"greywolf42" wrote in message
Thomas Clarke wrote in message
news:c8d38296e70f5febde333347f44a801f.128340@mygat e.mailgate.org...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
| Stephen Speicher wrote in message
| For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
| of that site,

| And -- more important -- WHO IS the author of this slime,
| and how do we get
| it corrected or removed?

Kevin Brown is the author.

But no need to get it corrected or removed since it seems
correct so far as I can tell.

The author expressly states that he worked from a typo-ridden summation of a
paper the typoist claimed was "not at all clear" to him. The author also
explicitly notes that "it's difficult to guess precisely what Gerber had in
mind." Nonetheless, the author is quite willing to forge ahead and slam a
paper that he doesn't have and hasn't read -- based on an admittedly flawed
critique written by someone who admitted they couldn't follow what Gerber
was doing!

You really consider this a valid scientific critique?

I was generally referring to the site as a whole actually
which seems to be quite nicely put together.

The specific article that raises your ire is very upfront about
the limitations of its sources. So there is no need to demand
it be removed as the limitations are there for the reader to
judge.

The information in the article rings true to me,
but not to you.

So reject the article if you think the sources not up to
your standard.

Of the top three hits on a google search for
"gerber mercury orbit"
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/33/2002/12/4/14712
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news98_l.htm

The third seems to me questionable, but I don't
demand its removal.

Tom Clarke





--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
|
| FrediFizzx wrote in message
| ...
| "greywolf42" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | Stephen Speicher wrote in message
| | ...
| | Except for the "Who said this ..." series I no longer read or
| | post to this group. However, it has been brought to my attention
| | that since my departure more than two months ago, Barry Mingst
| | (aka greywolf42) has been claiming that I am the author of the
| | web site
| |
| | http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
| |
| | Upon searching google.com I indeed found a dozen or so postings
| | in which Mingst made claims such as
| |
| | "This site is the work of Stephen Speicher."
| |
| | "Even the author (Speicher) ..."
| |
| | "The problem is that the link is Steven[sic] Speicher's
| | derivation ..."
| |
| | For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
| | of that site, nor does that site contain my "derivation." In
| | fact, apart from admiring the content of a great deal of the
| | mathpages.com web site, I am not connected with that site in any
| | way. Barry Mingst fabricated this story out of whole cloth, just
| | as he fabricates many stories about historical figures in
| | physics. Mingst is a true pathological case whose word cannot be
| | trusted.
| |
| | After refusing for months to identify whether he was the author of
that
| | slime site (since February -- LONG before Stephen's "avoidance" of
| | sci.physics.relativity) -- and despite my repeated explicit
requests --
| | Stephen claims that I "fabricated this story out of whole cloth."
| |
| | Now, Stephen claims that he found a "dozen or so" postings with this
| claim.
| | But the large majority of the "dozen or so posts" were made before
| Stephen
| | "left" the group. So he has no reason to complain. Indeed, most were
| made
| | directly to Stephen, PLEADING for him to admit or deny authorship. In
| | threads that Stephen thereafter abandoned.
| |
| |
| | So now my question to Stephen (and the other DHR's who proffer the
site
| as
| | valid -- without ever defending it) is -- why do you support this
slime
| | site, when you know it's false allegation, deliberate distortion and
| | outright lies?
| |
| | And -- more important -- WHO IS the author of this slime, and how do
we
| get
| | it corrected or removed?
|
| A simple Whois search will most likely give you a lead.
|
| But only who POSTED the site. Not to who wrote it.

If Kevin Brown did not write it, then send him an email and ask him who did.

FrediFizzx

FrediFizzx wrote:

If Kevin Brown did not write it, then send him an email and ask him who did.

Voice of Reason, meet Mr. Mingst, Mr. Mingst, meet the voice of Reason.

--
Matthew Nobes
c/o Physics Dept. Simon Fraser University, 8888 University
Drive Burnaby, B.C., Canada
http://www.sfu.ca/~manobes

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

Minor Crank wrote in message
news:UdmVa.3764$o%2.3254@sccrnsc02...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

snip venom

I was very curious a while back about the authorship of the mathpages, and
accidentally came across evidence pointing to the identity of another
member
of the author's family.

Who cares about the author's family?

The evidence that I have shows definitively that the mathpages weren't
authored by Stephen.

I accept Stephen's word that he didn't author the slime. Now that he's seen
fit to state it clearly.

No, I'm afraid I can't let you know the nature of this
evidence. The author is a very private person, and I wish to respect his
privacy.

A "secret" author! How Relativist!

Mingst, ever tried using a search engine?
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=who+wrote+mathpages
So now you finally know what we all have known since years.
A secret author?
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...n% 20brown%20
Do try using a search engine sometime.
I'm sure even *you* can do it.

Dirk Vdm

Thomas Clarke wrote in message
news:7d616d68167236302e0993a438b12362.128340@mygat e.mailgate.org...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
Thomas Clarke wrote in message
news:c8d38296e70f5febde333347f44a801f.128340@mygat e.mailgate.org...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
| Stephen Speicher wrote in message
| For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
| of that site,

| And -- more important -- WHO IS the author of this slime,
| and how do we get
| it corrected or removed?

Kevin Brown is the author.

But no need to get it corrected or removed since it seems
correct so far as I can tell.

The author expressly states that he worked from a typo-ridden summation
of a
paper the typoist claimed was "not at all clear" to him. The author
also
explicitly notes that "it's difficult to guess precisely what Gerber had
in
mind." Nonetheless, the author is quite willing to forge ahead and slam
a
paper that he doesn't have and hasn't read -- based on an admittedly
flawed
critique written by someone who admitted they couldn't follow what
Gerber
was doing!

You really consider this a valid scientific critique?

How many ways can a simple, yes/no answer be evaded?

I was generally referring to the site as a whole actually
which seems to be quite nicely put together.

#1. We aren't discussing the "mathpages site as a whole," but a specific
webpage.

The specific article that raises your ire is very upfront about
the limitations of its sources. So there is no need to demand
it be removed as the limitations are there for the reader to
judge.

#2. It's not "upfront" about it's sources if it blames Gerber for the
errors committed by others.

The information in the article rings true to me,
but not to you.

#3. Does "rings true" mean that you "believe" that Einstein was first to
"solve" the NNPA? Does "ring true" the criterion for valid scientific
critique?

So reject the article if you think the sources not up to
your standard.

#4.

Of the top three hits on a google search for
"gerber mercury orbit"
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/33/2002/12/4/14712

This appears to be a quote from Roseveare (though the source of the quote in
unattributed) taken out of context. And Roseveare admitted that he didn't
understand what Gerber was doing.

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm

The slime site. Which evidently has been substantially rewritten since
February. Still no author listed. And oddly enough, it's gotten even
slimier.

"We find that the criticisms of previous reviewers (who have characterized
Gerber's paper as "unintelligible", "not sound", "incorrect", "wrong
through and through") were substantially accurate, but we conclude with a
speculative re-construction of a classical line of reasoning that Gerber
might have used to justify his potential, if he had thought of it and/or
been able to express it intelligibly."

But still blames Gerber for the errors in that "reconstruction."

I especially "liked" the new layers of outright falsehood in "No one has
ever proposed a realistic physical mechanism that would behave like a
flowing potential." (Remember LeSage?)

http://www.mountainman.com.au/news98_l.htm

The third seems to me questionable, but I don't
demand its removal.

The author of the third would be happy to discuss what you think is
questionable about a post that was made on this newsgroup. And it's easy
for you to do, because the author of the post is up-front about his
identity. You can e-mail the author anytime. Unlike the second site.

And it's not the "questionable" aspect that makes the slime site
unacceptable. It is the fact that the slime site makes egregious
distortions about the work of a third party. And won't identify who's doing
the attacking.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

"greywolf42" wrote in message
Thomas Clarke wrote in message

regarding
http://mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
...............
The information in the article rings true to me,
but not to you.

#3. Does "rings true" mean that you "believe" that Einstein was first to
"solve" the NNPA?

No.

Does "ring true" the criterion for valid scientific
critique?

It sounds like the way real science is conducted by real people.

What do you think constitutes a valid scientific critique?

So reject the article if you think the sources not up to
your standard.

Of the top three hits on a google search for
"gerber mercury orbit"

The third hit is:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news98_l.htm

The third seems to me questionable, but I don't
demand its removal.

The author of the third would be happy to discuss what you think is
questionable about a post that was made on this newsgroup.

[For the information of readers, the author was Barry Mingst
requoted on Mountain Man's "Modern Scientific Theories
of the Ancient Aether" site.]

I am annoyed by statements such as:
"Einstein's variation on Newtonian relativity (special relativity)"
"GR was backfit onto Newton's force equation"
which while not exactly false, do not correctly characterize
the relation between the old Newtonian theory and the
new relativistic theories.

And it's not the "questionable" aspect that makes the slime site
unacceptable. It is the fact that the slime site makes egregious
distortions about the work of a third party. And won't identify who's doing
the attacking.

The mathpages site seems to be a compendium of works from various
usenet sites over the years. It would be better if it had sources
indicated more clearly.

Tom Clarke


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Thomas Clarke wrote in message
news:6d744b161b1785aa74e6b4cc9e568c52.128340@mygat e.mailgate.org...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
Thomas Clarke wrote in message

regarding
http://mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
..............
The information in the article rings true to me,
but not to you.

#3. Does "rings true" mean that you "believe" that Einstein was first
to
"solve" the NNPA?

No.

Does "ring true" the criterion for valid scientific
critique?

It sounds like the way real science is conducted by real people.

If you define "science" by what brown-nosing grant-chasers in academia do, I
concur. But it in no way resembles the scientific method.

What do you think constitutes a valid scientific critique?

One that conforms to the scientific method. (Avoid ad hominem attacks,
character assassination, straw men, and the rest of the panopaly of
pseudo-science.)

So reject the article if you think the sources not up to
your standard.

Of the top three hits on a google search for
"gerber mercury orbit"

The third hit is:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news98_l.htm

The third seems to me questionable, but I don't
demand its removal.

The author of the third would be happy to discuss what you think is
questionable about a post that was made on this newsgroup.

[For the information of readers, the author was Barry Mingst
requoted on Mountain Man's "Modern Scientific Theories
of the Ancient Aether" site.]

I am annoyed by statements such as:
"Einstein's variation on Newtonian relativity (special relativity)"
"GR was backfit onto Newton's force equation"
which while not exactly false, do not correctly characterize
the relation between the old Newtonian theory and the
new relativistic theories.

OK, let's discuss:

"Einstein's variation on Newtonian relativity (special relativity)"

"Relativity" was described by both Galileo and -- more formally -- by
Newton. According to Newton, the velocities of importance in physical
interactions are the relative velocities of the objects undergoing
interaction. This is an "object-centered" viewpoint. Einstein's variation
was to disconnect the basis of measuring velocity from the object and attach
it to the "observer." The observer is not necessarily involved in the
actual interaction of two physical objects. Einstein himself based his
initial work on Newton and Maxwell. Since relativity has been known for
hundreds of years, I call special relativity a variation on Newtonian
relativity.

See "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," Einstein, Annalen der Physik,
17, 1905*


"GR was backfit onto Newton's force equation"

One of the reasons that I admire Einstein is that he was willing to propose
unusual paths to get to a desired point. But also willing to abandon roads
that didn't seem to be going anywhere ("That fellow Einstein. Every year he
throws out what he did the year before." -- A. Einstein). GR took him many
years of effort and false starts. However, he was always willing to modify
what didn't work. In the reference below, for example, Einstein states: "It
will also be obvious that the principle of the constancy of the speed of
light IN VACUO must be modified..." Hence, SR is not contained withing GR.
In GR there IS a preferred frame.

Einstein found a mathematical set of equations that had the properties that
he desired. However, Einstein had to determine the constants of that
mathematics. All the math is is symbols. In order to determine one set of
boundary conditions, Einstein decided (wisely so) to make the weak-field
solution (almost) equal to Newton's gravitational equation. (That's the 8
pi part.) It was a very explicit backfit.

See "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity," Einstein, Annalen
der Physik, 49, 1916*

* Both available in Dover's, "The Principle of Relativity", 1952


And it's not the "questionable" aspect that makes the slime site
unacceptable. It is the fact that the slime site makes egregious
distortions about the work of a third party. And won't identify who's
doing
the attacking.

The mathpages site seems to be a compendium of works from various
usenet sites over the years. It would be better if it had sources
indicated more clearly.

Understated, but we agree on your last point.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

"greywolf42" wrote in message
Thomas Clarke wrote in message
......
Does "ring true" the criterion for valid scientific
critique?

It sounds like the way real science is conducted by real people.

If you define "science" by what brown-nosing grant-chasers in academia do, I
concur. But it in no way resembles the scientific method.

Below you called something I wrote understated.
I would call that statement overstated, vastly overstated.

What do you think constitutes a valid scientific critique?

One that conforms to the scientific method. (Avoid ad hominem attacks,
character assassination, straw men, and the rest of the panopaly of
pseudo-science.)

What do you think constitutes the scientific method?
............
OK, let's discuss:

"Einstein's variation on Newtonian relativity (special relativity)"

"Relativity" was described by both Galileo and -- more formally -- by
Newton.

I usually associate the term "relativity" with Galileo but
Newton is more or less the same era.

According to Newton, the velocities of importance in physical
interactions are the relative velocities of the objects undergoing
interaction. This is an "object-centered" viewpoint. Einstein's variation
was to disconnect the basis of measuring velocity from the object and attach
it to the "observer."

You can call it a variation if you like. But that is an
overstatement.

The observer is not necessarily involved in the
actual interaction of two physical objects. Einstein himself based his
initial work on Newton and Maxwell.

Well since Newton and Maxwell are incompatible, it was a bit
more than "based...on"

Since relativity has been known for
hundreds of years, I call special relativity a variation on Newtonian
relativity.

An overstatement.

"GR was backfit onto Newton's force equation"

One of the reasons that I admire Einstein is that he was willing to propose
unusual paths to get to a desired point. But also willing to abandon roads
that didn't seem to be going anywhere ("That fellow Einstein. Every year he
throws out what he did the year before." -- A. Einstein). GR took him many
years of effort and false starts. However, he was always willing to modify
what didn't work. In the reference below, for example, Einstein states: "It
will also be obvious that the principle of the constancy of the speed of
light IN VACUO must be modified..." Hence, SR is not contained withing GR.
In GR there IS a preferred frame.

Einstein found a mathematical set of equations that had the properties that
he desired. However, Einstein had to determine the constants of that
mathematics. All the math is is symbols. In order to determine one set of
boundary conditions, Einstein decided (wisely so) to make the weak-field
solution (almost) equal to Newton's gravitational equation. (That's the 8
pi part.) It was a very explicit backfit.

There is a constant G in all formulations of gravity.
Newton got their first so that G was defined in terms of
Newton's F=GmM/r^2 on the basis of observation.
If somehow GR had been invented before
inverse square gravity, then G might have been determined
from observation with the 8-pi absorbed into it.

But to call this "backfit" is to me an overstatement.

And it's not the "questionable" aspect that makes the slime site
unacceptable. It is the fact that the slime site makes egregious
distortions about the work of a third party. And won't identify who's
doing
the attacking.

The mathpages site seems to be a compendium of works from various
usenet sites over the years. It would be better if it had sources
indicated more clearly.

Understated, but we agree on your last point.

You should try understatement, greywolf42.

Tom Clarke



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Thomas Clarke wrote:
"greywolf42" wrote in message
[snip]
Einstein found a mathematical set of equations that had the properties that
he desired. However, Einstein had to determine the constants of that
mathematics. All the math is is symbols. In order to determine one set of
boundary conditions, Einstein decided (wisely so) to make the weak-field
solution (almost) equal to Newton's gravitational equation. (That's the 8
pi part.) It was a very explicit backfit.

There is a constant G in all formulations of gravity.
Newton got their first so that G was defined in terms of
Newton's F=GmM/r^2 on the basis of observation.
If somehow GR had been invented before
inverse square gravity, then G might have been determined
from observation with the 8-pi absorbed into it.

But to call this "backfit" is to me an overstatement.

It's more than that, it's essentially wrong. The *important* thing about
GR is that it reduces to an inverse square law in the weak field limit.
The constant G (or G/8pi) is merely a unit convention, relativists use
G=1 all the time.

GR was not in any way "backfit" onto Newtonian gravity.

--
Matthew Nobes
c/o Physics Dept. Simon Fraser University, 8888 University
Drive Burnaby, B.C., Canada
http://www.sfu.ca/~manobes

greywolf42 wrote:

One that conforms to the scientific method. (Avoid ad hominem attacks,
character assassination, straw men, and the rest of the panopaly of
pseudo-science.)

Which scientific method? The scientific method of quantum field theory
is not the scientific method of geology or biology. Applied science does
not work quite like purely theoretical science. Experimental physics is
not the same activity as researches into gravitational theory.

All of the scientific methodologies have one thing in come. They all
most be consistent with experimentally discovered fact. Experiments make
or break theories. In the realm of science facts rule, theories serve.

Bob Kolker