Referee report on "Newtonian limit difficulties of GR" and extensions
Juan R.
The draft has been rejected (i waited it :-)) in basis to the claim
> I find the manuscript extremely poorly written and highly confusing.
> Several of the derivations of the author are simply wrong.
I agree that draft was poorly written. It was a second draft of my work
and it was 18 pages long and i just waited extra feedback and criticism to
add to that from Baryshev, Yurij; Christian, Joy; Google Scholar Team;
Poisson, Eric; van Flandern, Tom; Charles Francis; Carlip, Steve.
For instance i had several useful feedback regarding General Relativity
and equations of motion from expertise on equations of motion Eric
Poisson, but he has kindly refused any debate regarding the novel part on
dual potentials (this is explained below).
Now i am working in a third version which is 46 pages long and contains
one new section, several changes, and many improvements in the mathematics
and the presentation of the material.
I am addressing several technical comments from referee, showing some
mistakes that referee is doing and revealing that recent literature by
other researchers supports my conclusions.
However, even when rejecting the publication of the second draft (i am now
preparing third draft, introducing referee comments and preparing a
response to referee), the referee has already confirmed some points from
mine contradicting usual General Relativity literature.
I introduce some of their comments below.
For example, i maintain that General Relativity does not reduce to Newton
theory in /any/ limit and maintain that statements as Wald 1984 in its
page 78:
(\blockquote
Above, we showed that general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity
)
are not strictly true. Referee says:
> Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in GR
Therefore we agree here. Another example where i disagree with
conventional literature is when Carroll 1997 'derives' the equation of
motion (4.19) and adds
(\blockquote
This begins to look a great deal like Newton’s theory of
gravitation. In fact, if we compare this equation to (4.4), we find that
they are the same once we identify [h_00 = -2 \phi]
)
but Carroll equation (4.29) with metric coefficient h_00 substituted, i.e.
the expression (4.19) + (4.20)
(d^2 x / dt^2) = - partial_i \phi
is not equivalent to Newton equation (4.4) even if both seem to be the
same in a first look!
The reason which they are not really equivalent is that spatial, temporal,
and causal structure for both is different.
For instance spatial metric
dsigma^2 = gamma_ij dx^i dx^j
is different in Newton gravity and General Relativity.
The anonymous referee (i think he is certain expert in numerical
relativity :-)) points:
> If the author wishes to check this using numbers instead of limits, he
> could simply program a computer with the Schwarzschild metric and the
> geodesic equation, and integrate numerically the motion of tests
> particles for small values of M/R. He will then find that for small
> enough M/R the trajectories become identical to Newtonian trajectories
> to extremely high numerical accuracy (in fact, as high as one desires
> for small enough M/R).
From a *computational* point of view both trajectories are
indistinguishable for small M/R. I agree. The precision depends of the
inverse of the order of M/R.
If one takes the limit M/R --> 0 then both trajectories converge with
infinite precision and one obtains exactly a Newtonian trajectory.
This is an interesting point confirming my analysis. Initially, i used a
perturbative technique over proper time geodesics, but this confused some
folks (e.g. on sci.physics.foundations). Thus i have rewritten the section
in the perturbative geometrical technique using coordinate time geodesics
now.
Coordinate time geodesics follow from applying the identity
(d^2 x^mu / dt^2) = (dtau / dt) d/dtau ((dtau / dt) (d^2 x^mu / dtau^2))
to the usual proper time geodesic equation. Using a simplified notation
(by commodity :-)) the final result is
a = -Gamma v v + Gamma0 v v v
Now terms are expanded in perturbative series with lambda being of the
order of deviation of g_ab from flat metric, i.e. order (M/R)
a = <a> + lambda^n delta^n(a)
Gamma = <Gamma> + lambda^n delta^n(Gamma) = lambda^n delta^n(Gamma)
Etc. for (n > 0)
Comparing with Newtonian theory i get that both theories are equivalent
only in the limit when (lambda --> 0).
This rigorous convergence corresponds to the limit
(M/R) --> 0
that referee points out. Now, referee and me maintain different
interpretations about this common result.
He considers that virtual equivalence between theories at "extremely high
numerical accuracy" is enough for practical problems. I disagree.
That lack of *exact* convergence has far reaching consequences when one
abandons the so-called 'stable' systems and consider more general
dynamical regimes. In more general 'unstable' regimes small differences
are amplified over time no matter how small they are at initial instant
t_0.
This is why recognized expertises on relativistic chaos as Prof. Schieve
http://order.ph.utexas.edu/research/glimpse.html
and others do not use the GR geodesic equations of motion for modelling
many body dynamics of bodies under gravity in generalized regimes. A many
body theory (with *exact* Newtonian limit) is discussed on (Trump &
Schieve 1999).
People who cannot access the monograph can take a look to the basic
covariant equations of motion and the relativistic Hamiltonian for bodies
under gravity on
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-
limitations_20.html
On second part of my work on "Newtonian limit difficulties of GR" i show
that no metric or field theory (i.e. General relativity, FTG, etc.) of
gravity can reproduce the Newtonian theory.
This part of the work is more complex and unusual because relies on a
series of modern advances in our understanding of interactions.
This part of my work is based in direct application of the electrodynamics
dualism concept
A^b(r,t) --> A^b(r,t) + A^b(R(t))
introduced in a recent *generalization* of field electrodynamics
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v53/i5/p5373_1
to the case of gravitational interactions
h^ab(r,t) --> h^ab(r,t) + h^ab(R(t))
My present work is the first one that applies dual interactions to
gravity. I consider the cases of action-at-a-distance (Stefanovich 2008;
Assis & Graneau 1996), field theory of gravity (Baryshev 1999), and the
conventional geometrical formulation of GR and the modifications, changes
for each one.
For instance, the field theory of gravity may be modified according to the
above generalization of the tensor potentials. Of course, conventional
field theory of gravity is recovered in the limit
h^ab(r,t) + h^ab(R(t)) --> h^ab(r,t)
Like in the electromagnetic case, some few modifications to the field
theory of gravity are needed: the field equations, the classical actions,
new terms in the equation of motion, etc.
However, and this is a very important point, the geometric description of
gravity cannot be maintained in this new picture. A purely geometrical
picture of gravity is broken because no geometrical interpretation for
n_ab(r,t) + h_ab(r,t) + h_ab(R(t)) /= g_ab(r,t)
is possible and because the new terms in the equation of motion have not
geodesic interpretation and may be interpreted as forces.
Dualism also introduces several serious limitations on the validity of
otherwise rigorous works as (Fritelli & Reula 1994).
If my novel work is confirmed then we would change our way to think about
gravity with the field theoretic method being, so say in a picturesque
way, a half of a more complete formulation of gravity, but with the
geometrical approach being broken at one fundamental level.
If finally confirmed, then this work would have important consequences
also on other branches of physics as cosmology, quantum gravity, and
string theory.
Indeed, I was already formally invited to give talks about this on two
international conferences, but i was forced to resign because health
problems:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
canonicalsciencetoday/20080516.html
In the PPC-08 conference will be given some talks about possible recent
experimental confirmation of the field formulation of gravity over the
geometrical one.
REFERENCES
Carroll 1997:
Lecture Notes on General Relativity. 1997:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712019v1. Carroll, Sean M.
Fritelli & Reula 1994:
On the Newtonian limit of general relativity. 1994: Comm. Math. Phys.
166, 221. Frittelli, Simonetta; Reula, Oscar.
Trump & Schieve 1999:
Classical Relativistic Many-Body Dynamics. 1999: Springer. Trump, Matthew
A; Schieve, William C.
Wald 1984:
General Relativity. 1984: The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Wald, Robert M.
[1]
Stefanovich 2008:
A Hamiltonian approach to quantum gravity. 2008:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019v9. Stefanovich, Eugene V.
Assis & Graneau 1996:
Nonlocal forces of inertia in cosmology. 1996: Foundations of Physics 26
(2), 271. Assis, André K. T; Graneau, Peter.
[2]
Baryshev 1999:
Field Theory of Gravitation: Desire and Reality. 1999:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003v1. Baryshev, Yurij V.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org
Juan R.
> This begins to look a great deal like Newton’s theory of
> gravitation. In fact, if we compare this equation to (4.4), we find
> that they are the same once we identify [h_00 = -2 \phi]
> )
>
> but Carroll equation (4.29) with metric coefficient h_00 substituted,
It is (4.19)
Rhs is wrong it is
(dtau / dt) d/dtau ((dtau / dt) (d x^mu / dtau))
> to the usual proper time geodesic equation. Using a simplified notation
> (by commodity :-)) the final result is
>
> a = -Gamma v v + Gamma0 v v v
>
> Now terms are expanded in perturbative series with lambda being of the
> order of deviation of g_ab from flat metric, i.e. order (M/R)
>
> a = <a> + lambda^n delta^n(a)
>
> Gamma = <Gamma> + lambda^n delta^n(Gamma) = lambda^n delta^n(Gamma)
>
> Etc. for (n > 0)
>
> Comparing with Newtonian theory i get that both theories are equivalent
> only in the limit when (lambda --> 0).
or, alternatively, up to zeroth-order in perturbation.
> (2), 271. Assis, André K. T; Graneau, Peter.
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed, I was already formally invited to give talks about this on two
> international conferences, but i was forced to resign because health
> problems:
>
Juanshito,
No, you weren't invited, you are just being delusional as usual.
Juan R.
You have the special ability to ignore the interesting stuff of posts and
focus always in the irrelevant part.
An interesting part is the statement that General Relativity does not
reduce to Newtonian gravity.
Another interesting part is that field formulation seems to be favored
over the conventional geometrical formulation.
Etc.
In any case, I personally thanks to organizers of conferences their
formal invitation to conferences in the acknowledgment section of my
paper. Both of them have a copy of my last work in their desks.
You did already lye about this in the past and you are doing again. It
may be your obsession :-)
Dono
> You did already lye about this in the past and you are doing again.
Juanshito,
You are not in any of the refered conferences programs. I pointed your
lying about this before, that much is true :-)
Juan R.
Normal people considers they would not cite in the conference programs to
authors who them invited but could not participate because health
problems.
You may continue to lye about this minor point because it may be your
real obsession :-)
Rest of people here and also in sci.physics.foundations and
sci.physics.research (both posts were approved by moderators are
available in both lists) may prefer to debate about the physics and math
on the rest of my post :-)
Dono
>
> Rest of people
> available in both lists) may prefer to debate about the physics and math
> on the rest of my post
What physics, Juanshito? What math, Juanshito? There isn't any, this
is why your "paper" ended up in the wastebasket, REJECTED.
Juan R.
Ha ha ha, more lying. It may be your obsession :-)
You have the special ability to ignore the interesting stuff of posts and
focus always in the irrelevant part.
An interesting part is the statement that General Relativity does not
reduce to Newtonian gravity.
Another interesting part is that field formulation seems to be favored
over the conventional geometrical formulation.
Etc.
--
Dono
>
> The draft has been rejected (i waited it :-)) in basis to the claim
>
See? REJECTED, Juanshito. In your OWN words.
Albertito
If General Relativity does not reduce to Newtonian gravity,
GR is wrong, because any correct theory of gravitation
must have Newtonian gravity as a subset in a weak limit.
If you claim that GR can emerge in special cases under
a more general new theory, then that new theory is also
wrong, because it yields a wrong subset (GR). Unfortunately,
if you submit a paper to top journals for peer-reviewing a new
theory that is intented to replace GR, then your paper will
be rejected. Consider for example, the Ten Commandments,
so you submit to the Holy See a paper with a more correct set
of new Twenty Commandments, what will happen?
Excommunication!! :-)
Peer-review journals are part of the current Inquisition tribunals
along with mainstream institutions in science.
"A new 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."
[ Planck, Max; 1858-1947; German physicist, quoted
in Mossis Kline: Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge]
Cwatters
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.06...@canonicalscience.com...
> It was a second draft of my work and it was 18 pages long ...
<>
> Now i am working in a third version which is 46 pages long
Perhaps try a shorter simpler version first?
Dirk Van de moortel
mL-dnfC7M_G...@posted.plusnet
If he can reduce it to 5 lines, I'm sure van Flandern
will be able to give "extra feedback and criticism".
Dirk Vdm
Ken S. Tucker
I personally admire your initiative!
Though, I would read very carefully the
referee comments before responding.
Why take 18 pgs of poorly written
confusion and expand that to 46 pgs?
It's quite clear to me, the subject (GR)
is not understood by you and quoting books
is only so good. The subject itself you
address has the interest of navel lint.
(Profs told me that in the 1960's, and I
think they were right).
Regards
Ken
Dirk Van de moortel
89edd2d7-d619-4d2f...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
[snip usual rant]
>> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org
>
> If General Relativity does not reduce to Newtonian gravity,
> GR is wrong, because any correct theory of gravitation
> must have Newtonian gravity as a subset in a weak limit.
> If you claim that GR can emerge in special cases under
> a more general new theory, then that new theory is also
> wrong, because it yields a wrong subset (GR). Unfortunately,
> if you submit a paper to top journals for peer-reviewing a new
> theory that is intented to replace GR, then your paper will
> be rejected. Consider for example, the Ten Commandments,
> so you submit to the Holy See a paper with a more correct set
> of new Twenty Commandments, what will happen?
> Excommunication!! :-)
>
> Peer-review journals are part of the current Inquisition tribunals
> along with mainstream institutions in science.
Yes, what the crackpot community needs is peer crackpot rewiewing.
>
> "A new 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."
> [ Planck, Max; 1858-1947; German physicist, quoted
> in Mossis Kline: Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge]
Yes, you will eventually die without understanding any scientific truth.
So much became clear when you made your spectacular debut here.
But, not to worry, just keep in mind the Universal Law of
Conservation of Stupidity. A new generation of Usenet crackpots
is already lurking.
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[snip]
> For example, i maintain that General Relativity does not reduce to Newton
> theory in /any/ limit and maintain that statements as Wald 1984 in its
> page 78:
When you say stuff like this, nobody is ever /ever/ going to take your
ideas on the subject seriously.
>
> (\blockquote
> Above, we showed that general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity
> )
>
> are not strictly true. Referee says:
>
> > Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in GR
>
> Therefore we agree here. Another example where i disagree with
> conventional literature is when Carroll 1997 'derives' the equation of
> motion (4.19) and adds
Congratulations - you agree with the Referee when it says something
incredibly well known.
Why are you still whining about lecture notes? There's nothing really
wrong with them, it is just rather silly.
>
> (\blockquote
> This begins to look a great deal like Newton’s theory of
> gravitation. In fact, if we compare this equation to (4.4), we find that
> they are the same once we identify [h_00 = -2 \phi]
> )
>
> but Carroll equation (4.29) with metric coefficient h_00 substituted, i.e.
> the expression (4.19) + (4.20)
>
> (d^2 x / dt^2) = - partial_i \phi
>
> is not equivalent to Newton equation (4.4) even if both seem to be the
> same in a first look!
Do you have a different definition for acceleration and the gradient
in mind?
>
> The reason which they are not really equivalent is that spatial, temporal,
> and causal structure for both is different.
We aaalllllllll know that.
>
> For instance spatial metric
>
> dsigma^2 = gamma_ij dx^i dx^j
>
> is different in Newton gravity and General Relativity.
I need to rent a midget who can hold up a big DUH sign.
This is all incredibly well known material that no sane person who can
pretend to be an expert in the field can disagree with.
>
> The anonymous referee (i think he is certain expert in numerical
> relativity :-)) points:
>
> > If the author wishes to check this using numbers instead of limits, he
> > could simply program a computer with the Schwarzschild metric and the
> > geodesic equation, and integrate numerically the motion of tests
> > particles for small values of M/R. He will then find that for small
> > enough M/R the trajectories become identical to Newtonian trajectories
> > to extremely high numerical accuracy (in fact, as high as one desires
> > for small enough M/R).
>
> From a *computational* point of view both trajectories are
> indistinguishable for small M/R. I agree. The precision depends of the
> inverse of the order of M/R.
>
> If one takes the limit M/R --> 0 then both trajectories converge with
> infinite precision and one obtains exactly a Newtonian trajectory.
Fascinating....so what's the problem again?
I'll never understand why you agree with what people say, then
continue arguing anyway. Isn't there a more interesting subject that
deserves these words?
>
> This is an interesting point confirming my analysis. Initially, i used a
> perturbative technique over proper time geodesics, but this confused some
> folks (e.g. on sci.physics.foundations). Thus i have rewritten the section
> in the perturbative geometrical technique using coordinate time geodesics
> now.
It confuses people because your notation is non-standard and you get
very angry when people ask you technical questions.
>
> Coordinate time geodesics follow from applying the identity
>
> (d^2 x^mu / dt^2) = (dtau / dt) d/dtau ((dtau / dt) (d^2 x^mu / dtau^2))
[(dtau / dt) d/dtau ((dtau / dt) (d x^mu / dtau)) by your correction]
>
> to the usual proper time geodesic equation. Using a simplified notation
> (by commodity :-)) the final result is
>
> a = -Gamma v v + Gamma0 v v v
Nice - you took something incredibly simple and you went and fuuucked
it all up.
The assumption that d\tau / dt ~ 1 was _explicitly_ made.
>
> Now terms are expanded in perturbative series with lambda being of the
> order of deviation of g_ab from flat metric, i.e. order (M/R)
>
> a = <a> + lambda^n delta^n(a)
Would this be a bad time to tell you that this isn't how its' done and
any conclusion you obtain from faulty analysis is irrelevant?
You wrote the words....then ignored them. The perturbation is IN THE
METRIC, not the geodesic equation.
>
> Gamma = <Gamma> + lambda^n delta^n(Gamma) = lambda^n delta^n(Gamma)
Uhhhhhh, no.
Same song, different verse.
The perturbation is _in the metric_, not the geodesic equation _or_
the connection coefficients.
>
> Etc. for (n > 0)
>
> Comparing with Newtonian theory i get that both theories are equivalent
> only in the limit when (lambda --> 0).
Even though you did it wrong, I can't help but wonder why there is any
more post to respond to when you just said what folks have been
telling you for way too long now.
>
> This rigorous convergence corresponds to the limit
>
> (M/R) --> 0
>
> that referee points out. Now, referee and me maintain different
> interpretations about this common result.
Probably because you are unwilling / unable to follow the standard
perturbative analysis. Or because you are just ornery and can't let
this go.
>
> He considers that virtual equivalence between theories at "extremely high
> numerical accuracy" is enough for practical problems. I disagree.
Of course you do.
"Practical problems" are things like determining transfer orbits and
such. GR corrections to trajectories are extremely tiny.
It looks you have no actual argument about the correspondence between
GR and Newton, and are now arguing about something completely
different.
>
> That lack of *exact* convergence has far reaching consequences when one
> abandons the so-called 'stable' systems and consider more general
> dynamical regimes. In more general 'unstable' regimes small differences
> are amplified over time no matter how small they are at initial instant
> t_0.
Also known as "chaos".
That classical orbits are not closed in GR due to perturbations has
been known since....day fucking one when Einstein showed that an orbit
will precess due to third order effects in the potential.
That the perturbations will have long term consequences is as obvious
as the sun at high noon. It would be interesting to ask what the
higher order effects would have on long term orbit stability, but that
isn't terribly relevant to the discussion.
>
> This is why recognized expertises on relativistic chaos as Prof. Schieve
>
> http://order.ph.utexas.edu/research/glimpse.html
>
> and others do not use the GR geodesic equations of motion for modelling
> many body dynamics of bodies under gravity in generalized regimes. A many
> body theory (with *exact* Newtonian limit) is discussed on (Trump &
> Schieve 1999).
That's his problem.
How is this relevant to your original argument?
>
> People who cannot access the monograph can take a look to the basic
> covariant equations of motion and the relativistic Hamiltonian for bodies
> under gravity on
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-...
> limitations_20.html
>
> On second part of my work on "Newtonian limit difficulties of GR" i show
> that no metric or field theory (i.e. General relativity, FTG, etc.) of
> gravity can reproduce the Newtonian theory.
No, you haven't. You make the assertion, and that's it.
[snip irrelevant stuff]
> Indeed, I was already formally invited to give talks about this on two
> international conferences, but i was forced to resign because health
> problems:
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
> canonicalsciencetoday/20080516.html
Forgive us if we all seriously doubt that you were invited.
>
> In the PPC-08 conference will be given some talks about possible recent
> experimental confirmation of the field formulation of gravity over the
> geometrical one.
>
> REFERENCES
>
> Carroll 1997:
> Lecture Notes on General Relativity. 1997:
> http://lanl.arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712019v1. Carroll, Sean M.
[...]
Bryan Olson
> I personally admire your initiative!
> Though, I would read very carefully the
> referee comments before responding.
Well, he's already responded by posting here and writing a
yet longer version of his paper. If you mean responding back
to the journal, that conversation appears to be finished.
--
--Bryan
Eric Gisse
I fail to see the point since the thesis is fundamentally flawed
(wrong).
Juan R.
Yes. I said that to YOU :-)
Juan R.
> Albertito <albert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> Peer-review journals are part of the current Inquisition tribunals
>> along with mainstream institutions in science.
>
> Yes, what the crackpot community needs is peer crackpot rewiewing.
It is actually accepted that usual peer-review is not perfect and in some
cases is forcing conformity rather than quality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
There are several well-known studies about that. Even top journal Nature
devoted issues to the topic of "correct works were rejected by peers" :-)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6959/full/425645a.html
For instance, the own top journal Nature rejected Hawking work on black
holes. Is Hawking a crackpot for you because that?
I can also offer you a list of winners of Nobel prize were initially
considered crackpots by people that now nobody remember :-)
Actually there is a generalized plea for open peer review. Nature did
some well-known recent 'experiments' about review also.
Yours is just the kind of behavior is solved with open peer review. See
the wiki for details and links on open peer review.
In open peer review you would offer your real identity and not just
remain anonymous. I am rather sure you would think twice before posting
some of your usual stuff.
Criticizing other whereas remaining anonymous is something very simple
and gives room for many abuses :-)
The celebrated Nobel Prize for physics Julian Schwinger wrote:
(\blockquote
The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in
editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of
anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship
will be the death of science.
)
And the resigned membership from APS.
--
Juan R.
Maybe. I want first to address all comments and criticisms and add extra
references supporting my points. After work could be splinted into parts.
e.g. a part revising Newtonian limit for GR, FTG and R-AAAD and another
paper dealing with dual extension
h_ab(r,t) --> h_ab(r,t) + h_ab(R(t))
seems natural splitting.
Juan R.
> Hi Juan.
> I personally admire your initiative!
Thanks Ken :-)
> Though, I would read very carefully the referee comments before
> responding.
> Why take 18 pgs of poorly written
> confusion and expand that to 46 pgs?
There several nontrivial parts of the work are totally novel for GR
expertises and may confound them. I already experienced this! Therefore,
i need to explain with care each detail for avoiding misreadings.
> It's quite clear to me, the subject (GR) is not understood by you and
> quoting books is only so good. The subject itself you address has the
> interest of navel lint. (Profs told me that in the 1960's, and I think
> they were right).
I discussed the topic of Newtonian limits in this and other newsgroups in
the past and i was said (by several 'experts' in GR) i was completely
wrong and GR has a Newtonian limit as usually stated in textbooks and
papers. Do i need to search the old posts and the names of the
expertises? :-)
In my opinion, nobody really solved the questions i was asking and i
continued to work in that topic.
Recently i posted in sci.physics.foundations where again i received
criticism by two 'experts'. One of them did not even know how correctly
to derive a tensor T_ab (and i has explain him how to derive :-)) but he
decided he would still criticize my work :-)
He was an 'expertise' in GR could not covariantly derive T_ab correctly.
Of course, I was an ignorant in GR could derive T_ab :-)
However, real experts as Eric Poisson agreed that GR lacks a limit giving
a) the correct field equations, b) nonzero acceleration and c) the
correct spatial metric. Usual textbook derivation are not correct.
Of course, that does not stop 'expertise' in forums that still argue i am
doing mistakes and I am seriously confounded about linear regimes, and
that GR has, indeed, a correct Newtonian limit...
Now i can see referee of top journal on GR agrees in:
> Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in GR
Of course I continue being an ignorant on GR (only my critics understand
GR) and the reason i got the correct result (and they the wrong result)
may be traced to a mere coincidence.
Now, i am working in another coincidences :-)
Juan R.
I am realist and i do not wait a paper seriously undermining GR to be
published in a journal devoted to GR :-)
But i was just curious to know what criticism would be. I want to prepare
myself about the unfair criticism i will receive by my heretic work :-)
Referee behavior has been somewhat strange. Initially he rejected the
paper in basis to a really short "it is not novel" "it is poor written"
and "it is making mistakes".
Of course, this is unfair criticism because if you do not say where
something is wrong then authors cannot *check* it and/or *defend* her/his
position.
I wrote a rebuttal and asked referee to seriously support their points.
For instance, i know my work is *novel* (no GR expertise knows math and
physics i am working, that is sure) and if my work was not really novel
then referee would easily cite a single reference proving that :-)
Well, referee replied, he did not cite a single reference and then has
retired his first unfair criticism :-) This gives an idea of how that
referee works.
I am working in the second point and wait some native English colleague
can help me to improve presentation.
About the third point, I solicited referee to specify some of the points
he considers are wrong. He has done now, he offers a series of points
that in his opinion are wrong.
But all points he point are based in his misreading and misunderstanding.
Indeed referee even copied wrong some formula and then criticize the
wrong formulae that HE WROTE.
This is all rather unfair and i have searched who is the anonymous
referee. I strongly suspect who he is. It seems to be a famous GR
expertise who is working in a hypothetical gravitational engine
(something as the warp drive of Star Trek :-))
My work more or less may prove that his geometrical engine will not work.
This would explain bizarre review, making unfounded claims after are
retired when i pressure on him :-)
I am improving the manuscript to avoid new misunderstandings and i am
citing extra references supporting my points.
I suppose that referee or editor or both will reject again this paper.
but i am curious to know what will be the next excuse :-)
Juan R.
> On Jun 12, 4:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> For example, i maintain that General Relativity does not reduce to
>> Newton theory in /any/ limit and maintain that statements as Wald 1984
>> in its page 78:
>
> When you say stuff like this, nobody is ever /ever/ going to take your
> ideas on the subject seriously.
>
>
>> (\blockquote
>> Above, we showed that general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity
>> )
>>
>> are not strictly true. Referee says:
>>
>> > Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in GR
>>
>> Therefore we agree here. Another example where i disagree with
>> conventional literature is when Carroll 1997 'derives' the equation of
>> motion (4.19) and adds
>
> Congratulations - you agree with the Referee when it says something
> incredibly well known.
You said GR reduces to NG a few days ago :-)
>> The reason which they are not really equivalent is that spatial,
>> temporal, and causal structure for both is different.
>
> We aaalllllllll know that.
You do not know you are speaking!
> This is all incredibly well known material that no sane person who can
> pretend to be an expert in the field can disagree with.
That may explain why referee failed to cite a single reference in prior
work and then retired one of his unfair criticism :-)
> Fascinating....so what's the problem again?
Your difficulties to understand.
>> This is an interesting point confirming my analysis. Initially, i used
>> a perturbative technique over proper time geodesics, but this confused
>> some folks (e.g. on sci.physics.foundations). Thus i have rewritten the
>> section in the perturbative geometrical technique using coordinate time
>> geodesics now.
>
> It confuses people because your notation is non-standard and you get
> very angry when people ask you technical questions.
Correction: it confused
> The assumption that d\tau / dt ~ 1 was _explicitly_ made.
Ha ha ha :-)
> Would this be a bad time to tell you that this isn't how its' done and
> any conclusion you obtain from faulty analysis is irrelevant?
Interesting all obtain the same conclusion: GR does not reduce to
Newtonian gravity except in the trivial limit when there is no gravity.
> You wrote the words....then ignored them. The perturbation is IN THE
> METRIC, not the geodesic equation.
This is a really ill-informed statement :-)
>> Gamma = <Gamma> + lambda^n delta^n(Gamma) = lambda^n delta^n(Gamma)
>
> Uhhhhhh, no.
>
> Same song, different verse.
>
> The perturbation is _in the metric_, not the geodesic equation _or_ the
> connection coefficients.
This is another really ill-informed statement :-)
>> This rigorous convergence corresponds to the limit
>>
>> (M/R) --> 0
>>
>> that referee points out. Now, referee and me maintain different
>> interpretations about this common result.
>
> Probably because you are unwilling / unable to follow the standard
> perturbative analysis. Or because you are just ornery and can't let this
> go.
Probably no.
>> He considers that virtual equivalence between theories at "extremely
>> high numerical accuracy" is enough for practical problems. I disagree.
>
> Of course you do.
At least you can read this part :-)
> It looks you have no actual argument about the correspondence between GR
> and Newton, and are now arguing about something completely different.
You may change your accusation each day that the work will continue up.
>
>> That lack of *exact* convergence has far reaching consequences when one
>> abandons the so-called 'stable' systems and consider more general
>> dynamical regimes. In more general 'unstable' regimes small differences
>> are amplified over time no matter how small they are at initial instant
>> t_0.
>
> Also known as "chaos".
You would say me something i do not know :-)
If you had read the post *before* reply you would notice I remarked this
below when wrote:
>> This is why recognized expertises on relativistic chaos as Prof.
>> Schieve
>>
>> http://order.ph.utexas.edu/research/glimpse.html
>>
>> and others do not use the GR geodesic equations of motion for modelling
>> many body dynamics of bodies under gravity in generalized regimes. A
>> many body theory (with *exact* Newtonian limit) is discussed on (Trump
>> & Schieve 1999).
>
> That's his problem.
Ha ha ha. Yes he is famous and recognized on many-body corrections to GR
and you... well you are also famous and recognized but by different
reasons :-)
>
> How is this relevant to your original argument?
Uff. I would write another paper for explaining that to you.
>
>> People who cannot access the monograph can take a look to the basic
>> covariant equations of motion and the relativistic Hamiltonian for
>> bodies under gravity on
>>
>> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-
lagrangian-...
>> limitations_20.html
>>
>> On second part of my work on "Newtonian limit difficulties of GR" i
>> show that no metric or field theory (i.e. General relativity, FTG,
>> etc.) of gravity can reproduce the Newtonian theory.
>
> No, you haven't. You make the assertion, and that's it.
Hum, just an unimportant question. Did you received a copy of my work?
Did you even know you are speaking?
> [snip irrelevant stuff]
>
>> Indeed, I was already formally invited to give talks about this on two
>> international conferences, but i was forced to resign because health
>> problems:
>>
>> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
>> canonicalsciencetoday/20080516.html
>
> Forgive us if we all seriously doubt that you were invited.
Unfair accusation without proof is very easy. If anyone of 'us' think
that above link is not true, then would start a legal issue against.
But **be** sure you have a good lawyer because defamation without proof
is a *very* serious issue in some countries.
Juan R.
I already explain this to you before.
> If you claim that GR can emerge in special
> cases under a more general new theory, then that new theory is also
> wrong, because it yields a wrong subset (GR).
No.
GR and FTG are recovered in the limit
h_ab(R(t)) + h_ab(r,t) --> h_ab(r,t)
NG is recovered in the limit
h_ab(R(t)) + h_ab(r,t) --> h_ab(r(t))
more c--> infinity
It is not possible derive h_ab(R(t)) from h_ab(r(t))
and this is one reasons that GR literature on Newtonian limits is not
right.
> Unfortunately, if you
> submit a paper to top journals for peer-reviewing a new theory that is
> intented to replace GR, then your paper will be rejected. Consider for
> example, the Ten Commandments, so you submit to the Holy See a paper
> with a more correct set of new Twenty Commandments, what will happen?
> Excommunication!! :-)
Notice that Maxwell relativistic electrodynamics has been also recently
proved to be unable to give the correct Coulomb limit
Previous Einstein work and all previous textbooks and papers on
relativistic electrodynamics are wrong because computed the Coulomb limit
incorrectly.
See the revolutionary paper
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v53/i5/p5373_1
where electrodynamics is *generalized* and usual relativists dogmas as
interactions are retarded by c, particles interact via fields, etc. were
eliminated :-)
A similar correction of GR is needed, with mayor principles dogmas being
revised. Do not worry, before or after that will be published :-)
Of course, i do not wait a work undermining GR to be published in a
journal specific of GR.
Censorship is rather usual and well documented. See my reply to dirk for
references on censorship, even Nature journal studied the topic and did
experiments to change the current peer review system.
> Peer-review journals are part of the current Inquisition tribunals along
> with mainstream institutions in science.
>
> "A new 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."
> [ Planck, Max; 1858-1947; German physicist, quoted
> in Mossis Kline: Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge]
Still it is not proved that my work was a scientific truth, but Planck is
rather right about how science works :-)
Nobel Prize for physics Julian Schwinger resigned as Member and Fellow of
the American Physical Society in protest of its peer review practice on
cold fusion.
Schwinger wrote:
(\blockquote
The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in
editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of
anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship
will be the death of science.
)
Schwinger, Julian (1991), "Cold fusion—Does it have a future?", in Suzuki,
Masuo & Kubo, Ryogo, Evolutionary Trends in the Physical Sciences:
Proceedings of the Yoshio Nishina Centennial Symposium, Tokyo, Japan,
December 5-7, 1990, Springer Proceedings in Physics, vol. 57, Berlin:
Springer Verlag, pp. 171–175.
Juan R.
"us" is acronym for "u_____ s______"
Juan R.
This post have been accepted in sci.physics.foundations and
sci.physics.research but in the latter again some software bug has
truncated my post. In any case check possible discussion in those
newsgroups.
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
See this? This is called "marking where you snip".
> >> are not strictly true. Referee says:
>
> >> > Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in GR
>
> >> Therefore we agree here. Another example where i disagree with
> >> conventional literature is when Carroll 1997 'derives' the equation of
> >> motion (4.19) and adds
>
> > Congratulations - you agree with the Referee when it says something
> > incredibly well known.
>
> You said GR reduces to NG a few days ago :-)
If GR exactly contained Newton, the theories would be
indistinguishable. However there are definite differences between the
two theories even though they correspond at some limit.
GR only contains Newton after a large line of approximations.
>
> >> The reason which they are not really equivalent is that spatial,
> >> temporal, and causal structure for both is different.
>
> > We aaalllllllll know that.
>
> You do not know you are speaking!
Sorry, I forget there are some real morons on this newsgroup
sometimes. Let me define we - "we" means "everyone who actually knows
something about general relativity and classical mechanics". I
actually do include you in this group, regardless of how remarkably
stubborn you are.
>
> > This is all incredibly well known material that no sane person who can
> > pretend to be an expert in the field can disagree with.
>
> That may explain why referee failed to cite a single reference in prior
> work and then retired one of his unfair criticism :-)
Rather than do the back-and-forth on that the referees said, why not
post their responses in full? It'll save all of us a lot of trouble.
>
> > Fascinating....so what's the problem again?
>
> Your difficulties to understand.
>
> >> This is an interesting point confirming my analysis. Initially, i used
> >> a perturbative technique over proper time geodesics, but this confused
> >> some folks (e.g. on sci.physics.foundations). Thus i have rewritten the
> >> section in the perturbative geometrical technique using coordinate time
> >> geodesics now.
>
> > It confuses people because your notation is non-standard and you get
> > very angry when people ask you technical questions.
>
> Correction: it confused
No I'm pretty sure present tense will be valid for quite awhile.
>
> > The assumption that d\tau / dt ~ 1 was _explicitly_ made.
>
> Ha ha ha :-)
Apparently not, but in my defense I'm really really sure it is written
somewhere. I just can't remember where. I'll find it eventually. I
need google desktop for my brain.
>
> > Would this be a bad time to tell you that this isn't how its' done and
> > any conclusion you obtain from faulty analysis is irrelevant?
>
> Interesting all obtain the same conclusion: GR does not reduce to
> Newtonian gravity except in the trivial limit when there is no gravity.
...and except when it does.
[...]
> > It looks you have no actual argument about the correspondence between GR
> > and Newton, and are now arguing about something completely different.
>
> You may change your accusation each day that the work will continue up.
I was so close to knowing what the hell you are talking about.
I haven't yet and will never give a damn about the ancillary babble
about the Other Theories Of Gravity you keep talking about. They have
always been and will continue to be completely unrelated to whether GR
has a Newtonian limit or not.
I'd actually like to read more about those other theories of gravity
that you think have a shot, but not here in this thread.
[snip more topic drift]
> >> On second part of my work on "Newtonian limit difficulties of GR" i
> >> show that no metric or field theory (i.e. General relativity, FTG,
> >> etc.) of gravity can reproduce the Newtonian theory.
>
> > No, you haven't. You make the assertion, and that's it.
>
> Hum, just an unimportant question. Did you received a copy of my work?
I'd like to remind you that you have written _quite a lot_ in the past
few months on the subject and if all those words from you on USENET
most likely contain every argument used in the article you had
reviewed.
Since your argument /still/ hasn't progressed past citing a few people
saying that the linearized theory is inconsistent in a mathematical
sense, I'm going to assume that the article goes along those lines.
I do certainly hope you used the correct perturbation theory, and that
you namedrop a bit less often in your article.
Listen for a minute - you have done nothing but make the same
arguments for months now. You produce the quote from Wald explaining
that the linearized theory is inconsistent. Then you make the argument
that the whole linearized theory is inconsistent. Then you claim GR
has no Newtonian limit.
That's how it goes /every time/.
Not once have you progressed beyond that. No, namedropping Wald/
Poisson/whothefuckever doesn't count.
You haven't shown how perturbation theory is inconsistent. You do,
however, massively undercut your argument every time by posting things
that either directly contradict your argument or blindly repeat things
that are widely agreed to be true.
Go back and read the referee's comments about the Schwarzschild metric
and its' geodesic equation of motion. Everything you wrote about what
he said utterly destroys your argument that there is no Newtonian
limit for GR. Shit, you can even verify it directly without even using
numerical computation since the literal _only_ difference between the
equations of motion for Schwarzschild and Newton is a term
proportional to 1/r^3 that is really, really small for small masses
and large separations.
The best you can do is get agreement that, in some sense, perturbation
theory is inconsistent.
> Did you even know you are speaking?
No. I'm having a waking dream. Now that I think about it, I miss the
sex ones.
I hope there isn't a mixing between this one and the sex ones.
Can I dream about dreaming? How many layers of recursion can my mind
handle before I have a stroke?
>
> > [snip irrelevant stuff]
>
> >> Indeed, I was already formally invited to give talks about this on two
> >> international conferences, but i was forced to resign because health
> >> problems:
>
> >>http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
> >> canonicalsciencetoday/20080516.html
>
> > Forgive us if we all seriously doubt that you were invited.
>
> Unfair accusation without proof is very easy. If anyone of 'us' think
> that above link is not true, then would start a legal issue against.
Remember kids - it isn't libel if its' true. I'll honestly apologize
if you can prove it, or produce a convincing enough forgery.
I only doubt it because I know how you act, and that group seems to
have its' shit together. Together, there is a small [large] amount of
doubt regarding your word.
>
> But **be** sure you have a good lawyer because defamation without proof
> is a *very* serious issue in some countries.
I'm _very_ sure that I doubt you were invited.
Though me and myself sometimes argue, I'm pretty sure I have a handle
on what he thinks. However its' weird when we fight.
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
> However, real experts as Eric Poisson agreed that GR lacks a limit giving
> a) the correct field equations, b) nonzero acceleration and c) the
> correct spatial metric. Usual textbook derivation are not correct.
Your claims on what Eric Poisson agrees upon has shifted majorly.
Originally you claimed that he agreed that GR has no Newtonian limit
when the metric is flat, which was pretty fucking obvious.
How about producing his actual words on the subject? I'm curious to
know what "the correct spatial metric" is - from HIM.
>
> Of course, that does not stop 'expertise' in forums that still argue i am
> doing mistakes and I am seriously confounded about linear regimes, and
> that GR has, indeed, a correct Newtonian limit...
>
> Now i can see referee of top journal on GR agrees in:
>
> > Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in GR
>
> Of course I continue being an ignorant on GR (only my critics understand
> GR) and the reason i got the correct result (and they the wrong result)
> may be traced to a mere coincidence.
It isn't so much that you don't understand GR but rather because you
are _unbelievably_ stubborn.
Eric Gisse
You aren't helping.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> It's quite clear to me, the subject (GR)
> is not understood by you and quoting books
> is only so good.
He knows GR far better than you, Ken.
[...]
Puppet_Sock
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> I have submitted a draft of my work to top journal on General Relativity
>
> The draft has been rejected (i waited it :-)) in basis to the claim
>
> > I find the manuscript extremely poorly written and highly confusing.
> > Several of the derivations of the author are simply wrong.
>
> I agree that draft was poorly written. It was a second draft of my work
> and it was 18 pages long and i just waited extra feedback and criticism to
I'm going to guess that where you wrote "waited" there you meant
"wanted."
What makes you think that a journal exists to give you remedial
help with your homework? Frankly, if I was the editor of the
journal, and you did this a couple times, you'd get blacklisted.
Your submissions would be returned unopened. If you persisted,
eventually your submissions would simply be thrown in the trash.
Socks
Dirk Van de moortel
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote on Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:37:07 +0200:
>
>> Albertito <albert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> Peer-review journals are part of the current Inquisition tribunals
>>> along with mainstream institutions in science.
>>
>> Yes, what the crackpot community needs is peer crackpot rewiewing.
>
> It is actually accepted that usual peer-review is not perfect
Indeed, that is whay you need peer CRACKPOT rewiewing.
Much better.
Dirk Vdm
Ken S. Tucker
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote on Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:56:53 -0700:
>
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> I personally admire your initiative!
> >> Though, I would read very carefully the referee comments before
> >> responding.
>
> > Well, he's already responded by posting here and writing a yet longer
> > version of his paper. If you mean responding back to the journal, that
> > conversation appears to be finished.
> I am realist and i do not wait a paper seriously undermining GR to be
> published in a journal devoted to GR :-)
"seriously undermining GR"
Hmm, I see, that's a new one from Juan.
> But i was just curious to know what criticism would be. I want to prepare
> myself about the unfair criticism i will receive by my heretic work :-)
Sounds like you're trolling a referee, perhaps
treating him as a fool and an adversary, when
you have a splendid opportunity to get free
professional advice. I suggest you work the
relationship.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: I'm putting you in the same class as "E"
for Eric, sissy science :-).
...
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote on Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:56:53 -0700:
>
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> I personally admire your initiative!
>>> Though, I would read very carefully the referee comments before
>>> responding.
>> Well, he's already responded by posting here and writing a yet longer
>> version of his paper. If you mean responding back to the journal, that
>> conversation appears to be finished.
>
> I am realist and i do not wait a paper seriously undermining GR to be
> published in a journal devoted to GR :-)
>
> But i was just curious to know what criticism would be. I want to prepare
> myself about the unfair criticism i will receive by my heretic work :-)
>
> Referee behavior has been somewhat strange. Initially he rejected the
> paper in basis to a really short "it is not novel" "it is poor written"
> and "it is making mistakes".
>
> Of course, this is unfair criticism because if you do not say where
> something is wrong then authors cannot *check* it and/or *defend* her/his
> position.
Defend it to whom? The journal did not publish this criticism of
your paper. You did.
> I wrote a rebuttal and asked referee to seriously support their points.
[...]
> Well, referee replied
On that, I'd say he made a big mistake.
--
--Bryan
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
> message
>> It is actually accepted that usual peer-review is not perfect
>
> Indeed, that is whay you need peer CRACKPOT rewiewing. Much better.
You did not reply my question about Hawking :-)
Also you failed to notice the detected problems with peer review and the
proposals for improvement :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
Even top journal as Nature has explored the issue and experimented with
alternative peer review process:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6959/full/425645a.html
I agree very much with proposal for dynamics and *open* peer review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Dynamic_and_open_peer_review
because
(\blockquote
It has been suggested that traditional anonymous peer review lacks
accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and
inconsistent,[28] alongside other flaws.[29][30]
)
I always ask several guys in this newsgroup to offer *serious* review of
others' ideas using *real names* but those guys always prefer to remain
anonymous, inconsistent, and biased when criticizing :-)
Juan R.
It seems you misread again.
> Ken S. Tucker
> PS: I'm putting you in the same class as "E" for Eric, sissy science
> :-).
You can put my in any class you prefer :-)
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> Referee behavior has been somewhat strange. Initially he rejected the
>> paper in basis to a really short "it is not novel" "it is poor written"
>> and "it is making mistakes".
>>
>> Of course, this is unfair criticism because if you do not say where
>> something is wrong then authors cannot *check* it and/or *defend*
>> her/his position.
>
> Defend it to whom? The journal did not publish this criticism of your
> paper. You did.
If you submit a paper to a Journal and one referee reject publication
because the paper contains some wrong derivations, it seems to me that
referee would point at least some of those derivations he think are wrong.
If referee makes not that then:
i) Author cannot check derivations and correct the wrong ones
ii) Authors cannot check derivations and correct the referee.
Referee already did one unfair criticism previously and in last
communication he withdrew it just after i asked him to support their
point with references and he could not find one :-)
Now he also points some derivations and discussions he think are wrong.
Well, I have studied his comments and i am now writing a rebuttal on why
referee is wrong. I also include extra references to support my points.
For instance in one of parts referee copies *incorrectly* one of my
equations and then discuss why *that* equation is wrong. His criticism is
valid for *that* equation but that equation is *not* that i wrote :-)
Juan R.
> On Jun 13, 1:37 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> However, real experts as Eric Poisson agreed that GR lacks a limit
>> giving a) the correct field equations, b) nonzero acceleration and c)
>> the correct spatial metric. Usual textbook derivation are not correct.
>
> Your claims on what Eric Poisson agrees upon has shifted majorly.
> Originally you claimed that he agreed that GR has no Newtonian limit
> when the metric is flat, which was pretty fucking obvious.
It may be "pretty fucking obvious" you misread.
>
> How about producing his actual words on the subject? I'm curious to know
> what "the correct spatial metric" is - from HIM.
Well, i already offered several quotes in spf. I also said there but you
cannot read that Poisson is quoted in two parts of my work and correctly
acknowledged at the end.
He holds a copy of the third version of the draft.
Poisson confirmed that derivation given in Carroll is incorrect, and that
the *correct* geodesic equation of motion for *linear* metric
g_ab = n_ab + h_ab
with |h|^2 and higher orders terms being zero is
(d^2 x^i / dt^2) = 0)
and NOT the equation (4.19) you find in Carroll :-)
Of course the equation (d^2 x^i / dt^2 = 0) implies test bodies do not
feel gravitational interactions and move in straight lines.
I do not quote this part on the work but may reply you:
To get non-zero acceleration (i repeat again Carroll derivation is wrong)
one may consider a *non-linear* metric and then
(\blockquote
you need to solve the second-order Einstein field equation. This,
of course, gives you a metric that is not spatially flat.
)
Of course, i proved that in the paper and proved the *nontrivial* result
that field theory of gravity gives spatially flat metric in agreement
with Newtonian result :-)
> It isn't so much that you don't understand GR but rather because you are
> _unbelievably_ stubborn.
Still i got the right result "Newton's theory is not contained in GR" and
others the wrong result :-)
Only a few days ago you still maintained that GR reduces to NG and this
was proved in textbooks as MTW and Carroll :-)
ha ha ha
Juan R.
> On Jun 13, 2:37 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> See this? This is called "marking where you snip".
>
>> >> are not strictly true. Referee says:
>>
>> >> > Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in GR
>>
>> >> Therefore we agree here. Another example where i disagree with
>> >> conventional literature is when Carroll 1997 'derives' the equation
>> >> of motion (4.19) and adds
>>
>> > Congratulations - you agree with the Referee when it says something
>> > incredibly well known.
>>
>> You said GR reduces to NG a few days ago :-)
>
> If GR exactly contained Newton, the theories would be indistinguishable.
> However there are definite differences between the two theories even
> though they correspond at some limit.
This is all wrong.
Examples of theories reducing exactly to NG in some limit are (Trump &
Schieve 1999; Stefanovich 2008).
> GR only contains Newton after a large line of approximations.
Referee have confirmed my finding: "Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is
not contained in GR".
> Rather than do the back-and-forth on that the referees said, why not
> post their responses in full? It'll save all of us a lot of trouble.
Probably i will write something about referee behavior in some part
(maybe in micro-thoughts). I wait to see the final of this history.
>> > It confuses people because your notation is non-standard and you get
>> > very angry when people ask you technical questions.
>>
>> Correction: it confused
>
> No I'm pretty sure present tense will be valid for quite awhile.
No, because notation was changed in third draft.
>> Interesting all obtain the same conclusion: GR does not reduce to
>> Newtonian gravity except in the trivial limit when there is no gravity.
>
> ...and except when it does.
GR does when "there is no gravity".
This is why the referee pointed that numerical deviations between
Newtonian trajectories and geodesic ones are function of ratio (M/R).
Of course, this contrasts with Carroll (*wrong*) statement that geodesic
equation he got "is the same" that Newton equation. No it is not.
I am rather sure referee is an expert in numerical relativity. I got the
same result from a perturbative geodesic technique.
> I haven't yet and will never give a damn about the ancillary babble
> about the Other Theories Of Gravity you keep talking about. They have
> always been and will continue to be completely unrelated to whether GR
> has a Newtonian limit or not.
You are showing your ignorance of those topics once again. I always
recommend you to read literature before criticizing they but you always
refuse to follow my advice.
I have all this large reply as a sound *no* to my above question.
>> >> Indeed, I was already formally invited to give talks about this on
>> >> two international conferences, but i was forced to resign because
>> >> health problems:
>>
>> >>http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
>> >> canonicalsciencetoday/20080516.html
>>
>> > Forgive us if we all seriously doubt that you were invited.
>>
>> Unfair accusation without proof is very easy. If anyone of 'us' think
>> that above link is not true, then would start a legal issue against.
>
> Remember kids - it isn't libel if its' true. I'll honestly apologize if
> you can prove it, or produce a convincing enough forgery.
>
> I only doubt it because I know how you act, and that group seems to have
> its' shit together. Together, there is a small [large] amount of doubt
> regarding your word.
>
>
>> But **be** sure you have a good lawyer because defamation without proof
>> is a *very* serious issue in some countries.
>
> I'm _very_ sure that I doubt you were invited.
Then, if you are that sure, to start a *legal* issue against me or
against the Centers news cited above.
Read me with care, I am *inviting* you or any other to *formally* accuse
me from lying in this specific aspect.
A difference between kids and mens is that latter are legally responsible
for both their actions and accusations.
If you or any other is ready to make false accusations in a public forum,
then she or he would be also ready to pay the consequences of making
false accusations. This is how adults world works :-)
Juan R.
> On Jun 12, 8:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> I have submitted a draft of my work to top journal on General
>> Relativity
>>
>> The draft has been rejected (i waited it :-)) in basis to the claim
>>
>> > I find the manuscript extremely poorly written and highly confusing.
>> > Several of the derivations of the author are simply wrong.
>>
>> I agree that draft was poorly written. It was a second draft of my work
>> and it was 18 pages long and i just waited extra feedback and criticism
>> to
> [snip]
>
> I'm going to guess that where you wrote "waited" there you meant
> "wanted."
>
> What makes you think that a journal exists to give you remedial help
> with your homework?
You may well misread or miss something.
(rest rant snipped)
P.S: Do not forget the main points: i) General Relativity has not
Newtonian limit (with usual 'derivations' being wrong) and ii) General
relativity needs of a dual extension.
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:51:06 +0200:
>
> > message
> >> It is actually accepted that usual peer-review is not perfect
>
> > Indeed, that is whay you need peer CRACKPOT rewiewing. Much better.
>
> You did not reply my question about Hawking :-)
>
>
But you are NOT Hawking. You are just a sad crackpot.
Juan R.
Of course, i am not Hawking. Not a very bright comment by your part :-)
But the question about Hawkgin i did to dirk continues without reply...
you did neither.
Juan R.
v
Hawking :-)
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Dono wrote on Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:22:40 -0700:
>
> > On Jun 14, 3:17 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> Dirk Van de moortel wrote on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:51:06 +0200:
>
> >> > Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
> >> > message
> >> >> It is actually accepted that usual peer-review is not perfect
>
> >> > Indeed, that is whay you need peer CRACKPOT rewiewing. Much better.
>
> >> You did not reply my question about Hawking :-)
>
> > But you are NOT Hawking. You are just a sad crackpot.
>
> Of course, i am not Hawking.
....but you tried to compare yourself with him in bringing up his
rejection by Nature. While his was temporary, your REJECTION is
FOREVER. The appropriate response for a crank.
What was the name of the journal that rejected your paper?
Juan R.
> On Jun 14, 7:39 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Dono wrote on Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:22:40 -0700:
>>
>> > On Jun 14, 3:17 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >> Dirk Van de moortel wrote on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:51:06 +0200:
>>
>> >> > Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote
>> >> > in message
>> >> >> It is actually accepted that usual peer-review is not perfect
>>
>> >> > Indeed, that is whay you need peer CRACKPOT rewiewing. Much
>> >> > better.
>>
>> >> You did not reply my question about Hawking :-)
>>
>> > But you are NOT Hawking. You are just a sad crackpot.
>>
>> Of course, i am not Hawking.
>
> ....but you tried to compare yourself with him in bringing up his
> rejection by Nature.
No, that is your lye!
> While his was temporary, your REJECTION is FOREVER.
This is absurd, but you are clearly obsessed about me being banned :-)
> The appropriate response for a crank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Dynamic_and_open_peer_review
(\blockquote
It has been suggested that traditional anonymous peer review lacks
accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and
inconsistent,[28] alongside other flaws.[29][30]
)
Of course, you do not qualify as reviewer but you are a good example of
abuse towards anonymity :-)
I always ask you to defend your points in a public way and you always
refuse :-)
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> You did not reply my question about Hawking :-)
>
> >> > But you are NOT Hawking. You are just a sad crackpot.
>
> >> Of course, i am not Hawking.
>
> > ....but you tried to compare yourself with him in bringing up his
> > rejection by Nature.
>
> No, that is your lye!
>
> > While his was temporary, your REJECTION is FOREVER.
>
> This is absurd, but you are clearly obsessed about me being banned :-)
>
Juanshito,
You are completely wacko, you have not been banned (unless the journal
editor has had enough of your wackiness), your paper has been
REJECTED. Get that?
> It has been suggested that traditional anonymous peer review lacks
> accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and
> inconsistent,[28] alongside other flaws.[29][30]
> )
>
> Of course, you do not qualify as reviewer but you are a good example of
> abuse towards anonymity :-)
>
But I could help you by suggesting other journals that might accept
your paper. This is why I asked you the title of the journal that
rejected your paper.
Ken S. Tucker
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:07:56 -0700:
> > On Jun 13, 3:08 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> Bryan Olson wrote on Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:56:53 -0700:
> >> > Well, he's already responded by posting here and writing a yet longer
> >> > version of his paper. If you mean responding back to the journal,
> >> > that conversation appears to be finished.
>
> >> I am realist and i do not wait a paper seriously undermining GR to be
> >> published in a journal devoted to GR :-)
>
> > "seriously undermining GR"
> > Hmm, I see, that's a new one from Juan.
>
> >> But i was just curious to know what criticism would be. I want to
> >> prepare myself about the unfair criticism i will receive by my heretic
> >> work :-)
>
> > Sounds like you're trolling a referee, perhaps treating him as a fool
> > and an adversary, when you have a splendid opportunity to get free
> > professional advice. I suggest you work the relationship.
>
> It seems you misread again.
Yes, I've corrected myself, I think you
are a troll and crack-pot. Your lack of
english/math/physics skills can be
corrected, or even overlooked when I see
a good natured mature attitude, however,
Quoting Juan, "seriously undermining GR".
Have fun.
Ken
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> > Rather than do the back-and-forth on that the referees said, why not
> > post their responses in full? It'll save all of us a lot of trouble.
>
> Probably i will write something about referee behavior in some part
> (maybe in micro-thoughts). I wait to see the final of this history.
Why won't you post all of what they said? You are entirely willing to
post anything they say that supports you.
>
> >> > It confuses people because your notation is non-standard and you get
> >> > very angry when people ask you technical questions.
>
> >> Correction: it confused
>
> > No I'm pretty sure present tense will be valid for quite awhile.
>
> No, because notation was changed in third draft.
Good.
No, seriously. Good.
>
> >> Interesting all obtain the same conclusion: GR does not reduce to
> >> Newtonian gravity except in the trivial limit when there is no gravity.
>
> > ...and except when it does.
>
> GR does when "there is no gravity".
You are confusing "there is no gravity" [which is silly] with "there
is no force of gravity" which is true under general relativity.
>
> This is why the referee pointed that numerical deviations between
> Newtonian trajectories and geodesic ones are function of ratio (M/R).
>
> Of course, this contrasts with Carroll (*wrong*) statement that geodesic
> equation he got "is the same" that Newton equation. No it is not.
The word "approximation" once again needs to be considered.
The Newtonian equation of motion in the weak field limit is exactly
like Newton...after a series of approximations. If you analyze the
full field solution, yea of course there are going to be deviations.
>
> I am rather sure referee is an expert in numerical relativity. I got the
> same result from a perturbative geodesic technique.
...and how do you assure you are not getting nonsense from perturbing
the geodesic equation? Other than "I got the right answer", of course.
>
> > I haven't yet and will never give a damn about the ancillary babble
> > about the Other Theories Of Gravity you keep talking about. They have
> > always been and will continue to be completely unrelated to whether GR
> > has a Newtonian limit or not.
>
> You are showing your ignorance of those topics once again. I always
> recommend you to read literature before criticizing they but you always
> refuse to follow my advice.
Of course I'm ignorant of those other topics - I haven't studied them.
They are, however, irrelevant to the discussion.
[...]
> Then, if you are that sure, to start a *legal* issue against me or
> against the Centers news cited above.
>
> Read me with care, I am *inviting* you or any other to *formally* accuse
> me from lying in this specific aspect.
I'll stick with "I'm pretty sure you are lying", as there is doubt and
I don't /know/ that you are lying. Maybe the organizer had a stroke
and really did invite you.
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:51:54 -0700:
>
> > On Jun 13, 1:37 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> However, real experts as Eric Poisson agreed that GR lacks a limit
> >> giving a) the correct field equations, b) nonzero acceleration and c)
> >> the correct spatial metric. Usual textbook derivation are not correct.
>
> > Your claims on what Eric Poisson agrees upon has shifted majorly.
> > Originally you claimed that he agreed that GR has no Newtonian limit
> > when the metric is flat, which was pretty fucking obvious.
>
> It may be "pretty fucking obvious" you misread.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5e117cf36ac5fe5d?dmode=source
(\blocquote
And you seem to want a Newtonian limit to GR that gives you a) the
correct field equation for phi, b) the nonzero acceleration, and c) a
flat spatial metric. This simply does not happen in GR
)
Now...am I misreading?
>
>
>
> > How about producing his actual words on the subject? I'm curious to know
> > what "the correct spatial metric" is - from HIM.
>
> Well, i already offered several quotes in spf. I also said there but you
> cannot read that Poisson is quoted in two parts of my work and correctly
> acknowledged at the end.
He's quoted saying things that are already known to be true and are
above reproach. Yea - if the metric is exactly flat, there is no
gravitation. However the perturbation ensures that the metric _is not
flat_.
>
> He holds a copy of the third version of the draft.
>
> Poisson confirmed that derivation given in Carroll is incorrect, and that
> the *correct* geodesic equation of motion for *linear* metric
No blockquote with him saying it?
>
> g_ab = n_ab + h_ab
>
> with |h|^2 and higher orders terms being zero is
>
> (d^2 x^i / dt^2) = 0)
The only way this is true is if either you neglect the perturbation
h_ab in the calculation or say all the Christoffel symbols are zero.
>
> and NOT the equation (4.19) you find in Carroll :-)
>
> Of course the equation (d^2 x^i / dt^2 = 0) implies test bodies do not
> feel gravitational interactions and move in straight lines.
You need better wording - test bodies _always_ move in straight lines.
That's what a geodesic /is/ - a straight line.
Try saying that there is no curvature.
>
> I do not quote this part on the work but may reply you:
>
> To get non-zero acceleration (i repeat again Carroll derivation is wrong)
> one may consider a *non-linear* metric and then
What do you mean by "non-linear metric"?
Higher order corrections?
>
> (\blockquote
> you need to solve the second-order Einstein field equation. This,
> of course, gives you a metric that is not spatially flat.
> )
Need more context. What's this snippet in response to?
The perturbed metric isn't flat - spatially or otherwise - so I don't
see what nugget of wisdom is contained here.
>
> Of course, i proved that in the paper and proved the *nontrivial* result
> that field theory of gravity gives spatially flat metric in agreement
> with Newtonian result :-)
What exactly did you prove? Under what exact assumptions?
>
> > It isn't so much that you don't understand GR but rather because you are
> > _unbelievably_ stubborn.
>
> Still i got the right result "Newton's theory is not contained in GR" and
> others the wrong result :-)
>
> Only a few days ago you still maintained that GR reduces to NG and this
> was proved in textbooks as MTW and Carroll :-)
Actually in MTW a large portion of perturbation theory is relegated to
the exercises.
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>
>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>>> Referee behavior has been somewhat strange. Initially he rejected the
>>> paper in basis to a really short "it is not novel" "it is poor written"
>>> and "it is making mistakes".
>>>
>>> Of course, this is unfair criticism because if you do not say where
>>> something is wrong then authors cannot *check* it and/or *defend*
>>> her/his position.
>> Defend it to whom? The journal did not publish this criticism of your
>> paper. You did.
>
> If you submit a paper to a Journal and one referee reject publication
> because the paper contains some wrong derivations, it seems to me that
> referee would point at least some of those derivations he think are wrong.
The referee's purpose is to make a publication decision for the
journal. Sometimes the reply to a journal submission is something
like, "we cannot use your paper at this time," with no further
explanation.
> If referee makes not that then:
>
> i) Author cannot check derivations and correct the wrong ones
You seem to have journal articles confused with homework
assignments.
> ii) Authors cannot check derivations and correct the referee.
If they need more information from an author, they can ask.
> Referee already did one unfair criticism previously and in last
The referee is not here to defend himself. We're supposed to
accept your version of everything, as you bemoan this unfair
criticism.
--
--Bryan
Eric Gisse
This is why I have asked for the referee's comments in full.
I've learned to ask for full quotes and references - not just tiny
snippets that appear to support someone's position in an out of
context quote.
>
> --
> --Bryan
Juan R.
> On Jun 14, 7:53 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >> >> You did not reply my question about Hawking :-)
>>
>> >> > But you are NOT Hawking. You are just a sad crackpot.
>>
>> >> Of course, i am not Hawking.
>>
>> > ....but you tried to compare yourself with him in bringing up his
>> > rejection by Nature.
>>
>> No, that is your lye!
>>
>> > While his was temporary, your REJECTION is FOREVER.
>>
>> This is absurd, but you are clearly obsessed about me being banned :-)
>>
>>
> Juanshito,
>
> You are completely wacko, you have not been banned (unless the journal
> editor has had enough of your wackiness), your paper has been REJECTED.
> Get that?
My point was that you are clearly obsessed waiting my ideas, writings
etc. to be 'banned', rejected, etc. in a general sense.
This explain why you devote hours of your time to try to *falsify*
newsgroups rants inventing a hundred of people against me :-)
Do you want i cite the administrator message when detected your unethical
behavior, warned you and deleted your voting?
The whole history is accessible online :-)
Your obsesion also explain why you apply towards anonymous ad hominens,
and lying. You cannot rebate otherwise :-)
> your paper has been REJECTED.
> Get that?
You know that because I said that to you, get that? :-)
You seem to make a big point about that but reading is actually
different, specially after noticing that one of reasons which referee
rejected the paper was because he *confirmed* a part of *my* work and
then considered my work was not new enough for publication.
You seem to have obtained a very wrong idea about all that but the
important findings are:
1) General Relativity does not reduce to Newton gravity. I.e. you were
wrong in the past not me :-)
2) General Relativity needs a dual extension :-)
Of course you prefer to focus all your post about the "rejection" issue,
but this is explained by your obsession :-)
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> > Juanshito,
>
> > You are completely wacko, you have not been banned (unless the journal
> > editor has had enough of your wackiness), your paper has been REJECTED.
> > Get that?
>
> My point was that you are clearly obsessed waiting my ideas,
"Waiting your ideas", Juanshito? Have you been drinking again?
> This explain why you devote hours of your time to try to *falsify*
> newsgroups rants inventing a hundred of people against me :-)
>
having hallucinations again, Juanshito? You should lay off the booze.
> Do you want i cite the administrator message when detected your unethical
> behavior, warned you and deleted your voting?
>
You ARE having hallucinations, indeed.
> The whole history is accessible online :-)
>
Where?
> > your paper has been REJECTED.
> > Get that?
>
> You know that because I said that to you, get that?
Great, so your paper is rejected, no one gives a shit about you and
your "ideas". This is what you have been told all along by several of
us. So, then , fuck off, get another hobby. Spare us your
pontifications, Juanshito.
>
> You seem to make a big point about that but reading is actually
> different, specially after noticing that one of reasons which referee
> rejected the paper was because he *confirmed* a part of *my* work and
> then considered my work was not new enough for publication.
>
Bottom line, you paper was REJECTED, Shito.
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
> You seem to make a big point about that but reading is actually
> different, specially after noticing that one of reasons which referee
> rejected the paper was because he *confirmed* a part of *my* work and
> then considered my work was not new enough for publication.
I do hope this isn't a surprise to you considering every point you
make is either from someone else or copied directly from a textbook.
>
> You seem to have obtained a very wrong idea about all that but the
> important findings are:
>
> 1) General Relativity does not reduce to Newton gravity. I.e. you were
> wrong in the past not me :-)
Often claimed but never proved. You've been making the assertion for
quite awhile now, but you still have presented no new argument on the
subject.
In fact I'm yet to see the steps between "g_uv = n_uv + h_uv" and your
conclusion that "d^2x^i/dt^2 = 0". You do dance around it though -
plenty of comments about how true it is and how you wrote a nice
article about it, along with how it is implied by something else if
you remain consistently in linear order in the perturbation. No proof
though!
By the way - when *are* you going to post the submitted article and
the referee's comments? This thread is about both but the former makes
no appearance and the latter is only provided in small doses without
supporting context.
Hell, when are you even going to post Poisson's full comments on the
subject?
A real researcher shouldn't feel the need to hide things like this.
>
> 2) General Relativity needs a dual extension :-)
>
> Of course you prefer to focus all your post about the "rejection" issue,
> but this is explained by your obsession :-)
The best way to make someone's obsession to go away is to indulge them
endlessly.
Juan R.
> On Jun 15, 6:26 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > Juanshito,
>>
>> > You are completely wacko, you have not been banned (unless the
>> > journal editor has had enough of your wackiness), your paper has been
>> > REJECTED. Get that?
>>
>> My point was that you are clearly obsessed waiting my ideas,
>
>
> "Waiting your ideas", Juanshito? Have you been drinking again?
>
>
>> This explain why you devote hours of your time to try to *falsify*
>> newsgroups rants inventing a hundred of people against me :-)
>>
>>
> having hallucinations again, Juanshito? You should lay off the booze.
>
>
>> Do you want i cite the administrator message when detected your
>> unethical behavior, warned you and deleted your voting?
>>
>>
> You ARE having hallucinations, indeed.
>
>
>> The whole history is accessible online :-)
>>
>>
> Where?
For instance here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7e258350d53dea5a
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4dd841b39e0f978b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4dd841b39e0f978b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1b4d722d708431ff
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b622df514fbecf88
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a4c367f773b801ca
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/07f060b77ac0be52
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ac9bcdceb416fcfc
Of course, after that funny episode you changed your account nick from
karandash to *Dono*, but you are so clever you continue calling me
JuanShito
Ha ha ha ha ha :-)
>
>> > your paper has been REJECTED.
>> > Get that?
>>
>> You know that because I said that to you, get that?
>
> Great, so your paper is rejected, no one gives a shit about you and your
> "ideas". This is what you have been told all along by several of us. So,
> then , fuck off, get another hobby. Spare us your pontifications,
> Juanshito.
>
>
>
>> You seem to make a big point about that but reading is actually
>> different, specially after noticing that one of reasons which referee
>> rejected the paper was because he *confirmed* a part of *my* work and
>> then considered my work was not new enough for publication.
>>
>>
> Bottom line, you paper was REJECTED, Shito.
You are obsessed again :-)
Look to one of above links
(\blockquote
Yes, [dono] obessesion with awarding himself stars is puerile.
[...]
I guess that the obsession comes from being awarded stars by his
teachers.
It demonstrates a need for approval.
)
Ha ha ha ha ha :-)
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> but you are so clever you continue calling me JuanShito
...because you are Shito, Juanshito :-)
Juan R.
> On Jun 15, 5:26 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: [...]
>> 1) General Relativity does not reduce to Newton gravity. I.e. you were
>> wrong in the past not me :-)
>
> Often claimed but never proved.
Don't true and the referee already stated:
(\blockquote
Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in GR
)
:-)
> You've been making the assertion for
> quite awhile now, but you still have presented no new argument on the
> subject.
>
> In fact I'm yet to see the steps between "g_uv = n_uv + h_uv" and your
> conclusion that "d^2x^i/dt^2 = 0". You do dance around it though -
> plenty of comments about how true it is and how you wrote a nice article
> about it, along with how it is implied by something else if you remain
> consistently in linear order in the perturbation. No proof though!
But both Eric Poisson and the referee agree with me that Carroll
derivation is wrong. The final equation for that metric is (a = 0) just
like i have obtained and *not* the equation that Carroll writes :-)
If they are already convinced about this part why would i worry about you
think?
Juan R.
Do you see your obsession karand?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7e258350d53dea5a
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4dd841b39e0f978b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4dd841b39e0f978b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1b4d722d708431ff
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b622df514fbecf88
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a4c367f773b801ca
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/07f060b77ac0be52
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ac9bcdceb416fcfc
Ha ha ha ha :-)
Juan R.
Then submit more funny replies please :-)
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume.jpg
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> Bryan Olson wrote:
>>
>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>
>>>> Referee behavior has been somewhat strange. Initially he rejected the
>>>> paper in basis to a really short "it is not novel" "it is poor
>>>> written" and "it is making mistakes".
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this is unfair criticism because if you do not say where
>>>> something is wrong then authors cannot *check* it and/or *defend*
>>>> her/his position.
>
>>> Defend it to whom? The journal did not publish this criticism of your
>>> paper. You did.
>>
>> If you submit a paper to a Journal and one referee reject publication
>> because the paper contains some wrong derivations, it seems to me that
>> referee would point at least some of those derivations he think are
>> wrong.
>
> The referee's purpose is to make a publication decision for the journal.
No exactly, that is editor task. Referee is an expertise who assist
editor to take a final decision.
> Sometimes the reply to a journal submission is something like, "we
> cannot use your paper at this time," with no further explanation.
Never received one of those.
>> If referee makes not that then:
>>
>> i) Author cannot check derivations and correct the wrong ones
>
> You seem to have journal articles confused with homework assignments.
No. If referee find a mistake e.g. a sign in a derivation, etc. the
author can correct it.
>> ii) Authors cannot check derivations and correct the referee.
>
> If they need more information from an author, they can ask.
That was not the point but other very different.
>> Referee already did one unfair criticism previously and in last
>
> The referee is not here to defend himself. We're supposed to accept your
> version of everything, as you bemoan this unfair criticism.
I am not giving his name (which i strongly suspect) therefore i am being
very fair with him.
Juan R.
> On Jun 14, 3:00 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Eric Gisse wrote on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:51:54 -0700:
>>
>> > On Jun 13, 1:37 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> >> However, real experts as Eric Poisson agreed that GR lacks a limit
>> >> giving a) the correct field equations, b) nonzero acceleration and
>> >> c) the correct spatial metric. Usual textbook derivation are not
>> >> correct.
>>
>> > Your claims on what Eric Poisson agrees upon has shifted majorly.
>> > Originally you claimed that he agreed that GR has no Newtonian limit
>> > when the metric is flat, which was pretty fucking obvious.
>>
>> It may be "pretty fucking obvious" you misread.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
msg/5e117cf36ac5fe5d?dmode=source
>
> (\blocquote
> And you seem to want a Newtonian limit to GR that gives you a) the
> correct field equation for phi, b) the nonzero acceleration, and c) a
> flat spatial metric. This simply does not happen in GR
> )
>
> Now...am I misreading?
Pretty obvious.
> He's quoted saying things that are already known to be true and are
> above reproach. Yea - if the metric is exactly flat, there is no
> gravitation. However the perturbation ensures that the metric _is not
> flat_.
The metric is different from n_ab and there is _not_ gravitation effect
on the geodesic.
Why do you insist on misread everything?
>> He holds a copy of the third version of the draft.
>>
>> Poisson confirmed that derivation given in Carroll is incorrect, and
>> that the *correct* geodesic equation of motion for *linear* metric
>
> No blockquote with him saying it?
Two were given.
>> g_ab = n_ab + h_ab
>>
>> with |h|^2 and higher orders terms being zero is
>>
>> (d^2 x^i / dt^2) = 0)
>
> The only way this is true is if either you neglect the perturbation h_ab
> in the calculation or say all the Christoffel symbols are zero.
No you are wrong *again*. The symbols are nonzero, indeed they are really
linear in h :-)
You are doing all series of wrong comments about this since time ago both
here and in spf. But i do not worry because both the referee and Eric
Poisson (both experts in GR unlike you :-)) already explicitly *agreed*
with me at this point.
Your 'evaluation' of my work always have been irrelevant. Remember just a
few days ago i said you how to derive a tensor correctly :-)
>> and NOT the equation (4.19) you find in Carroll :-)
>>
>> Of course the equation (d^2 x^i / dt^2 = 0) implies test bodies do not
>> feel gravitational interactions and move in straight lines.
>
> You need better wording - test bodies _always_ move in straight lines.
> That's what a geodesic /is/ - a straight line.
Oh, you missed the word *and* in my phrase and also missed i wrote the
geodesic equation of motion, which eliminate any ambiguity about *what*
straight lines :-)
(same trivialities and parroting sniped)
>> Of course, i proved that in the paper and proved the *nontrivial*
>> result that field theory of gravity gives spatially flat metric in
>> agreement with Newtonian result :-)
>
> What exactly did you prove? Under what exact assumptions?
That I have said. None.
Juan R.
>> GR does when "there is no gravity".
>
> You are confusing "there is no gravity" [which is silly] with "there is
> no force of gravity" which is true under general relativity.
Gravity is not a force in GR.
> The word "approximation" once again needs to be considered.
Do you understand Carroll statement: "is the same"?
Saying it "is the same" is not saying it "is an approximation", but you
are lying again :-)
>
> The Newtonian equation of motion in the weak field limit is exactly like
> Newton...after a series of approximations.
Do not true.
>> I am rather sure referee is an expert in numerical relativity. I got
>> the same result from a perturbative geodesic technique.
>
> ...and how do you assure you are not getting nonsense from perturbing
> the geodesic equation? Other than "I got the right answer", of course.
Well, i checked twice, experts already agreed and you do not. That is
enough check for me :-)
>> > I haven't yet and will never give a damn about the ancillary babble
>> > about the Other Theories Of Gravity you keep talking about. They have
>> > always been and will continue to be completely unrelated to whether
>> > GR has a Newtonian limit or not.
>>
>> You are showing your ignorance of those topics once again. I always
>> recommend you to read literature before criticizing they but you always
>> refuse to follow my advice.
>
> Of course I'm ignorant of those other topics - I haven't studied them.
> They are, however, irrelevant to the discussion.
They are *very* relevant but you do not know :-)
>> Then, if you are that sure, to start a *legal* issue against me or
>> against the Centers news cited above.
>>
>> Read me with care, I am *inviting* you or any other to *formally*
>> accuse me from lying in this specific aspect.
>
> I'll stick with "I'm pretty sure you are lying", as there is doubt and I
> don't /know/ that you are lying. Maybe the organizer had a stroke and
> really did invite you.
If you are "pretty sure" then go forward, i am *inviting* you to do it :-)
Juan R.
> On Jun 15, 7:29 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/d5814688f0.jpg
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
http://www.secularsobriety.org/mdavey_drunk2.jpg
Lay off the booze, Juanshito,gives you hallucinations.
Speaking of hallucinations and delusions, let's have a look at the
"conferences" you claim you were invited.
Here is your claim:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
1. Here is the program for the first conference:
http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/papers.htm
Wait a minute! This is a conference organized by Tom Van Flandern,
your fellow crackpot. Even though, your shit paper didn't make it.
2. Here is the program for the second conference:
http://ppc08.astro.spbu.ru/fin_program.html
A quick perusal of the section "Gravitation Physics for Cosmology" (I
didn't look at the others), shows that this is a crackpot "conference"
as well. Even then, your shit "paper" didn't make it in.
So, why do you keep lying, Juanshito?
BTW, what is a "canonical researcher"? Are you a canon? Do you sing
while you write?
How many more "reserachers" at your "center for canonical studies"?
Funny thing, your "center" has produced...nothing. Do you have a sugar
daddy like David Thompson to bankroll you?
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote on Sun, 15 Jun 2008 06:51:22 -0700:
>
> > On Jun 15, 5:26 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: [...]
> >> 1) General Relativity does not reduce to Newton gravity. I.e. you were
> >> wrong in the past not me :-)
>
> > Often claimed but never proved.
>
> Don't true and the referee already stated:
>
> (\blockquote
> Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in GR
> )
Then why didn't your article get accepted? Gosh, maybe there's more to
it than that little sentence which - strictly speaking! - is true.
>
> :-)
What else did the referee say? Probably more than that.
>
> > You've been making the assertion for
> > quite awhile now, but you still have presented no new argument on the
> > subject.
>
> > In fact I'm yet to see the steps between "g_uv = n_uv + h_uv" and your
> > conclusion that "d^2x^i/dt^2 = 0". You do dance around it though -
> > plenty of comments about how true it is and how you wrote a nice article
> > about it, along with how it is implied by something else if you remain
> > consistently in linear order in the perturbation. No proof though!
>
> But both Eric Poisson and the referee agree with me that Carroll
> derivation is wrong. The final equation for that metric is (a = 0) just
> like i have obtained and *not* the equation that Carroll writes :-)
Let's see their words. All of them. If you can't figure out why "well
someone else said so" in correspondence you refuse to show isn't a
good enough reason to change my mind, you picked the wrooooong field.
When I say "all of them", I mean "all of them - including the parts
you leave out because they don't make you look good".
All Poisson ever claimed was that GR doesn't have a Newtonian limit
with a flat metric. You posted his exact words - and when it was
pointed out that a flat metric isn't assumed, you changed the wording
to "the correct spatial metric" or somesuch.
Why are you afraid to post exactly what Poisson and the referees
said?
Do you know people notice when you snip out things you don't want to
respond to?
>
> If they are already convinced about this part why would i worry about you
> think?
Because it isn't just me. The next time you take a crack at this and
someone does a basic google search, what will they find?
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
> The metric is different from n_ab and there is _not_ gravitation effect
> on the geodesic.
Let's see the calculation.
>
> Why do you insist on misread everything?
>
> >> He holds a copy of the third version of the draft.
>
> >> Poisson confirmed that derivation given in Carroll is incorrect, and
> >> that the *correct* geodesic equation of motion for *linear* metric
>
> > No blockquote with him saying it?
>
> Two were given.
>
> >> g_ab = n_ab + h_ab
>
> >> with |h|^2 and higher orders terms being zero is
>
> >> (d^2 x^i / dt^2) = 0)
>
> > The only way this is true is if either you neglect the perturbation h_ab
> > in the calculation or say all the Christoffel symbols are zero.
>
> No you are wrong *again*. The symbols are nonzero, indeed they are really
> linear in h :-)
If they are nonzero and linear in h why are they NOT THERE? I can
never remember the permutations of the indices in the geodesic
equation, but I'm almost completely sure there is more to it than what
you wrote down.
>
> You are doing all series of wrong comments about this since time ago both
> here and in spf. But i do not worry because both the referee and Eric
> Poisson (both experts in GR unlike you :-)) already explicitly *agreed*
> with me at this point.
Let's see the words with them _explicitly_ agreeing with you.
So far, all you have shown from the referees and Poisson are things
that are either widely known to be true or irrelevant to the exact
topic under discussion.
[...]
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote on Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:41:23 -0700:
>
> >> GR does when "there is no gravity".
>
> > You are confusing "there is no gravity" [which is silly] with "there is
> > no force of gravity" which is true under general relativity.
>
> Gravity is not a force in GR.
I'm almost completely sure I just said that.
Yep, I did.
>
> > The word "approximation" once again needs to be considered.
>
> Do you understand Carroll statement: "is the same"?
>
> Saying it "is the same" is not saying it "is an approximation", but you
> are lying again :-)
Right from the source: "We would like to see if it predicts Newtonian
gravity in the weak-field, time-independent, slowly-moving-particles
limit."
Which do you think it is? "the same" or "an approximation"? Besides,
Carroll isn't the captain of this particular ship - I think I just got
you onto him because I used the lecture notes as a reference once upon
a time. Look at Wald or MTW some time.
[...]
Juan R.
> On Jun 15, 6:20 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Eric Gisse wrote on Sun, 15 Jun 2008 06:51:22 -0700:
>>
>> > On Jun 15, 5:26 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: [...]
>> >> 1) General Relativity does not reduce to Newton gravity. I.e. you
>> >> were
>> >> wrong in the past not me :-)
>>
>> > Often claimed but never proved.
>>
>> Don't true and the referee already stated:
>>
>> (\blockquote
>> Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in GR
>> )
>
> Then why didn't your article get accepted?
Motives were explained in the OP.
> Gosh, maybe there's more to
> it than that little sentence which - strictly speaking! - is true.
Indeed it is true and Wald 1984 in its page 78:
(\blockquote
Above, we showed that general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity
)
is wrong. GR does not reduce to Newtonian gravity. And Carroll stating
that his equation (4.19) is Newton equation is also wrong :-)
> Let's see their words. All of them. If you can't figure out why "well
> someone else said so" in correspondence you refuse to show isn't a good
> enough reason to change my mind, you picked the wrooooong field.
>
> When I say "all of them", I mean "all of them - including the parts you
> leave out because they don't make you look good".
But you are again lying. I quoted Poisson carefully and in context. He
received a copy of the work and invitation to add something or correct
something he said if he believed quotations on paper would offer not a
*precise* idea of his thinking. He has changed nothing.
> All Poisson ever claimed was that GR doesn't have a Newtonian limit with
> a flat metric. You posted his exact words - and when it was pointed out
> that a flat metric isn't assumed, you changed the wording to "the
> correct spatial metric" or somesuch.
What?
> Why are you afraid to post exactly what Poisson and the referees said?
Replied: I do not care about your lyes.
>> If they are already convinced about this part why would i worry about
>> you think?
>
> Because it isn't just me. The next time you take a crack at this and
> someone does a basic google search, what will they find?
They will find I am wasting time with one guy who don't can read, cannot
take limits, doesn't know how covariantly derive a tensor T_ab and got
difficulties with dimensional analysis of quantities as (1 + 2phi/c^2) :-)
Juan R.
> On Jun 15, 8:26 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/d5814688f0.jpg
>
> Lay off the booze, Juanshito,gives you hallucinations.
>
> Speaking of hallucinations and delusions, let's have a look at the
> "conferences" you claim you were invited.
>
> Here is your claim:
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
>
> 1. Here is the program for the first conference:
>
> http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/papers.htm
>
> Wait a minute! This is a conference organized by Tom Van Flandern, your
> fellow crackpot. Even though, your shit paper didn't make it.
>
> 2. Here is the program for the second conference:
>
> http://ppc08.astro.spbu.ru/fin_program.html
>
> A quick perusal of the section "Gravitation Physics for Cosmology" (I
> didn't look at the others), shows that this is a crackpot "conference"
> as well. Even then, your shit "paper" didn't make it in.
>
> So, why do you keep lying, Juanshito? BTW, what is a "canonical
> researcher"? Are you a canon? Do you sing while you write?
> How many more "reserachers" at your "center for canonical studies"?
> Funny thing, your "center" has produced...nothing. Do you have a sugar
> daddy like David Thompson to bankroll you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSZp3C65vps
*Beni* replies you about 02:16 seconds
Juan R.
> On Jun 15, 7:04 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: [...]
>
>> The metric is different from n_ab and there is _not_ gravitation effect
>> on the geodesic.
>
> Let's see the calculation.
Experts saw it. You may first learn to differentiate and to take
limits :-)
>> >> g_ab = n_ab + h_ab
>>
>> >> with |h|^2 and higher orders terms being zero is
>>
>> >> (d^2 x^i / dt^2) = 0)
>>
>> > The only way this is true is if either you neglect the perturbation
>> > h_ab in the calculation or say all the Christoffel symbols are zero.
>>
>> No you are wrong *again*. The symbols are nonzero, indeed they are
>> really linear in h :-)
>
> If they are nonzero and linear in h why are they NOT THERE? I can never
> remember the permutations of the indices in the geodesic equation, but
> I'm almost completely sure there is more to it than what you wrote down.
You always ignore my advice to study topics before reply. But it is a
good advice!
Juan R.
> On Jun 15, 7:23 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Eric Gisse wrote on Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:41:23 -0700:
>>
>> >> GR does when "there is no gravity".
>>
>> > You are confusing "there is no gravity" [which is silly] with "there
>> > is no force of gravity" which is true under general relativity.
>>
>> Gravity is not a force in GR.
>
> I'm almost completely sure I just said that.
>
> Yep, I did.
I was kindly saying: Eric you took my statement out of context and lye.
>
>
>> > The word "approximation" once again needs to be considered.
>>
>> Do you understand Carroll statement: "is the same"?
>>
>> Saying it "is the same" is not saying it "is an approximation", but you
>> are lying again :-)
>
> Right from the source: "We would like to see if it predicts Newtonian
> gravity in the weak-field, time-independent, slowly-moving-particles
> limit."
And GR does *not* predict Newtonian gravity for those constraints. It was
already shown by me, and confirmed by two GR experts, that geodesic
equation of motion is here (d^2 x^i / dt^2 = 0) and *not* that derived by
Carroll (eq. 4.19)
Of course, your impressive ill-defined comments may be avoided :-)
>
> Which do you think it is? "the same" or "an approximation"? Besides,
Pretty irrelevant that i think, when the own Carroll *says* his (4.19) is
"the same" than Newton equation of motion. But *no*, it is *not*.
> Carroll isn't the captain of this particular ship - I think I just got
> you onto him because I used the lecture notes as a reference once upon a
> time. Look at Wald or MTW some time.
More lye :-)
Dono
So, Juanshito, you got caught lying, eh?
Juan R.
> On Jun 14, 3:20 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:07:56 -0700:
>> > On Jun 13, 3:08 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >> Bryan Olson wrote on Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:56:53 -0700:
> ...
>> >> > Well, he's already responded by posting here and writing a yet
>> >> > longer version of his paper. If you mean responding back to the
>> >> > journal, that conversation appears to be finished.
>>
>> >> I am realist and i do not wait a paper seriously undermining GR to
>> >> be published in a journal devoted to GR :-)
>>
>> > "seriously undermining GR"
>> > Hmm, I see, that's a new one from Juan.
>>
>> >> But i was just curious to know what criticism would be. I want to
>> >> prepare myself about the unfair criticism i will receive by my
>> >> heretic work :-)
>>
>> > Sounds like you're trolling a referee, perhaps treating him as a fool
>> > and an adversary, when you have a splendid opportunity to get free
>> > professional advice. I suggest you work the relationship.
>>
>> It seems you misread again.
>
> Yes, I've corrected myself, I think you are a troll and crack-pot. Your
> lack of english/math/physics skills can be
> corrected, or even overlooked when I see a good natured mature attitude,
> however, Quoting Juan, "seriously undermining GR". Have fun.
> Ken
One can quote many thing. Now i will quote the advice that moderator has
given to you recently on sci.physics.foundation:
(\blockquote
Take a course in elementary maths [Ken]
Juan R.
> http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/d5814688f0.jpg
>
> So, Juanshito, you got caught lying, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSZp3C65vps
*Beni* replies you about 02:16 seconds
You can also enjoy your obsession karand
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7e258350d53dea5a
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4dd841b39e0f978b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4dd841b39e0f978b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1b4d722d708431ff
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b622df514fbecf88
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a4c367f773b801ca
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/07f060b77ac0be52
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ac9bcdceb416fcfc
Ha ha ha ha :-)
Ken S. Tucker
You need a sense of humor.
That discussion is taking place against the
back drop of a possible time reversal asymmetry,
that is in this article about K-meson decay,
http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html
Juan, it's good that you're following that thread,
it's hard work. Apparently differential calulus
cannot be used for that problem, so yes, I did
go over to a more elementary "incremental"
calculus, so yes, I'm boning up on incremental
calculus because the continuum does not apply.
Stay tuned, you might learn something from that
thread.
Ken S. Tucker
Juan R.
>> > Yes, I've corrected myself, I think you are a troll and crack-pot.
>> > Your lack of english/math/physics skills can be corrected, or even
>> > overlooked when I see a good natured mature attitude, however,
>> > Quoting Juan, "seriously undermining GR". Have fun. Ken
>>
>> One can quote many thing. Now i will quote the advice that moderator
>> has given to you recently on sci.physics.foundation:
>>
>> (\blockquote
>> Take a course in elementary maths [Ken]
>> )
>
> You need a sense of humor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSZp3C65vps
> That discussion is taking place against the back drop of a possible time
> reversal asymmetry, that is in this article about K-meson decay,
> http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html
I am rather sure you will obtain several misunderstandings from it :-)
> Juan, it's good that you're following that thread, it's hard work.
Ken remember i already had several replies posted in that tread before
you started to submit some stuff from you own :-)
> Apparently differential calulus cannot be used for that problem, so yes,
> I did go over to a more elementary "incremental" calculus, so yes, I'm
> boning up on incremental calculus because the continuum does not apply.
>
> Stay tuned, you might learn something from that thread.
I am already learning as another moderator taught you to integrate
equations like
dX = 0
Ken S. Tucker
OK! now solve dX =-dX where X=/=0.
I know how to solve that type of problem,
using "incremental calculus".
Ken
Juan R.
> On Jun 16, 10:25 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:53:15 -0700:
>>
>> >> > Yes, I've corrected myself, I think you are a troll and crack-pot.
>> >> > Your lack of english/math/physics skills can be corrected, or even
>> >> > overlooked when I see a good natured mature attitude, however,
>> >> > Quoting Juan, "seriously undermining GR". Have fun. Ken
(snip)
> OK! now solve dX =-dX where X=/=0.
>
> I know how to solve that type of problem, using "incremental calculus".
> Ken
I have asked to mathematics teacher Beni. Beni replies you about 04:20
seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSZp3C65vps
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> > All Poisson ever claimed was that GR doesn't have a Newtonian limit with
> > a flat metric. You posted his exact words - and when it was pointed out
> > that a flat metric isn't assumed, you changed the wording to "the
> > correct spatial metric" or somesuch.
>
> What?
There is no point in continuing if this is a surprise to you - I've
given direct links to the posts where this happened.
[...]
Juan R.
I always wonder by the infinite number of ways to misunderstand something
you can show.
It seems unimportant how many time one chooses to select the precise
works or to explain the weak points.
Puppet_Sock
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Puppet_Sock wrote on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:56:59 -0700:
>
> > On Jun 12, 8:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> I have submitted a draft of my work to top journal on General
> >> Relativity
>
> >> The draft has been rejected (i waited it :-)) in basis to the claim
>
> >> > I find the manuscript extremely poorly written and highly confusing.
> >> > Several of the derivations of the author are simply wrong.
>
> >> I agree that draft was poorly written. It was a second draft of my work
> >> and it was 18 pages long and i just waited extra feedback and criticism
> >> to
> > [snip]
>
> > I'm going to guess that where you wrote "waited" there you meant
> > "wanted."
>
> > What makes you think that a journal exists to give you remedial help
> > with your homework?
>
> You may well misread or miss something.
>
> (rest rant snipped)
>
> P.S: Do not forget the main points: i) General Relativity has not
> Newtonian limit (with usual 'derivations' being wrong) and ii) General
> relativity needs of a dual extension.
No. The "main piont" was that it was a poorly written paper,
by your own estimation. You do not get free editorial help
by sending manuscripts to journals.
If you are not capable of expressing your ideas so that they
can be understood, then it is your problem, not the journal.
You deserve to be blacklisted.
socks
Juan R.
>> > What makes you think that a journal exists to give you remedial help
>> > with your homework?
>>
>> You may well misread or miss something.
>>
>> (rest rant snipped)
>>
>> P.S: Do not forget the main points: i) General Relativity has not
>> Newtonian limit (with usual 'derivations' being wrong) and ii) General
>> relativity needs of a dual extension.
>
> No. The "main piont" was that it was a poorly written paper, by your own
> estimation.
That is a minor 'piont' when compared to mayor points i) and ii) cited
above. But again you prefer to avoid the mayor points emphasizing a minor
issue.
> You do not get free editorial help by sending manuscripts to
> journals.
You may be misreading something important again :-)
> If you are not capable of expressing your ideas so that they can be
> understood, then it is your problem, not the journal.
But did not say were a journal problem. Indeed i agreed with referee at
this part!
Moreover, i also explained i have improved presentation, added tables,
and changed notation for math. E.g. i changed analysis done in proper
frame to coordinate frame to do more easy the link with Newtonian results.
> You deserve to be
> blacklisted.
> socks
That may be your real interest instead the novel research findings.