Gravitation is not geometrical
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Do you want to chat with troll Dono about relativity?, try this
Next: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
From: Sam Wormley on 28 Nov 2008 14:46 Albertito wrote: > On Nov 28, 7:09 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> Albertito wrote: >>> On Nov 28, 6:56 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: >>>>> Sam Wormley wrote on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:19:55 +0000: >>>>>> General Relativity is a theory invented by Albert Einstein >>>>> General Relativity is the result of the work of a number of authors. Main >>>>> authors were Einstein, Grossman[n], and Hilbert. >>>>> Attributing GR to Einstein alone is, of course, historically inacurate. >>>> There are many who are not comfortable with non-intuitive aspects >>>> of modern physics, such as the quantum mechanics and relativity. >>>> What is important is that the resulting physical theories are very >>>> fruitful. Take relativity, for example. Are you aware that there has >>>> never been a prediction of relativity that was contradicted by an >>>> observation? >>> Yes, I'm aware of that. For example, gravit[at]ional waves >>> are prediction of relativity. Since, gravitational waves >>> will never be observed, its non-observation never will >>> contradict relativity! >> Hulse and Taylor > > Only direct evidence count, indirect evidence does not count, > if the scientific method is what you are applying. > > You mean only direct evidence counts for electrons, photons, atoms, p-p-chain in the core of the sun, black holes and gravitational radiation?
From: Eric Gisse on 28 Nov 2008 21:39 On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:33:55 +0100 (CET), "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREMOVE(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >Eric Gisse wrote on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:42:33 -0800: > >> What manner of stupidity is this? You wrote "Hrvoje Nikoli", and that is >> what I searched for. Google scholar gave exactly one article from this >> guy on gravity - and it was the same one you cited me. > >Scholar also gives the correct reference > >http://scholar.google.es/scholar?q=Hrvoje+Nikoli&hl=es&lr=&btnG=Buscar&lr= > >The work is "Some Remarks on a Nongeometrical Interpretation of Gravity >and the Flatness Problem" Which I read, and found severely wanting. > >Why do you lied that he never published in non-geometrical gravity? Because the one article by "Hrvoje Nikoli" is neither peer-reviewed or actaully about non-geometrical gravity. > >Why do you lied that he never submitted to ArXiV? Because there are no articles by "Hrvoje Nikoli" in arXiv. You made a typo on the name. It happens. Just don't try to deflect onto me because I trusted what you wrote.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Nov 2008 08:03 Eric Gisse wrote on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:39:22 -0800: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:33:55 +0100 (CET), "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREMOVE(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >>Eric Gisse wrote on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:42:33 -0800: >> >>> What manner of stupidity is this? You wrote "Hrvoje Nikoli", and that >>> is what I searched for. Google scholar gave exactly one article from >>> this guy on gravity - and it was the same one you cited me. >> >>Scholar also gives the correct reference >> >>http://scholar.google.es/scholar?q=Hrvoje +Nikoli&hl=es&lr=&btnG=Buscar&lr= Sorry a typo the Scholar URL is http://scholar.google.es/scholar?hl=es&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Hrvoje+Nikoli% 22&btnG=Buscar&lr= The works appears in the first place in the list. >>The work is "Some Remarks on a Nongeometrical Interpretation of Gravity >>and the Flatness Problem" > > Which I read, and found severely wanting. Who is interested in you opinion? I am not. >>Why do you lied that he never published in non-geometrical gravity? > > Because the one article by "Hrvoje Nikoli" is neither peer-reviewed or > actaully about non-geometrical gravity. Everyone can see again you are a dishonest liar :-) "Some Remarks on a Nongeometrical Interpretation of Gravity and the Flatness Problem" published in http://www.springerlink.com/index/K68V7065J217222U.pdf -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Nov 2008 09:14 eric gisse wrote on Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:43:04 -0900: > On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:03:41 +0100 (CET), "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREMOVE(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: [...] > >>>>The work is "Some Remarks on a Nongeometrical Interpretation of >>>>Gravity and the Flatness Problem" >>> >>> Which I read, and found severely wanting. >> >>Who is interested in you opinion? I am not. > > For someone who insists on fringe viewpoints, you are amazingly > reluctant to discuss a viewpoint that does not align with your own. Who is interested in *your* opinion? I am not :-) >>Everyone can see again you are a dishonest liar :-) > > Nikolic is the chief editor of the journal, and the article doesn't > actually discuss non-geometrical gravitation. Why do you change your arguments in each new nonsensical posting you submit? You simply look more dishonest and dissispirate :-) First you said there exist not work... but there exists After you said work was not about non-geometrical theory... but it is After you said work was not peer-reviewed... but it was Now you claim Nikolic to be the chief editor... but he is not http://www.springer.com/physics/journal/10714 As stated everyone can see again you are a dishonest liar Eric :-) "Some Remarks on a Nongeometrical Interpretation of Gravity and the Flatness Problem" peer-reviewed and published in http://www.springerlink.com/index/K68V7065J217222U.pdf > FYI: Just because he _SAYS_ it is nongeometric does not _mean_ it is > nongeometric. Especially when the theory does not differ from general > relativity in any way. Just because you _SAY_ it is geometric does not _mean_ it was geometric. Especially when you show NFI of physics :-) -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Nov 2008 09:20
Sam Wormley wrote on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:34:42 +0000: > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: >> Sam Wormley wrote on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:11:36 +0000: >> >>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: >>>> Sam Wormley wrote on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:58:07 +0000: >>>> >>>>> Cite supporting references, please. >>>> You already said *before* that GR explains any observation. Cite the >>>> references supporting your claims! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> You are the one, Juan, claiming failures of GTR, not me. >> >> You are the one, Sam, claiming "there has never been a prediction of >> relativity that was contradicted by an observation", not me. >> >> Waiting your references that above tests and observation cited in the >> OP are in agreement with GR :-) >> >> >> > You have no claim. *You* said "there has never been a prediction of relativity that was contradicted by an observation". Still waiting your references about tests and observation cited in the OP :-) -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ |