On Mar 30, 7:28 am, Shubee wrote:


You didn't grasp my meaning. It's explained with greater clarity in
the paper,http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee


Still peddling the same unpublished and unpublishable tired garbage ,
****bert?

On Apr 1, 6:00 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
garbage snipped

Of course, general relativists cannot even heard about that without panic.


We can, it is your grammar that amuses us. Do you first write in
Spanish and translate with mistakes into English?

Dono wrote:
On Mar 30, 7:28 am, Shubee wrote:


You didn't grasp my meaning. It's explained with greater clarity in
the paper,http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee


Still peddling the same unpublished and unpublishable tired garbage ,
****bert?

What are you Dono, the newsgroup's resident name-caller? The funny
thing is that all these people you subject to your 4th grade taunting
know a lot more about relativity than you do. Can a fast pole fit in
a short barn, Dono?

GNG

On Apr 1, 8:03 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:

The geometric view of gravity as spacetime curvature is not just one of
many myths promoted by relativists but one without experimental basis.

Not only do relativists promote the geometric view of gravity with
religious enthusiasm, they are absolutely antagonistic to all other
logical interpretations.

Shubee

On Apr 1, 6:23*pm, Shubee wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:03 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez

wrote:
The geometric view of gravity as spacetime curvature is not just one of
many myths promoted by relativists but one without experimental basis.

Not only do relativists promote the geometric view of gravity with
religious enthusiasm, they are absolutely antagonistic to all other
logical interpretations.

Shubee

Oh look, Shooby! More of the typical crank attempts at framing the
debate in an us vs them way by calling physicists "relativists"
instead of acknowledging that relativity is a fundamental part of
modern physics.

By the way, how come you still haven't figured out energy in your
"logical interpretation" ?

On Apr 1, 8:03 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:

The geometric view of gravity as spacetime curvature is not just one of
many myths promoted by relativists but one without experimental basis.

Belief in the spacetime curvature myth is very strong. I was chatting
with a lady friend recently who asked me about relativity after she
read a book by Steven Hawking. She was shocked to hear me say that
there is no experimental evidence of spacetime curvature.

Shubee

Shubee wrote on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:23:45 -0700:

On Apr 1, 8:03 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:

The geometric view of gravity as spacetime curvature is not just one of
many myths promoted by relativists but one without experimental basis.

Not only do relativists promote the geometric view of gravity with
religious enthusiasm, they are absolutely antagonistic to all other
logical interpretations.

Shubee

An example i know is the speed of gravity myth.

First, it can be proven that the retardation arises on GR e.g.

h_MUNU = 4G Int d^3x {S_MUNU(x t_ret) / r}

is not fundamental but retardation (t_ret) arises from the geometric
(local) approximation to gravitation.

That is, GR and its retarded interactions are just an approximated view.

Second, so-called tests of GR can be matched also with theories of
instantaneous action at a distance without spacetime curvatu see, for
instance a first attempt on

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019

That work can be extended to include also *radiation*. Another common
myth by relativists is that radiation cannot be explained by action at a
distance theories and needs of retardation and fields.

Once i tried to explain some of those issues to certain academic
relativist now on this newsgroup. He completely misunderstood i said,
decided not to read references provided and started certain /ad hominem/
attack against me (where in a very unfair way he even attributed to me
stuff i *never* said).

You cannot dialoge with that kind of people. Nobel Prize for physics Max
Planck coinned the phrase:

{BLOCKQUOTE
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
}


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

Shubee wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:38:30 -0700:

On Apr 1, 8:03 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:

The geometric view of gravity as spacetime curvature is not just one of
many myths promoted by relativists but one without experimental basis.

Belief in the spacetime curvature myth is very strong. I was chatting
with a lady friend recently who asked me about relativity after she read
a book by Steven Hawking. She was shocked to hear me say that there is
no experimental evidence of spacetime curvature.

Shubee

I know. It was one of reason which decided to write about that on

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com...agrangian-and-
limitations_20.html

Not a single experiment has proved the "Gravity as warped spacetime" fig
over the "Gravity as force" figure.

Indeed, some of my colleagues believe that binary pulsar tests are
actually prefering the force formulation.

My approach to show the imposibility for a geometric formulation is
different, the "Gravity as warped spacetime" approach does not work for
many-body orbits (nonlinear regime).

The geometric formulation only can explain the local time explicit
component of the orbit.

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

On Apr 2, 3:38*am, Shubee wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:03 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez

wrote:
The geometric view of gravity as spacetime curvature is not just one of
many myths promoted by relativists but one without experimental basis.

Belief in the spacetime curvature myth is very strong. I was chatting
with a lady friend recently who asked me about relativity after she
read a book by Steven Hawking. She was shocked to hear me say that
there is no experimental evidence of spacetime curvature.

That's what happens when a mathematician thinks he is a physicist.
Curvature is not a direct observable, but its' consequences are. The
consequences are specific and observable.

Explain Shapiro delay without appealing to curvature. Give it a try.

Black holes too - that'll be fun. Unless you ignore the question like
you do every ignore everything that threatens to disrupt your
simplified and ignorant world view.




Shubee

On Apr 2, 6:42 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Shubee wrote on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:23:45 -0700:

On Apr 1, 8:03 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:

The geometric view of gravity as spacetime curvature is not just one of
many myths promoted by relativists but one without experimental basis.

Not only do relativists promote the geometric view of gravity with
religious enthusiasm, they are absolutely antagonistic to all other
logical interpretations.

Shubee

An example i know is the speed of gravity myth.

First, it can be proven that the retardation arises on GR e.g.

h_MUNU = 4G Int d^3x {S_MUNU(x t_ret) / r}

is not fundamental but retardation (t_ret) arises from the geometric
(local) approximation to gravitation.

That is, GR and its retarded interactions are just an approximated view.

Second, so-called tests of GR can be matched also with theories of
instantaneous action at a distance without spacetime curvatu see, for
instance a first attempt on

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019

That work can be extended to include also *radiation*. Another common
myth by relativists is that radiation cannot be explained by action at a
distance theories and needs of retardation and fields.

Once i tried to explain some of those issues to certain academic
relativist now on this newsgroup. He completely misunderstood i said,
decided not to read references provided and started certain /ad hominem/
attack against me (where in a very unfair way he even attributed to me
stuff i *never* said).

You cannot dialoge with that kind of people. Nobel Prize for physics Max
Planck coinned the phrase:

{BLOCKQUOTE
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Juan,

I don't have a good enough background to understand retardation
potentials from the field equations or the paper by Eugene Stefanovich
but I sure do love that statement by Max Planck. Assuming Planck is
right, then the only way to break the wheels off the curvature
bandwagon is to write on the fundamentals of relativistic non-
instantaneous action-at-a-distance interactions at the undergraduate
level. Do you have any desire to do this? Do you know of any
presentation that explains or simplifies Poincare's Lorentz invariant
theory of gravity?

http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf

Shubee