Re: The speed of gravity revisited

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:51:59 -0700:

On Jun 2, 3:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:43:04 -0700:



On Jun 1, 6:38 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 11:58:18 -0700:
...
Juan, from the standpoint of objective science, I've attempted to
extend to you TVF and Eugene, the benefit of doubt, and I can
argue, on your behalf for you, given any plausible argument. The
MST "modern-spacetime.pdf" is the best we have so far,
improvements are welcome sir.

But, at least I can provide good theoretics in 2 pages, posted!

You boys (Juan, TVF and Eugene) need 200 pages to make your point,
what ever the *** it is, I've still haven't figured out what your
trying to do except being infactuated with Minkowski's Group(oo),
well I know everything about that Group, so what. Maybe I should
advise you guys on G(oo)!

I agree that one can write a 2 pages 'article' (and even one with
zero pages) iff one decides to ignore all the fundamental questions
and just repeat the *mistakes* were already corrected in print (e.g.
in the cited articles in Physical Review and other top journals).

I usually don't cite Physical Review as it is not available online.

Now understand :-)

P.S: Ken, your misunderstanding about groups was addressed three or
four times before.

I'm afraid the Group(oo) is implausible and without any physical
empiricism so far. However as a mathematical tool, it does have
advantages in some simplistic problems, which is 99.9% of physics.
It's when you (Juan and gang) sell your ideas as a *new truth* when
in fact it's currently a simplification of very old ideas.

You got all wrong again Ken, "extension" is the contrary of
"simplification" :-)

Well you Juan are right, I did make a mistake.

Everybody makes mistakes Ken.

The problem is when you misread others, make false accusations about the
work of others (work you do *not* know) and *repeat* the accusations even
after being kindly pointed about the mistake.

As i already pointed here several times, I am working in an *extension*
of both SR and GR. The theories of SR and GR are recovered in a well-
defined limit of a more general and sophisticated theory.

The theory reduces to GR and explains *why* the speed of gravity in GR
coincides with the speed of gravity. However this is not true in the
generalized theory.

The new theory is a sophisticated formulation based in mathematics and
physics developed in last few years. Technically it is a nongeometrical
DPI many-body theory in Liouville space with universal evolution
parameter.

As already said GR results are obtained as special case and the limits of
geometry and spacetime fixed :-)

Your accusation of using 1908 physics and maths looks thus completely
irrelevant and your re-accusations look very unfair :-)

(rest sniped) :-)


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org
.

Quantcast