Shubee wrote:
Juan,

I don't have a good enough background to understand retardation

You indeed have.

On Apr 2, 10:05 pm, YBM wrote:
Shubee wrote:
Juan,

I don't have a good enough background to understand retardation

You indeed have.

I understand that most people resemble a combination half-retarded and
half-advanced Green's functions but in your case you are entirely
retarded, as proven he

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...422e20f28f7420

Shubee

Shubee wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:46:25 -0700:

On Apr 2, 6:42 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
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.

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.

Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered by
particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.

No strange that Nobel winners particle physicists as Weinberg and Feynman
wrote their own books on nongeometrical approach to gravity

http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectur...tiers-Physics/
dp/0201627345

http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Co...-Applications-
Relativity/dp/0471925675

Feynman book is still more nongeometrical. One of its reviewers says

{BLOCKQUOTE
This is a more fundamental approach than the usual differential geometric
framework and shows what the equivalence principle really means in terms
of fundamental symmetries.
}

Thus the problem is not with students, physicists usually liking non-
geometrical books but with general public, who has been misinformed by
many 'Hawkings' and 'Greenes':

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

Another problem is media. This is part of a mail i received close a month
ago:

{BLOCKQUOTE
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman wrote some very unflattering remarks about
relativists and their tactics. Yet the science media is too intimidated
by relativists to quote such remarks, even when they come from someone
with Feynman's prestige. Chris Hillman used to be [...] worse than Steve
Carlip or Tom Roberts. Whenever he was losing a logical argument, his
habit was to drop some undecipherable tensors on the hapless
correspondent as a pure intimidation tactic. You can imagine how media
people react to such things -- basically, with fear.
}

As Planck said, it seems that only time will correct that.

Do you
have any desire to do this?

Website

http://canonicalscience.org

and blog

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com

will contain viewpoints and micro-thoughts about why the geometric
formulation of gravity is not fundamental anymore and may be reemplazed
by a more general (and complex) formulation. Both sites will contain
adequate citation of academic literature on the topic of recent advances
in nongeometrical gravity.

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

Sorry, I only know research literature.

But take a look to sections 2.1 and 2.3 on

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003


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

On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:

Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered by
particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.

Juan,

I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all
because they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of
relativists. I don't recall his exact words.

No strange that Nobel winners particle physicists as Weinberg and Feynman
wrote their own books on nongeometrical approach to gravity

http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectur...tiers-Physics/
dp/0201627345

http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Co...-Applications-
Relativity/dp/0471925675

Feynman book is still more nongeometrical. One of its reviewers says

{BLOCKQUOTE
This is a more fundamental approach than the usual differential geometric
framework and shows what the equivalence principle really means in terms
of fundamental symmetries. }

I would love to learn the more fundamental approach.

Thus the problem is not with students, physicists usually liking non-
geometrical books but with general public, who has been misinformed by
many 'Hawkings' and 'Greenes':

I didn't say that students were a problem. I said that the problem is
with physicists who don't write on the fundamental approach at the
undergraduate level. The geometry bandwagon disseminates tons of
materials for Einstein's formulation at every level but I can't even
find one physicist that can explain Poincaré's Lorentz-invariant
theory of gravity:

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

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com...ic-lagrangian-...
limitations_20.html

Another problem is media. This is part of a mail i received close a month
ago:

{BLOCKQUOTE
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman wrote some very unflattering remarks about
relativists and their tactics. Yet the science media is too intimidated
by relativists to quote such remarks, even when they come from someone
with Feynman's prestige. Chris Hillman used to be [...] worse than Steve
Carlip or Tom Roberts. Whenever he was losing a logical argument, his
habit was to drop some undecipherable tensors on the hapless
correspondent as a pure intimidation tactic. You can imagine how media
people react to such things -- basically, with fear.

}

Can you quote any of Feynman's unflattering remarks about relativists?

As Planck said, it seems that only time will correct that.

Do you
have any desire to do this?

Website

http://canonicalscience.org

and blog

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com

will contain viewpoints and micro-thoughts about why the geometric
formulation of gravity is not fundamental anymore and may be reemplazed
by a more general (and complex) formulation. Both sites will contain
adequate citation of academic literature on the topic of recent advances
in nongeometrical gravity.

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

Sorry, I only know research literature.

How is Poincare's paper on a Lorentz invariant theory of gravity,
translated into English, not research literature? Or did you mean to
write that you only know "recent literature"?

But take a look to sections 2.1 and 2.3 on

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003

That's infinitely more complicated than http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
How is it that you, a physicist interested in Lorentz invariant
theories of gravity, have nothing to say about Poincare's approach?

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

Shubee

On Apr 3, 6:14*pm, Shubee wrote:
On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez

wrote:
Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered by
particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.

Juan,

I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all
because they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of
relativists. I don't recall his exact words.

Still namedropping Rindler? One trick pony, Shooby. One trick pony.


No strange that Nobel winners particle physicists as Weinberg and Feynman
wrote their own books on nongeometrical approach to gravity

http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectur...tiers-Physics/
dp/0201627345

http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Co...-Applications-
Relativity/dp/0471925675

Feynman book is still more nongeometrical. One of its reviewers says

{BLOCKQUOTE
This is a more fundamental approach than the usual differential geometric
framework and shows what the equivalence principle really means in terms
of fundamental symmetries. }

I would love to learn the more fundamental approach.

Thus the problem is not with students, physicists usually liking non-
geometrical books but with general public, who has been misinformed by
many 'Hawkings' and 'Greenes':

I didn't say that students were a problem. I said that the problem is
with physicists who don't write on the fundamental approach at the
undergraduate level.

How are you familiar with what is and is not taught to physics
undergraduates?

The geometry bandwagon disseminates tons of
materials for Einstein's formulation at every level but I can't even
find one physicist that can explain Poincaré's Lorentz-invariant
theory of gravity:

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

Notice it was published a full decade before GR. Have you considered
that maybe you can't find even one physicist who cares because it
isn't worth caring about?

Since you fancy yourself as a physicist think that Poincare's theory
is worthy, why don't you take some of the more famous tests of GR and
show that Poincare's theory passes them with flying colors?

Shubee wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:14:32 -0700:

On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:

Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered
by particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.

Juan,

I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all because
they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of relativists. I don't
recall his exact words.

During recent reading of Woit blog i discovered that relativist Sean
Caroll has started another attack on Steven Weinberg:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=668

Basically Carroll says that Weinberg does not know how science works!

{BLOCKQUOTE
Sean Carroll, quoting from a book by David Deutsch on parallel universes,
attacks Weinberg as not understanding how science works in a blog posting
about Science and Unobservable Things
}

Certain experimentalist at this newsgroup likes to explain here how
SCIENCE works, in his belief that he has a monopoly for that.

Another problem is media. This is part of a mail i received close a
month ago:

{BLOCKQUOTE
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman wrote some very unflattering remarks
about relativists and their tactics. Yet the science media is too
intimidated by relativists to quote such remarks, even when they come
from someone with Feynman's prestige. Chris Hillman used to be [...]
worse than Steve Carlip or Tom Roberts. Whenever he was losing a
logical argument, his habit was to drop some undecipherable tensors on
the hapless correspondent as a pure intimidation tactic. You can
imagine how media people react to such things -- basically, with fear.

}

Can you quote any of Feynman's unflattering remarks about relativists?

No. But I know Feynman remarks about geometrical interpretation of GR:

{BLOCKQUOTE
The geometrical interpretation is not really necessary or essential to
physics.
}

"Necessary" means you can explain the experimental data without
curvature, geodesics, or any other geometrical element.

"Essential" means the geometrical formulation arises as approximation
from a more fundamental nongeometrical approach.

Sorry, I only know research literature.

Or did you mean to
write that you only know "recent literature"?

Right.

But take a look to sections 2.1 and 2.3 on

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003

That's infinitely more complicated than
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf

Then you may dislike my own approach, which corrects Feynman approach
adding new terms to the equation of motion.

How is it that
you, a physicist interested in Lorentz invariant theories of gravity,
have nothing to say about Poincare's approach?

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

I would not say so.

Poincaré originally tried to apply to gravity the special relativity he
was developing, so far like i know he computed Mercury perihelion anomaly
and got about a 13'' (I write from memory) of the total anomaly. It was
an advance, of course, but could not explain all of the anomaly.

Probably Einstein knew this result and tried a different approach years
after.

From modern knowledge we know that Mercury perihelion anomaly has a
'special' relativity part and a 'general' part [##]. One cannot explain
relativistic graviation just /a la/ electrodynamics, writting 'special'
relativity corrections to Newtonian gravity.

Also several points on the section 9 of the pdf are not correct:

i)
retardation of interactions is not correct.

ii)
his point 4º "Since astronomical observations do not seem to show a
sensible deviation from Newton’s law" is not valid today. At galactic
scale force there exists deviation from Newton: MOND.

iii)
Lorentz transformation holds approximated character only. See also Eugene
paper.



[#] I gave credit to both Poincaré and Einstein for that.

[##] Before any relativist feels the need to correct this i may say that
the language used is wrong.


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

On Apr 3, 9:14*pm, Shubee wrote:
On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez

wrote:
Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered by
particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.

Juan,

I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all
because they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of
relativists. I don't recall his exact words.

I'd say your recall is a little more off than "not exact". Particle
physicists are just fine with the geometric qualities of spacetime,
thanks very much.


No strange that Nobel winners particle physicists as Weinberg and Feynman
wrote their own books on nongeometrical approach to gravity

http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectur...tiers-Physics/
dp/0201627345

http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Co...-Applications-
Relativity/dp/0471925675

Feynman book is still more nongeometrical. One of its reviewers says

{BLOCKQUOTE
This is a more fundamental approach than the usual differential geometric
framework and shows what the equivalence principle really means in terms
of fundamental symmetries. }

I would love to learn the more fundamental approach.

Thus the problem is not with students, physicists usually liking non-
geometrical books but with general public, who has been misinformed by
many 'Hawkings' and 'Greenes':

I didn't say that students were a problem. I said that the problem is
with physicists who don't write on the fundamental approach at the
undergraduate level. The geometry bandwagon disseminates tons of
materials for Einstein's formulation at every level but I can't even
find one physicist that can explain Poincaré's Lorentz-invariant
theory of gravity:

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



http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com...ic-lagrangian-...
limitations_20.html

Another problem is media. This is part of a mail i received close a month
ago:

{BLOCKQUOTE
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman wrote some very unflattering remarks about
relativists and their tactics. Yet the science media is too intimidated
by relativists to quote such remarks, even when they come from someone
with Feynman's prestige. Chris Hillman used to be [...] worse than Steve
Carlip or Tom Roberts. Whenever he was losing a logical argument, his
habit was to drop some undecipherable tensors on the hapless
correspondent as a pure intimidation tactic. You can imagine how media
people react to such things -- basically, with fear.

}

Can you quote any of Feynman's unflattering remarks about relativists?



As Planck said, it seems that only time will correct that.

Do you
have any desire to do this?

Website

http://canonicalscience.org

and blog

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com

will contain viewpoints and micro-thoughts about why the geometric
formulation of gravity is not fundamental anymore and may be reemplazed
by a more general (and complex) formulation. Both sites will contain
adequate citation of academic literature on the topic of recent advances
in nongeometrical gravity.

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

Sorry, I only know research literature.

How is Poincare's paper on a Lorentz invariant theory of gravity,
translated into English, not research literature? Or did you mean to
write that you only know "recent literature"?

But take a look to sections 2.1 and 2.3 on

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003

That's infinitely more complicated thanhttp://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
How is it that you, a physicist interested in Lorentz invariant
theories of gravity, have nothing to say about Poincare's approach?

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

Shubee

On Apr 4, 6:46 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:

But take a look to sections 2.1 and 2.3 on

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003

That's infinitely more complicated than
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf

Then you may dislike my own approach, which corrects Feynman approach
adding new terms to the equation of motion.

I wouldn't say dislike. I would say distrust. How could I trust a
physicist that only knows very complicated things about Lorentz
invariant theories of gravity, but seems to have no understanding of
simple things in that area?

Poincaré's appears to have derived many invariants and used them to
express a Lorentz invariant theory of gravity. I don't care if his
theory made inaccurate predictions. I also don't care if Poincaré's
paper contained mathematical errors. I want to know what those
invariants of Poincaré are in modern notation and how to generate them
correctly by simplest mathematics possible.

Shubee

How is it that
you, a physicist interested in Lorentz invariant theories of gravity,
have nothing to say about Poincare's approach?

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

I would not say so.

Poincaré originally tried to apply to gravity the special relativity he
was developing, so far like i know he computed Mercury perihelion anomaly
and got about a 13'' (I write from memory) of the total anomaly. It was
an advance, of course, but could not explain all of the anomaly.

Probably Einstein knew this result and tried a different approach years
after.

From modern knowledge we know that Mercury perihelion anomaly has a
'special' relativity part and a 'general' part [##]. One cannot explain
relativistic graviation just /a la/ electrodynamics, writting 'special'
relativity corrections to Newtonian gravity.

Also several points on the section 9 of the pdf are not correct:

i)
retardation of interactions is not correct.

ii)
his point 4º "Since astronomical observations do not seem to show a
sensible deviation from Newton's law" is not valid today. At galactic
scale force there exists deviation from Newton: MOND.

iii)
Lorentz transformation holds approximated character only. See also Eugene
paper.

[#] I gave credit to both Poincaré and Einstein for that.

[##] Before any relativist feels the need to correct this i may say that
the language used is wrong.

PD wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:00:05 -0700:

On Apr 3, 9:14Â*pm, Shubee wrote:
On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez

wrote:
Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered
by particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.

Juan,

I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all because
they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of relativists. I
don't recall his exact words.

I'd say your recall is a little more off than "not exact". Particle
physicists are just fine with the geometric qualities of spacetime,
thanks very much.


It may be good to precise that "geometric" means in the context of the
present thread.

The Weinberg quotation that relativist Carroll choosed to attack Weinberg
is precisely an extract from the same page 147 from Weinberg book i had
cited in a previous message. It is in the chapter where Weinberg rejects
any fundamental meaning for the geometric approach to gravity.

Carroll only quotes a small part from Weinberg book, ignoring the more
interesting part. A more complete quotation was provided by Kris Krogh

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/w...#comment-36092

I copy and paste:

{BLOCKQUOTE
Einstein and his successors have regarded the effects of a gravitational
field as producing a change in the geometry of space and time. At one
time it was even hoped that the rest of physics could be brought into a
geometric formulation, but this hope has met with disappointment, and the
geometric interpretation of the theory of gravitation has dwindled to a
mere analogy, which lingers in our language in terms like “metric,�
“affine connection,� and “curvature,� but is not otherwise very useful.
The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the
astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so
on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to
the physical effect of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and
photons or to a curvature of space and time. (The reader should be warned
that these views are heterodox and would meet with objections from many
general relativists.)
}


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

Shubee wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:16:02 -0700:

Poincaré's appears to have derived many invariants and used them to
express a Lorentz invariant theory of gravity.

Ok, but a theory of the gravity we *observe* in Nature?

No [#].

I don't care if his
theory made inaccurate predictions. I also don't care if Poincaré's
paper contained mathematical errors.

Being a scientist i do not have that freedom.


[#] Own Poincare recognized that.

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