Re: Who will stun the world as next Einstein?

From: John C. Polasek (jpolasek_at_cfl.rr.com)
Date: 02/02/05 

Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:12:13 -0500

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 06:04:35 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:

>
>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:2dg0011oc8h6u0oi1mkd65ft5fmm4h6vlc@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:55:39 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
snip
>> >Because a vector equals a vector and a scalar equals a scalar. But what
>can
>> >I expect from Mr Dual Space - you can not even get basic facts about the
>> >history of the positron and Dirac correct. I notice you never apologized
>to
>> >me about that. Like most cranks you live in a dream world and refuse to
>> >face facts.
>> >
>> >Bill
>> >
snip
>
>As both a mathematician and a person interested in physics I know a scalar
>is a scalar and a vector is a vector.
>
>> There is just a whole bunch of field theory that hinges
>> on equipotentials and the gradient thereof and of which you are
>> totally unaware. You keep coming back with your insipid arguments.
>
snip
>>
>> I pointed out to you the 3 vector components of grad, and you should
>> by now also be congizant of the fact that with spherical symmetry, the
>> only derivative is with r, the other three are nil. So by not
>> mentioning them does not demote my gradient to your profane
>> deriviative.
>> Don't go on with your sophomoric rantings about derivatives not
>> making a vector. The derivative with r is what's left of the operator.
>
>Are you consignment of the fact -mg/r^2 has one component so can not equal
>the grad of anything which has 3 components? Obviously not by your
>irrelevant ramblings.
>
>Bill
>
snip

OK Bill try this. I wrote a whole new law of gravity by adapting the
Navier Stokes equation

        grad P = -rho g

leading me to add 1 term to Newton's equation:

        d(c^2/2)/dr = MG/r^2 = -g

which you can see as my Eq. (1) of my new gravity theory on my website
http://www.dualspace.net.

There you can see, with some study, that this new derivative term by
itself does all the work, in open handed fashion, of all the cryptic
time-manglings of the timelike Schwarzschild metric.

For example, take a look at how it computes, piece by piece, the 4
separate corrections needed in the GPS system.

I would not know how to proceed if I had to keep to the grad
formulation, except to affix the Kronecker delta D_ir so we would
have del_i D_ir = del_r being the derivative vs r.

Instead of arguing about what the OP said the other day, you will find
plenty of equations in my paper to mull over and cut to pieces, and,
today only, I'll give you $10 apiece for each error in mathematics
that you find, scrivener's errors aside.

John Polasek

Relevant Pages