of info- mation?

I have zero evidences for existence of extra dimensions. I was only
making a remark about Weinberg thoughts (who believe on 10 and 11D
worlds).

As a brat, I figured 5D to be obvious, for
example at a x,y,z,t location is a mass such
as a Nitrogen atom or Oxygen atom and in metal
a Fe atom, that would be a finite 5th dimension.
That conception maybe primitive, but I could
honestly sell it to a group of grade school
students.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

George Hammond wrote on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:43:58 +0000:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:28:03 +0100 (CET), "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:53:19 -0700:

[Ken S. Tucker]
Do you want me to use a pile of 11D horsy- poop as intergeneration
propagation of info- mation?

[J. R.González-�lvarez]
I have zero evidences for existence of extra dimensions.


[G.Hammond]
J.R.Yablon claims to have discovered evidence that the
Kaluza-Klein 5th dimesnion (4th spatial dimension) is the cause of
intrinsic spin, specfically of the charged leptons; notably the
electron.
Do you have any short, straight, comment about that pithy
prognostication!

When Jay started a thread on a supposed geometric unification of gravity
and electromagnetism I remarked that he was doing mistakes on both the
field and the geometric part.

For the field part i recommend him to read

{Chubykalo & Smirnov-Rueda 1996}
Action at a distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations: The
basis and application of the separated-potentials method. 1996. Phys.
Rev. E 53, 5373. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda , Roman.

Erratum: Action at a distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell
equations: The basis and application of the separated-potentials method
[Phys. Rev. E 53, 5373 (1996)] . 1997. Phys. Rev. E 55, 3793. Chubykalo,
Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda , Roman.

This article alone, when correctly interpreted and generalized, already
invalidates a geometric (local time explicit potentials) approach. Jay is
repeating a series of well-known mistakes are very common in relativistic
literature. Einstein also did those mistakes.

In a recent work i am doing

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...se_frm/thread/
f3e259004aef0bc8/262bc84eaa5d1142?lnk=st&q=#262bc84eaa5d1142

I generalize Chubikalo and Smirnov-Rueda work to gravitation and shows
that the geometric formulation of General Relativity has only a limited
validity. The geodesic description of motion only works for the one-body
limit on the time explicit local approximation to interactions.

The result I have got is general and valid for any number of dimensions
(3D, 4D, 5D, 11D, 26D).

Like i said to Jay

{BLOCKQUOTE
Everyone is free to pursue the research avenues they consider more
interesting.
}

But when reading Jay articles i already know he is not deriving he think
he is.

See my extra remarks on

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...se_frm/thread/
f3e259004aef0bc8/262bc84eaa5d1142?lnk=st&q=#262bc84eaa5d1142


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

On Mar 25, 12:24 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:

Juan****o,

You just got banned again, as Xeinstein:

http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=103828

This sockpuppet lasted a lot shorter than your previous one:

http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=28609

Good riddance