Questions about the relationship between the metric tensor and the gravitational field
Jay R. Yablon
the gravitational field h^uv according to (k=sqrt(16 pi G)):
g^uv = eta^uv + k h^uv (1)
Further, the "graviton" field psi^uv is related to h^uv according to
(what is the best thing to call psi^uv, in contrast to h^uv?):
psi^uv = h^uv - .5 g^uv h (2)
I would like to know what (1) and (2) become, exactly, when the
gravitational fields become very strong. I believe what happens is the
the sqrt(-g) factor kicks in, so that (1) now becomes:
sqrt(-g) g^uv = eta^uv + k sqrt(-g) h^uv (3)
and that the relationship (2) stays intact. Is this so? If not, what
are the correct relationships for gravitational field of any strength?
If the above is so, then combining (2) and (3), we obtain:
k sqrt(-g) psi^uv = (2-sqrt(-g)) g^uv - eta^uv, (4)
which subtracts off the constant flat background eta^uv. Thus, if we
take a variation (delta) of each side, which removes out the Minkowski
eta^uv=constant background, (4) leads to:
k delta(sqrt(-g) psi^uv) = 2 delta (g^uv) - delta (sqrt(-g) g^uv) (5)
which in the linear sqrt(-g)=1 approximation in rectilinear coordinates
leads to:
k delta(psi^uv) = delta (g^uv) (6)
and so up to the constant k, psi^uv and g^uv vary together. But, in the
non-linear case, (5) seems to suggest that sqrt(-g) psi^uv has two terms
contributing to the variation, one in relation to sqrt(-g) g^uv as in
the linear theory, and the other in relation to delta (g^uv).
Again, is this correct, and if not, what are the correct, exact
relationships in a field of unlimited strength?
Thanks,
Jay
____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email: jya...@nycap.rr.com
co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations
Weblog: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/
Web Site: http://home.roadrunner.com/~jry/FermionMass.htm
BURT
> co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations
> Weblog:http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/
> Web Site:http://home.roadrunner.com/~jry/FermionMass.htm
The curve could be round geometry a sphere radiating outward from the
center of mass.
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
> In the linear approximation, the metric tensor g^uv is related to
> the gravitational field h^uv according to (k=sqrt(16 pi G)):
The metric tensor g{^,_)uv _is_ the gravitational field.
>
> g^uv = eta^uv + k h^uv (1)
>
> Further, the "graviton" field psi^uv is related to h^uv according to
> (what is the best thing to call psi^uv, in contrast to h^uv?):
>
> psi^uv = h^uv - .5 g^uv h (2)
It contains the exact same information as the metric, just expressed in an
irrelevant but slightly different way which adds nothing to the discourse.
>
> I would like to know what (1) and (2) become, exactly, when the
> gravitational fields become very strong.
They become irrelevant. The linearized limit presumes weak gravitation. The
full answer lies back with the full nonlinear field equations.
> I believe what happens is the
> the sqrt(-g) factor kicks in, so that (1) now becomes:
>
> sqrt(-g) g^uv = eta^uv + k sqrt(-g) h^uv (3)
No.
>
> and that the relationship (2) stays intact. Is this so?
No.
> If not, what
> are the correct relationships for gravitational field of any strength?
G_uv = R_uv - 1/2 R g_uv = 8piG T_uv
>
> If the above is so, then combining (2) and (3), we obtain:
>
> k sqrt(-g) psi^uv = (2-sqrt(-g)) g^uv - eta^uv, (4)
NO! Stop the idiocy.
You are backporting a meaningless quantity from the weak field limit back to
the full nonlinear theory and are getting complete bullshit.
[snip meaningless rest]
BURT
If you pick a point in Schwarzschild geometry how can it be parabolic?
How can a parabolic metric make elliptical orbits?
Mitch Raemsch
Jay R. Yablon
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdo998$ij5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Jay R. Yablon wrote:
>
>> In the linear approximation, the metric tensor g^uv is related to
>> the gravitational field h^uv according to (k=sqrt(16 pi G)):
>
> The metric tensor g{^,_)uv _is_ the gravitational field.
>
>>
>> g^uv = eta^uv + k h^uv (1)
>>
>> Further, the "graviton" field psi^uv is related to h^uv according to
>> (what is the best thing to call psi^uv, in contrast to h^uv?):
>>
>> psi^uv = h^uv - .5 g^uv h (2)
>
> It contains the exact same information as the metric, just expressed
> in an
> irrelevant but slightly different way which adds nothing to the
> discourse.
Yes, they have the same information, but in a different form. Relevance
depends on what you are trying to do and cannot be prejudged.
>>
>> I would like to know what (1) and (2) become, exactly, when the
>> gravitational fields become very strong.
>
> They become irrelevant. The linearized limit presumes weak
> gravitation. The
> full answer lies back with the full nonlinear field equations.
Obviously one uses the non-linear field equations. But that is not my
question. The entity psi^uv is taken in quantum theory to represent the
graviton. Yes, it has the same information as g^uv but is a function of
g^uv. I am simply asking what that actual function becomes. If you
know how to write it with R^uv, T^uv, etc., that is fine.
What this is relevant to, is that I am trying to determine what would be
the field of integration "field" in a path integral $Dfield, for
gravitation. If you know that for sure and can back it up, we can skip
all this other stuff. There was no reason for you to start pissing.
{snipped pissing}
Jay.
BURT
> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gravity is round.
Mitch Raemsch
Juan R.
> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hdo998$ij5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Jay R. Yablon wrote:
>>
>>> In the linear approximation, the metric tensor g^uv is related to
>>> the gravitational field h^uv according to (k=sqrt(16 pi G)):
>>
>> The metric tensor g{^,_)uv _is_ the gravitational field.
No, it is not. He is correct.
>>
>>> g^uv = eta^uv + k h^uv (1)
>>>
>>> Further, the "graviton" field psi^uv is related to h^uv according to
>>> (what is the best thing to call psi^uv, in contrast to h^uv?):
The graviton field is h^uv. Weinberg chapter 10 discuss this, including
the creation and destruction operators associated to the graviton
quantum field operator \hat{h}^uv.
(...)
> What this is relevant to, is that I am trying to determine what would be
> the field of integration "field" in a path integral $Dfield, for
> gravitation. If you know that for sure and can back it up, we can skip
> all this other stuff. There was no reason for you to start pissing.
He *is* angry :-D
> {snipped pissing}
>
> Jay.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
George Hammond
[Hammond]
If what you're saying is true, can't you demonstrate it by
rewriting (1) as:
g^uv = eta^uv + k(h^uv + higher order terms in h^uv)
where the (unknown) series of higher order terms in h^uv is
defined so as to make g^uv de facto "exact", and then do the
same calculation you did above and show that all the h^uv
terms still subtract out regardless of what they are and
that you arrive at the same result as (5). Is that
possible?
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
eric gisse
[...]
>>> I would like to know what (1) and (2) become, exactly, when the
>>> gravitational fields become very strong.
>>
>> They become irrelevant. The linearized limit presumes weak
>> gravitation. The
>> full answer lies back with the full nonlinear field equations.
>
> Obviously one uses the non-linear field equations.
It is so obvious, in fact, that I don't understand why the question was
asked.
> But that is not my
> question. The entity psi^uv is taken in quantum theory to represent the
> graviton. Yes, it has the same information as g^uv but is a function of
> g^uv. I am simply asking what that actual function becomes. If you
> know how to write it with R^uv, T^uv, etc., that is fine.
How is that question supposed to be answerable?
The entity doesn't 'become' anything because it doesn't exist any more than
the metric in the weak field limit 'becomes' something in the full nonlinear
theory.
You can obviously subtract off an arbitrary tensor off the metric tensor,
but is it meaningful?
>
> What this is relevant to, is that I am trying to determine what would be
> the field of integration "field" in a path integral $Dfield, for
> gravitation. If you know that for sure and can back it up, we can skip
> all this other stuff. There was no reason for you to start pissing.
Why is there the implied expectation that quantities derived from an
approximation to general relativity retain any of their relevance in the un-
approximated theory?
>
> {snipped pissing}
>
> Jay.
Jay R. Yablon
"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:tmm2g59ftit213efb...@4ax.com...
George,
Aside from a sqrt(-g) factor which you omit, you are exactly correct.
Your reply helped me makes sense of exactly how to use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#Mathematics.
I am reminded that you are actually quite a good and insightful
physicist, which as I have remarked before, many readers probably do not
see because they see all your "God stuff" and do not look any further.
Because the metric tensor g_uv occupies -- shall we say -- a "prominent
place" in your thinking, stay tuned to my upcoming posts. I am in the
midst of using the path integral to quantize gravitation and the field
g^uv (h^uv). You would call it "quantum God," but I will not go there.
;-)
Jay.
George Hammond
<jya...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
[Hammond]
[Hammond]
I was not aware, and apparently Gisse isn't either, that
the EFE can be transformed (exactly) into a wave equation in
h^uv simply by defining h^uv as:
h^uv = eta^uv - sqrt(-g) g^uv
and that this well known transformation is used to describe
gravitational radiation, particularly binary star radiation,
as the Wiki page you cited above informs us.
>I am reminded that you are actually quite a good and insightful
>physicist, which as I have remarked before, many readers probably do not
>see because they see all your "God stuff" and do not look any further.
>
>
[Hammond]
Well, you can relax about the "god stuff" J.Y., in that the
"god problem" has actually been scientifically solved. It
took 25 years to find it and I never even knew where I was
going until the last couple of years. Turns out that that
the God of the Bible is completely explained by classical GR
without any appeal quantum phenomena.
>
>
>Because the metric tensor g_uv occupies -- shall we say -- a "prominent
>place" in your thinking, stay tuned to my upcoming posts. I am in the
>midst of using the path integral to quantize gravitation and the field
>g^uv (h^uv). You would call it "quantum God," but I will not go there.
>;-)
>Jay
>
[Hammond]
If classical GR explains classical God, then certainly
"quantum gravity" is going to advance our knowlege of the
God phenomenon even further and could even yield some
dramatically surprising results.
But in the meantime it will take the Church and Academia
years just to come to grips with the discovery of a
classical proof of God, never mind worrying about
quantum-god phenomena!
But in the meantime I have a question for you. Prof.
Frank Tipler (Tulane) is a world class expert in GR,
personal friend of Wolfgang Rindler, Roger Penrose, etc. In
one of his recent best selling books he says:
"Richard Feynman discovered a consistent (renormalizeable is
the technical term) theory of quantum gravity 40 years ago,
and this theory is essentially unique."
Yet such authorities as Roger Penrose will be the first to
tell you that "not only have we not discovered the theory of
quantum gravity, we don't even have a reasonable candidate
for such a theory".
What the heck is Frank Tipler talking about? I was under
the impression that Richard Feynman's 1962 solution to the
problem of quantum gravity wasn't renormalizeable?
Everyone knows that Tipler is a genius and a stellar
mathematician....... why does he keep saying that Feynman
solved quantum gravity 40 years ago when everybody else
disagrees?
Juan R.
Maybe you, the undergrad dropout, and the "good and insightful physicist"
would take a look to the response to your duplicate message
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/bdd317d5e14fda57
before continuing to write so many nonsense as the three are doing here :-D
George Hammond
<Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
Post script:
J.Y., Could you please comment on Tipler's opinion
concerning Feynman's famous 1962 quantum gravity theory:
First let me state that Frank Tipler is of the
(theological) opinion that the Cosmological Singularity
(i.e. the Big Bang) is actually "God" (Tipler�s
"quantum-god", I guess). But, as you can see this opinion
is irrelevant to his mathematical-physics opinion concerning
Feynman�s famous 1962 quantum gravity theory.
Okay, having explained that, we come to Frank Tipler�s
famous physics quotation on page 126 of his 2007 book
entitled _The Physics of Christianity_. His statement about
Richard Feynman�s 1962 theory of quantum gravity is as
follows:
"Of course, the superstring theorist deny that
mathematical beauty is their main reason for working on
supersymmetry. They claim an experimental justification,
namely the absence of a consistent quantum gravity theory.
This claim is nonsense. Richard Feynman discovered a
consistent (renormalizable is the technical term) theory of
quantum gravity 40 years ago, and this theory is
essentially unique. However the superstring theorists find
the Feynman theory "spiritually" unacceptable because it
necessarily has a Cosmological Singularity. Thus we come to
the real reason why many modern physicist finds standard
quantum gravity unacceptable; it implies the existence of
God! If the existence of the Cosmological Singularity --
God -- is accepted, then it becomes mathematically possible
to transform the renormalizable theory of quantum gravity
into a theory that not only is term by term finite but, in
addition, has a finite power series in the coupling
constants. In effect, infinities that would otherwise occur
in the laboratory are transferred to the Cosmological
Singularity. In other words, God stabilizes the
multi-verse, thereby preventing it from collapsing into
nonexistence. But for secularists, God must be eliminated
at all costs. If necessary, they are willing to abandon
experimental science itself."
A you can see, Tipler holds the mathematical opinion that
if you allow the existence of a Cosmological Singularity
(Big Bang) then Richard Feynman�s 1962 theory of quantum
gravity actually becomes RENORMALIZABLE and actually yields
a finite power series in the coupling constants.
As you can see this is a purely mathematical physics
statement which is either TRUE OR FALSE and is totally
independent of any theories of "God".
Frank Tipler, who like Richard Feynman was one of John
Wheeler�s post docs at Princeton, is a formidable
mathematician, having discovered the famous Tipler Cylinder
at a tender age and setting the entire mathematical physics
community on its head.
Given that, do you believe that Feynman�s 1962 quantum
gravity theory can actually be re-normalized if you allow
the existence of a Cosmological Singularity? And why does
no one else seems to think so!
And finally�� do you think that someone, possibly you,
should be looking into Tiplers claim that Feynman�s quantum
gravity theory is renormalizable and "term by term finite"
if the Cosmological Singularity is allowed to exist?
eric gisse
[...]
> [Hammond]
> If classical GR explains classical God, then certainly
> "quantum gravity" is going to advance our knowlege of the
> God phenomenon even further and could even yield some
> dramatically surprising results.
[...]
I really do feel sorry for you and wish you would get help.
Jay R. Yablon
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2009.11...@canonicalscience.com...
You obviously have no sense of humor. I usually avoid responding to
this sort of thing, but I obtained my undergraduate degrees (that's
right, plural) from MIT, with honors. So, please stop those ridiculous
slanders. Now I understand why Fred kicked you off of SPF.
Nice touch, also, citing another post made by you, yourself.
Jay.
Juan R.
Disagree. Look to the above ":-D"
> I usually avoid responding to
> this sort of thing, but I obtained my undergraduate degrees (that's
> right, plural) from MIT, with honors. So, please stop those ridiculous
> slanders.
Nobody here commented or asked about your degrees. Did you even read the
message?
In any case I doubt that MIT said you nonsense such as your (3)? Or your
nonsense that Hammond (who you consider "a good and insightful physicist")
is aside from a factor "exactly correct."
> Now I understand why Fred kicked you off of SPF.
Hum, It seems you are not aware that a group of readers complained by
continuous violation of SPF rules by moderators. Who abused of its position.
There was a thread in SPF and after Fred said in public that he did not want
his posts to be moderated, a group of readers (including myself) announced
our abandonment of the group. Check SPF moderation mail :-D
I had an e-mail from Fred asking me to reconsider my position against
crackpot Charles, which, of course, I rejected. We all moved to SPR.
Some links
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/browse_frm/thread/fffe1a15fdbd6944#
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-vi-biased.html
Recently I have noticed that one of early moderators in disagreement with SPF
unfair rules seems to have abandoned SPF also. He posting in SPR.
I am now participating in an interesting discussion with him in SPR.
SPF? No more thanks!
> Nice touch, also, citing another post made by you, yourself.
It explains with some detail why you are complete ignorant of general relativity Jay.
It also contains one advice to add to the previous advice you received
from Igor :-D
Juan R.
Maybe next transformations may help you
you --> Jay
the undergrad dropout --> Eric Gisse
"good and insightful physicist" --> Hammond
eric gisse
[...]
Lying about me is not appreciated. Knock it the fuck off.
eric gisse
[...]
> You obviously have no sense of humor.
YOU DIDN'T KNOW?
Christ, the only time this guy seems to get a giggle is when he's being
purposefully dishonest.
[...]
BURT
GR reveals how motion changes in SR. Both gravity and motion have a
limit. If there is a speed limit there is an acceleration limit as a
consequence.
Mitch Raemsch
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Don't get wise Jerkwater. Anyone who finds it
entertaining to heckle a scholar who has published his work
in the peer-reviewed literature (http://tinyurl.com/ygqopj5)
is more than likely mentally unbalanced himself.
Unlike me you're not old enough to affect mental
disturbance for pedagogical purposes, at your age it's more
likely real.
Stick to conventional Physics dude and leave the
psycho-drama to seasoned veterans who know what they're
doing. Bear in mind I've been an invited speaker at
international symposiums addressing the same audience as
world famous psychologists including notably Hans Eysenck on
one occasion.
Just because the peanut gallery thinks its appropriate to
heckle me doesn't mean a smartass like you should. Just
because your name is Gisse doesn't mean you're a Hans
Eysenck or Kurt Waldheim y'know.
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
> Lying about me is not appreciated. Knock it the fuck off.
Pardon? What was the lie?
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:11:39 -0800:
>
>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Lying about me is not appreciated. Knock it the fuck off.
>
> Pardon? What was the lie?
>
>
I am not a dropout.
Don't forget that I have no obligation to prove it and that you have already
explained you wouldn't change your mind even if I did.
eric gisse
Seek help, George.
George Hammond
<jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Hammond]
You forgot someone posted your picture on Usenet Hermann.
So I know who I'm talking to. Scuze me I have to go start
my Alaskan snowblower.
Koobee Wublee
> In the linear approximation, the metric tensor g^uv is related to
> the gravitational field h^uv according to (k=sqrt(16 pi G)):
>
> g^uv = eta^uv + k h^uv (1)
There is nothing special about a curved state, and there is no
curvature that is special --- even if flat spacetime. So, what you
are doing does not really make any sense. <shrug>
The concept of gravitational waves was first conceived by Poincare,
but it was first mathematically described by Rosen through a clever
mathemagical manipulation of the field equations. Linearizing it
against a special curvature state is not valid.
> Further, the "graviton" field psi^uv is related to h^uv according to
> (what is the best thing to call psi^uv, in contrast to h^uv?):
>
> psi^uv = h^uv - .5 g^uv h (2)
These are the field equations. <shrug>
> I would like to know what (1) and (2) become, exactly, when the
> gravitational fields become very strong. I believe what happens is the
> the sqrt(-g) factor kicks in, so that (1) now becomes:
>
> sqrt(-g) g^uv = eta^uv + k sqrt(-g) h^uv (3)
R_ij - R g_ij / 2 = k T_ij
<shrug>
sqrt(-det(g)) is a part in the making of the so-called Lagrangian that
derives the field equations. <shrug>
> [...]
You need to understand GR first before attempting to branch out into
quantum nonsense. <shrug>
Furthermore, in Rosen's mathemagical derivation, even the
Schwarzschild metric does radiate away energy. The Euler-Lagrange
equation (geodesic equations) associated with the temporal variable
does not suggest any gravitational radiation. It is one of the
countless self-inconsistencies in GR that the self-styled physicists
love to brush under the rug. <shrug>
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> eric gisse wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:11:39 -0800:
>>
>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Lying about me is not appreciated. Knock it the fuck off.
>>
>> Pardon? What was the lie?
>>
>>
>>
> I am not a dropout.
Dropout: to abandon or withdraw from (a school, social group, job, etc.)
Just as you abandoning your pretense to pursue a physics career.
Previously you abandoned your pretense to get a degree on maths.
Or did you forgot when you arrogantly wrote (many years ago) that you
were pursuing two degrees at once :-D
A search in Groups by "Eric gisse undergrad" returns 681 hits and 464
by "Eric Gisse dropout".
Why do not refresh your memory reading all you said us Eric?
For instance here
you said to another poster "Let people who have a degree speak from themselves, kid. "
but your original message has been deleted now. Why did you delete Eric?
In any case, this is a minor issue (your dellusions), the important part
is that you continue being an ignorant of physics and writting nonsense as
in this thread. :-D
Being a *complete CRACKPOT with dellusions* you failed in the same thread to:
i) know why we call to h^uv the gravitational 'field' and to g^uv the metric
ii) why the equation for the gravitational field is preferred over the expression
G_ab = T_ab for *actual calculations*.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/bdd317d5e14fda57
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-ii.html
Juan R.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/02f0654e9f2254e5
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d4690d2eec538343
Eric picture also available next
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_I-n4UWp0ZqM/SsSNLVmX4II/AAAAAAAAAOE/hKcL9rBBJnQ/s400/EricGisse.jpeg
> So I know who I'm talking to. Scuze me I have to go start my Alaskan
> snowblower.
> ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD
> WEBSITE
> Primary site
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
> Mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
--
George Hammond
Gonz�lez-�lvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> [Hammond]
>> You forgot someone posted your picture on Usenet Hermann.
>> So I know who I'm talking to. Scuze me I have to go start my Alaskan
>> snowblower.
>
>[photo courtesy Juan R. �lvarez]
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/02f0654e9f2254e5
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d4690d2eec538343
>
>Eric picture also available next
>
>http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_I-n4UWp0ZqM/SsSNLVmX4II/AAAAAAAAAOE/hKcL9rBBJnQ/s400/EricGisse.jpeg
>
>
>
[Hammond]
Ok, since we're doing mugshots.... here's a picture of me:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/dcp00105.JPG
How about a candid camera shot of you Alvarez ? A
picture is worth a thousand words doncha know?
By the way, here's a photo of J.R. Yablon taken from his
website:
http://home.roadrunner.com/~jry/Blank%20Page%201.htm
As you can see from the black bowtie and tuxedo, he is
obviously the only one on this thread dressed appropriately
for a Nobel Prize presentation. That outta tell you
something!
Dirk Van de moortel
822f2e7e-8bdb-4b47...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
>
...
> <shrug>
...
> <shrug>
...
> <shrug>
...
> <shrug>
...
> <shrug>
...
> <shrug>
I can't wait for the day you'll dislocate that shoulder.
Dirk Vdm
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:27:02 -0800:
>
>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>>
>>> eric gisse wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:11:39 -0800:
>>>
>>>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Lying about me is not appreciated. Knock it the fuck off.
>>>
>>> Pardon? What was the lie?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I am not a dropout.
>
> Dropout: to abandon or withdraw from (a school, social group, job, etc.)
I didn't. End of story.
Find a hobby that isn't based on stalking, you fucking nutter.
[snip rest stalking]
eric gisse
Stay the fuck out of my personal life, you goddamn creep.
Nothing says 'pathetic' like digging into my personal life because you can't
win an argument.
Juan R.
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:24:26 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> You forgot someone posted your picture on Usenet Hermann.
>>> So I know who I'm talking to. Scuze me I have to go start my Alaskan
>>> snowblower.
>>
>>[photo courtesy Juan R. Álvarez]
>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/02f0654e9f2254e5
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d4690d2eec538343
>>
>>Eric picture also available next
>>
>>http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_I-n4UWp0ZqM/SsSNLVmX4II/AAAAAAAAAOE/hKcL9rBBJnQ/s400/EricGisse.jpeg
>>
>>
>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Ok, since we're doing mugshots.... here's a picture of me:
>
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/dcp00105.JPG
>
> How about a candid camera shot of you Alvarez ? A
> picture is worth a thousand words doncha know?
I plan to upload some photos and videos from mine, but not today :-D
(...)
Juan R.
Eric, next links are publicly available:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/02f0654e9f2254e5
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d4690d2eec538343
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_I-n4UWp0ZqM/SsSNLVmX4II/AAAAAAAAAOE/hKcL9rBBJnQ/s400/EricGisse.jpeg
What is the problem Eric?
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> eric gisse wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:27:02 -0800:
>>
>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>>
>>>> eric gisse wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:11:39 -0800:
>>>>
>>>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Lying about me is not appreciated. Knock it the fuck off.
>>>>
>>>> Pardon? What was the lie?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am not a dropout.
>>
>> Dropout: to abandon or withdraw from (a school, social group, job,
>> etc.)
>
> I didn't. End of story.
Did it end before or after you sniped the data in the message you are
replying, including the hundred of Google Groups hits?
> Find a hobby that isn't based on stalking, you fucking nutter.
>
> [snip rest stalking]
:_-D
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:59:04 -0800:
>
>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Stay the fuck out of my personal life, you goddamn creep.
>>
>> Nothing says 'pathetic' like digging into my personal life because you
>> can't win an argument.
>
> Eric, next links are publicly available:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/02f0654e9f2254e5
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d4690d2eec538343
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_I-
n4UWp0ZqM/SsSNLVmX4II/AAAAAAAAAOE/hKcL9rBBJnQ/s400/EricGisse.jpeg
>
> What is the problem Eric?
Stay the fuck out of my personal life, you goddamn creep. You know it is
unacceptable, yet you persist. Pathetic.
>
>
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> eric gisse wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:59:04 -0800:
>>
>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Stay the fuck out of my personal life, you goddamn creep.
>>>
>>> Nothing says 'pathetic' like digging into my personal life because you
>>> can't win an argument.
>>
>> Eric, next links are publicly available:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/02f0654e9f2254e5
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d4690d2eec538343
>>
>> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_I-
> n4UWp0ZqM/SsSNLVmX4II/AAAAAAAAAOE/hKcL9rBBJnQ/s400/EricGisse.jpeg
>>
>> What is the problem Eric?
>
> Stay the fuck out of my personal life, you goddamn creep. You know it is
> unacceptable, yet you persist. Pathetic.
Personal life in PUBLIC forums with PUBLIC profiles? 8-0
What is the problem with giving links to what you SAY or DO in Internet Eric?