Dono we still wait for your proof!!!
Juan R.
Most people here think you are an ignorant troll who would post in
alt.crackpot, but I explained them that is not right. You are a very
smart guy with impressive knowledge of physics.
We would acknowledge you if you could devote 5 minutes of your time to
write a proof that H=L when V=0 in relativity.
Eric already wrote a proof, but you could complement it with your
infinite knowledge and wisdom.
Please do not dissapoint your club of fans :-)
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir Dono, today you look specially smart and kindly :-)
>
>
> write a proof that H=L when V=0 in relativity.
>
After all this time, you still don't know what a Hamiltonian is,
Juanshito.
> Eric already wrote a proof, but you could complement it with your
> infinite knowledge and wisdom.
>
In other words, Eric already proved you to be an ignorant faker.
> Please do not dissapoint your club of fans :-)
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
"Club of fans", Juanshito? Learn English, old goat.
Juanshito, old fart
L=-m0c^2/gamma-e*phi+eAv
where:
B=curl A
E=-dA/dt-grad(phi)
p=gamma*m0*v
H=pv-L=pv+m0c^2/gamma+e*phi-eAv=gamma*m0*v^2+m0c^2/gamma+e*phi-eAv
Now, answer the question I asked you 6 months ago: derive L. Let's see
you do it, old nutter.
Juan R.
> On Dec 2, 4:00 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Dear Sir Dono, today you look specially smart and kindly :-)
>>
>>
>> We would acknowledge you if you could devote 5 minutes of your time to
>> write a proof that H=L when V=0 in relativity.
>>
>>
> After all this time, you still don't know what a Hamiltonian is,
> Juanshito.
Sorry if I did not express in the correct way, great master of Universe,
the original question was not about what a Hamiltonian is.
We simply waited you could devote 5 minutes of your very important time
to explain to us your thinking that H=L when V=0 in relativity.
>> Eric already wrote a proof, but you could complement it with your
>> infinite knowledge and wisdom.
>>
>>
> In other words, Eric already proved you to be an ignorant faker.
Eric was kindly enough to fill our minds with his expertise knowledge. He
said us that L = T - V and H = T + V. Therefore, when V=0, follows that
H=L in relativity.
Eric did us this, but he leaved out details like, for instance, when V=0.
You also said that H=L when V=0. I think you could fill the holes and
giving us a master lesson.
>> Please do not dissapoint your club of fans :-)
>>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
>
>
> "Club of fans", Juanshito? Learn English, old goat.
Sorry by my lack of skill of language Dono. Please forget that and help
us to understand above question.
> Juanshito, old fart
Many thanks by this excellent derivation Dono. I did not wait enough
attention to it in the past anbd deleted.
My apologies Dono. I understand now that my knowledge of physics is not
rival for yours. Here and therefore, I will pay more atention to your
posts.
I recognize the errors when I make Dono and, I repeat again, I would not
delete your derivation as I did in the past. I would learn more from it!
I think that, if you agree, I will add your derivation to the blog for
anyone can learn more.
> L=-m0c^2/gamma-e*phi+eAv
>
> where:
>
> B=curl A
> E=-dA/dt-grad(phi)
>
> p=gamma*m0*v
>
> H=pv-L=pv+m0c^2/gamma+e*phi-eAv=gamma*m0*v^2+m0c^2/gamma+e*phi-eAv
>
>
> Now, answer the question I asked you 6 months ago: derive L. Let's see
> you do it, old nutter.
Thanks by using your precious time to solve this elementary question we
could not solve without your help Dono.
Sorry to be look so idiotic, you may understand not everyone have the
same intelligence, but I think that your derivation does not solves the
original question of why H=L when V=0 as you and Eric said.
In a previous message you replied that when v=0 H =-L. I think that I
agree but I still cannot understand how H=L is compatible with H=-L
except when L=0.
Is that right Dono?
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry to be look so idiotic, you may understand not everyone have the
> same intelligence,
You look idiotic because you ARE idiotic, old fart :-)
> In a previous message you replied that when v=0 H =-L. I think that I
> agree
Then shut the fuk up !
> but I still cannot understand how H=L is compatible with H=-L
> except when L=0.
>
> Is that right Dono?
Old fart, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez
If u agree that H=pv-L, then, when you make v=0 , what do you get, old
imbecile?
Juan R.
I found the message from you, it is here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/0c7a40d3132a5241
There you say "H=pv-L v=0 implies H=-L"
Juan R.
> On Dec 2, 8:22 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to be look so idiotic, you may understand not everyone have the
>> same intelligence,
>
>
> You look idiotic because you ARE idiotic, old fart :-)
I already offered you my apologies, and said in my message
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2a7d43ae27181de9
that I will copy and paste in the blog your previous derivation in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7c1b2697a4e73960
Of course, giving you all the credit for it.
What more could I do?
>> In a previous message you replied that when v=0 H =-L. I think that I
>> agree
>
> Then shut the fuk up !
>
>> but I still cannot understand how H=L is compatible with H=-L except
>> when L=0.
>>
>> Is that right Dono?
>
>
> Old fart, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez
>
> If u agree that H=pv-L, then, when you make v=0 , what do you get, old
> imbecile?
I start from H=pv-L and making v=0 I get H=-L.
Sorry to look again idiotic, but I have two problems Dono. If you agree
and you have some time to waste with an idiot as me, I will explain them
here.
First, the present result (H = -L) is not the same than the result (H =
L) that you and Eric wrote in the past.
I think I could find the message where you said that (H = L) without the
minus sign you write now. Is that sign unimportant then Dono?
My second problem is that "v" is not the same than "V" in the formulation
given by Eric. I think you can see the message here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2a7d43ae27181de9
It is (L = T - V) and (H = T + V) and doing V = 0 you and Eric obtained
(L = T) and (H = T) or (H = L)
I can understand those are trivial matters for anyone so smart as you,
but I have string difficulties. If you could help me a bit with this
issue I promise that I will not disturb you more Dono.
I did learn the lesson!!
Juan R.
Sorry by this typo I did mean "strong difficulties".
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry to look again idiotic, but I have two problems Dono. If you agree
> and you have some time to waste with an idiot as me, I will explain them
> here.
>
That you are indeed, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez
Your problem stems from the fact that, despite your pretenses, you
don't understand anything about the Hamilton-Lagrange formalism.
1. First you have H=T+V and L=T-V, where V means potential energy and
T means kinetic energy.
Obvuoisly, FOR THE PARTICULAR CONDITION V=0 you get H=L. For THIS
particular condition, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez, old fart.
2. On the other hand, H is defined as pv-L, where v=SPEED.
FOR THE DIFFERENT CONDITION v=0, H(0)=-L(0). The reason for the "(0)"
is that both the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are functions of "v".
So, if you make v=0......
The "H" at point 1 is UNRELATED to the H(0) ate point 2, IMBECILE.
During the 6 months you have posted your garbage you didn't figure
this out, dumbshit?
If you want to learn about the Hamilton formalism, you can read more
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_mechanics#Basic_physical_interpretation
Juan R.
> On Dec 2, 9:07 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to look again idiotic, but I have two problems Dono. If you agree
>> and you have some time to waste with an idiot as me, I will explain
>> them here.
>>
>>
> That you are indeed, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez
>
> Your problem stems from the fact that, despite your pretenses, you don't
> understand anything about the Hamilton-Lagrange formalism.
>
> 1. First you have H=T+V and L=T-V, where V means potential energy and T
> means kinetic energy.
> Obvuoisly, FOR THE PARTICULAR CONDITION V=0 you get H=L. For THIS
> particular condition, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez, old fart.
>
> 2. On the other hand, H is defined as pv-L, where v=SPEED. FOR THE
> DIFFERENT CONDITION v=0, H(0)=-L(0). The reason for the "(0)" is that
> both the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are functions of "v". So, if you
> make v=0......
Thanks by this informative response Dono!
As promised you, I will copy and paste in my blog the fascinating
derivation of the Hamiltonian you wrote in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f5bee64f3b044249
and those informative remarks you wrote now. Of course, you will receive
the credit you really deserve Dono. No other author in the Universe could
be writting that fascinating material.
I think some day you would write your own book. May sound topical but
anyone in the world would have the possibility to read your writtings,
your clever derivations, and your rigorous logic.
> The "H" at point 1 is UNRELATED to the H(0) ate point 2, IMBECILE.
> During the 6 months you have posted your garbage you didn't figure this
> out, dumbshit?
Receive my apologies again, Dono. As said in my previous message
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4d18f25c4b6055b9
I will not ask you more because my interest has been satisfied beyond I
could imagine!
Sincerely, I supposed that you would be hungry and would not reply me,
but you did. Thanks Dono! Thanks very much!
> If you want to learn about the Hamilton formalism, you can read more
> here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hamiltonian_mechanics#Basic_physical_interpretation
I have just asked in sci.physics.foundations for a list of elementary
textbooks for someone who has no idea of the topic.
If the message is approved, I will use the references also in the blog.
Juan R.
> Dono wrote on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:36:06 -0800:
>
>> On Dec 2, 9:07 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
>> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry to look again idiotic, but I have two problems Dono. If you
>>> agree and you have some time to waste with an idiot as me, I will
>>> explain them here.
>>>
>>>
>> That you are indeed, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez
>>
>> Your problem stems from the fact that, despite your pretenses, you
>> don't understand anything about the Hamilton-Lagrange formalism.
>>
>> 1. First you have H=T+V and L=T-V, where V means potential energy and T
>> means kinetic energy.
>> Obvuoisly, FOR THE PARTICULAR CONDITION V=0 you get H=L. For THIS
>> particular condition, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez, old fart.
>>
>> 2. On the other hand, H is defined as pv-L, where v=SPEED. FOR THE
>> DIFFERENT CONDITION v=0, H(0)=-L(0). The reason for the "(0)" is that
>> both the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are functions of "v". So, if
>> you make v=0......
>
> Thanks by this informative response Dono!
>
> As promised you, I will copy and paste in my blog the fascinating
> derivation of the Hamiltonian you wrote in
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/
f5bee64f3b044249
Sorry, this is not the correct link. The link is next
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7c1b2697a4e73960
It is a pity I was, in your own words, a PRETENDER, because otherwise I
would promote you, Dono, for the Nobel Prize for physics 2009.
Juan R.
Dono I think more people deserve the right to know those shocking
derivations you give.
I believe more people would know how 'smart' you are and your 'master'
level of relativity, electrodynamics and mechanics.
I am resubmiting to other groups.
Juan R.
Dono I think more people deserve the right to know those shocking
Juan R.
Juan R.
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Dono wrote on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:36:06 -0800:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 9:07 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> >> Sorry to look again idiotic, but I have two problems Dono. If you agree
> >> and you have some time to waste with an idiot as me, I will explain
> >> them here.
>
> > That you are indeed, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez
>
> > Your problem stems from the fact that, despite your pretenses, you don't
> > understand anything about the Hamilton-Lagrange formalism.
>
> > 1. First you have H=T+V and L=T-V, where V means potential energy and T
> > means kinetic energy.
> > Obvuoisly, FOR THE PARTICULAR CONDITION V=0 you get H=L. For THIS
> > particular condition, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez, old fart.
>
> > 2. On the other hand, H is defined as pv-L, where v=SPEED. FOR THE
> > DIFFERENT CONDITION v=0, H(0)=-L(0). The reason for the "(0)" is that
> > both the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are functions of "v". So, if you
> > make v=0......
>
> Thanks by this informative response Dono!
>
> As promised you, I will copy and paste in my blog the fascinating
> derivation of the Hamiltonian you wrote in
>
>
> and those informative remarks you wrote now. Of course, you will receive
> the credit you really deserve Dono. No other author in the Universe could
> be writting that fascinating material.
>
> I think some day you would write your own book. May sound topical but
> anyone in the world would have the possibility to read your writtings,
> your clever derivations, and your rigorous logic.
>
> > The "H" at point 1 is UNRELATED to the H(0) ate point 2, IMBECILE.
> > During the 6 months you have posted your garbage you didn't figure this
> > out, dumbshit?
>
> Receive my apologies again, Dono. As said in my previous message
>
>
> I will not ask you more because my interest has been satisfied beyond I
> could imagine!
>
> Sincerely, I supposed that you would be hungry and would not reply me,
> but you did. Thanks Dono! Thanks very much!
>
> > If you want to learn about the Hamilton formalism, you can read more
> > here:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>
> Hamiltonian_mechanics#Basic_physical_interpretation
>
> I have just asked in sci.physics.foundations for a list of elementary
> textbooks for someone who has no idea of the topic.
>
> If the message is approved, I will use the references also in the blog.
>
Juan Alvarez Gonzalez,
So now you managed to demonstrate that you are a bigger MORON than
Albertshito Zotkin, Richard Perry and Marcel Lattkes combined,
congratulkations, old fart!
Juan R.
I already expressed my apologies to you twice. What more could I do?
Dono
Juan Alvarez Gonzalez,
You already embarassed yourself thoroughly as a crackpot in this
forum, I can't wait to see you embarassing yourself further in other
fora. Go right ahead, old fart :-)
Juan R.
This was a trap for trolls... and a big troll fell into the trap.
Juan R.
> On Dec 2, 4:00 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Dear Sir Dono, today you look specially smart and kindly :-)
>>
>>
>> We would acknowledge you if you could devote 5 minutes of your time to
>> write a proof that H=L when V=0 in relativity.
>>
>>
> After all this time, you still don't know what a Hamiltonian is,
> Juanshito.
>
>> Eric already wrote a proof, but you could complement it with your
>> infinite knowledge and wisdom.
>>
>>
> In other words, Eric already proved you to be an ignorant faker.
>
>> Please do not dissapoint your club of fans :-)
>>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
>
>
> "Club of fans", Juanshito? Learn English, old goat.
>
And the real entertainment starts _here_
> Juanshito, old fart
>
> L=-m0c^2/gamma-e*phi+eAv
>
> where:
>
> B=curl A
> E=-dA/dt-grad(phi)
nonsense
> p=gamma*m0*v
nonsense
> H=pv-L=pv+m0c^2/gamma+e*phi-eAv=gamma*m0*v^2+m0c^2/gamma+e*phi-eAv
nonsense
> Now, answer the question I asked you 6 months ago: derive L. Let's see
> you do it, old nutter.
Thanks dono you fell into the trap :-)
Juan R.
This distraction tactic worked :-)
>> Juanshito, old fart
>
> Many thanks by this excellent derivation Dono. I did not wait enough
> attention to it in the past anbd deleted.
>
> My apologies Dono. I understand now that my knowledge of physics is not
> rival for yours. Here and therefore, I will pay more atention to your
> posts.
Each time I want ridiculize you again :-)
> I recognize the errors when I make Dono and, I repeat again, I would not
> delete your derivation as I did in the past. I would learn more from it!
For instance, how many times an troll as you can shows he is a
crackpot :-)
> I think that, if you agree, I will add your derivation to the blog for
> anyone can learn more.
I will do. I will copy and paste your fascinating derivation in a new
article titled "How hunt a troll"
>> L=-m0c^2/gamma-e*phi+eAv
>>
>> where:
>>
>> B=curl A
>> E=-dA/dt-grad(phi)
>>
>> p=gamma*m0*v
>>
>> H=pv-L=pv+m0c^2/gamma+e*phi-eAv=gamma*m0*v^2+m0c^2/gamma+e*phi-eAv
You can delete your nonsensical posts, This time I have reproduced them
completely in many places, linked to original messages and crossposted to
other groups :-)
>>
>> Now, answer the question I asked you 6 months ago: derive L. Let's see
>> you do it, old nutter.
>
> Thanks by using your precious time to solve this elementary question we
> could not solve without your help Dono.
>
> Sorry to be look so idiotic, you may understand not everyone have the
> same intelligence, but I think that your derivation does not solves the
> original question of why H=L when V=0 as you and Eric said.
>
> In a previous message you replied that when v=0 H =-L. I think that I
> agree but I still cannot understand how H=L is compatible with H=-L
> except when L=0.
>
> Is that right Dono?
A big troll fell into the trap :-)
Juan R.
I was hunting a big troll... and he finally fell into the trap :-)
Juan R.
This is second part of the trap... and a big troll fell into :-)
> I can understand those are trivial matters for anyone so smart as you,
> but I have string difficulties. If you could help me a bit with this
> issue I promise that I will not disturb you more Dono.
>
> I did learn the lesson!!
Effectively, you are one troll _and_ one crackpot!
Juan R.
> On Dec 2, 9:07 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to look again idiotic, but I have two problems Dono. If you agree
>> and you have some time to waste with an idiot as me, I will explain
>> them here.
>>
>>
> That you are indeed, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez
>
> Your problem stems from the fact that, despite your pretenses, you don't
> understand anything about the Hamilton-Lagrange formalism.
>
> 1. First you have H=T+V and L=T-V, where V means potential energy and T
> means kinetic energy.
> Obvuoisly, FOR THE PARTICULAR CONDITION V=0 you get H=L. For THIS
> particular condition, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez, old fart.
And you caught in the trap by second time :-)
This is the same nonsense that Eric and you said regarding relativity.
Eric was caught in full, but you deleted your nonsensical messages and I
only could find some few
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
msg/6db93e88919413fe?
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
Now I have again your complete nonsensical posts inclkuding the links to
messages :-)
> 2. On the other hand, H is defined as pv-L, where v=SPEED. FOR THE
> DIFFERENT CONDITION v=0, H(0)=-L(0). The reason for the "(0)" is that
> both the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are functions of "v". So, if you
> make v=0......
>
> The "H" at point 1 is UNRELATED to the H(0) ate point 2, IMBECILE.
> During the 6 months you have posted your garbage you didn't figure this
> out, dumbshit?
I was preparing a trap for a big troll and... he fell into the trap :-)
Juan R.
> Dono wrote on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:36:06 -0800:
>
>> On Dec 2, 9:07 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
>> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry to look again idiotic, but I have two problems Dono. If you
>>> agree and you have some time to waste with an idiot as me, I will
>>> explain them here.
>>>
>>>
>> That you are indeed, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez
>>
>> Your problem stems from the fact that, despite your pretenses, you
>> don't understand anything about the Hamilton-Lagrange formalism.
>>
>> 1. First you have H=T+V and L=T-V, where V means potential energy and T
>> means kinetic energy.
>> Obvuoisly, FOR THE PARTICULAR CONDITION V=0 you get H=L. For THIS
>> particular condition, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez, old fart.
>>
>> 2. On the other hand, H is defined as pv-L, where v=SPEED. FOR THE
>> DIFFERENT CONDITION v=0, H(0)=-L(0). The reason for the "(0)" is that
>> both the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are functions of "v". So, if
>> you make v=0......
>
> Thanks by this informative response Dono!
Indeed troll!
> As promised you, I will copy and paste in my blog the fascinating
> derivation of the Hamiltonian you wrote in
Fascinating does not mean good! Fascinating mean everyone remain
fascinated reading your nonsense crackpot :-)
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/
f5bee64f3b044249
>
> and those informative remarks you wrote now. Of course, you will receive
> the credit you really deserve Dono. No other author in the Universe
> could be writting that fascinating material.
Evidently, who more in the universe could write that pile of nonsense?
Only dono the troll could!
> I think some day you would write your own book. May sound topical but
> anyone in the world would have the possibility to read your writtings,
> your clever derivations, and your rigorous logic.
And laugh!
>> The "H" at point 1 is UNRELATED to the H(0) ate point 2, IMBECILE.
>> During the 6 months you have posted your garbage you didn't figure this
>> out, dumbshit?
>
> Receive my apologies again, Dono. As said in my previous message
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
msg/4d18f25c4b6055b9
>
> I will not ask you more because my interest has been satisfied beyond I
> could imagine!
I waited you to repeat the mistakes about H = T + V and L = T - V as you
and Eric did before. But you offered us more nonsenses. We already knew
you are an ignorant on relativity and mechanics. Now we know you have NFI
of electrodynamics as well :-)
> Sincerely, I supposed that you would be hungry and would not reply me,
> but you did. Thanks Dono! Thanks very much!
Thanks by proving that you are troll easy to hunt :-)
Juan R.
Evidently, I was being ironic :-) At the best you deserve the honor to be
nominated to more stupid and easy to hunt troll :-)
>> and those informative remarks you wrote now. Of course, you will
>> receive the credit you really deserve Dono. No other author in the
>> Universe could be writting that fascinating material.
As remarked before, you will deserve *all credit* for the nonsense you
wrote *crackpot* :-)
Juan R.
I demonstrate something different. It is very easy to hunt a troll as
you :-)
Juan R.
Juan R.
Now more people can laugh with your nonsenses :-)
And when you start again to insult some poster in those newsgroups, they
will reminder you this episode :-)
A new article in my blog will explain how easy is to hunt a troll as you.
That article will complement the one next
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
iii-nasty.html
Juan R.
Now more people can laugh with your nonsenses :-)
Juan R.
Now more people can laugh with your nonsenses :-)
Juan R.
Now more people can laugh with your nonsenses :-)
And when you start again to insult some poster in those newsgroups, they
will reminder you this episode :-)
A new article in my blog will explain how easy is to hunt a troll as you.
That new article will complement the one next available now
Juan R.
before. I proved you have no idea of relativity or maechanics. Now we
know you has no idea of electrodynamics also.
Now more people in other fora can laugh at you :-)
And when you start again to insult some poster in those newsgroups, they
will reminder you this episode :-)
A new article in my blog will explain how easy is to hunt a troll as you.
And the recent nonsenses you wrote. That new article will complement the
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
The trap showed your ignorance, see here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f5bee64f3b044249
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>
> > You already embarassed yourself thoroughly as a crackpot in this forum,
> > I can't wait to see you embarassing yourself further in other fora. Go
> > right ahead, old fart :-)
>
>
> And the recent nonsenses you wrote. That new article will complement the
> one next available now
>
The person that fell in the trap is one shameless,persistent crackpot
named Juan Alvarez Gonzalez:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f5bee64f3b044249
What I don'y understand is once you have been shown a crackpot, why do
you adverise on multiple boards, Juan Alvarez Gonzalez?