Danny Ross Lunsford
Nov30-04, 12:50 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>antimatter33@yahoo.com (Danny Ross Lunsford) wrote in message news:<2b93dd16.0411240638.9fb7e13@posting.google.c om>...\n> chris.auburn@gmail.com wrote\n>\n> > Now I really, really do not want this thread to become another string\n> > theory discussion. The point is that John\'s critique on the fixed\n> > background was deep and non-trivial. IF Sweetser has shown that the\n> > background metric can be either flat or curved to accurately describe a\n> > point charge - electrically neutral or not - logically it appears to me\n> > to flatten the critique. Does anyone else here think Sweeter has\n> > pulled a rabbit out of the hat?\n>\n> No. One, I see no theory - I see some elementary operations with\n> quaternions and dubious "hypotheses". Two - as has been pointed out to\n> him many times, by me and by others, gravity can never, NEVER be a\n> vector-based theory and remain consistent with observations. To make\n> your own observation that shows the necessity of a tensor field\n> theory, go down to Wal*Mart and purchase for yourself a GPS locating\n> device. As Richard Taylor has pointed out, those things require GR\n> corrections, and the corrections are totally consistent with tensor\n> gravity. Gravity is a tensor theory - period.\n>\n> The truth is, Sweetser is obsessed with quaternion and seems to think that\n> physics ends with the Pauli matrices. Quaternion obsession has a\n> characteristic symptom - the victim refuses to learn or be told\n> anything else.\n>\n> -drl\n\nI should have said Edwin Taylor. You can read about GPS and GR here:\n\nhttp://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf\n\nApology to Prof. Taylor.\n\n-drl\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>antimatter33@yahoo.com (Danny Ross Lunsford) wrote in message news:<2b93dd16.0411240638.9fb7e13@posting.google.com>...
> chris.auburn@gmail.com wrote
>
> > Now I really, really do not want this thread to become another string
> > theory discussion. The point is that John's critique on the fixed
> > background was deep and non-trivial. IF Sweetser has shown that the
> > background metric can be either flat or curved to accurately describe a
> > point charge - electrically neutral or not - logically it appears to me
> > to flatten the critique. Does anyone else here think Sweeter has
> > pulled a rabbit out of the hat?
>
> No. One, I see no theory - I see some elementary operations with
> quaternions and dubious "hypotheses". Two - as has been pointed out to
> him many times, by me and by others, gravity can never, NEVER be a
> vector-based theory and remain consistent with observations. To make
> your own observation that shows the necessity of a tensor field
> theory, go down to Wal*Mart and purchase for yourself a GPS locating
> device. As Richard Taylor has pointed out, those things require GR
> corrections, and the corrections are totally consistent with tensor
> gravity. Gravity is a tensor theory - period.
>
> The truth is, Sweetser is obsessed with quaternion and seems to think that
> physics ends with the Pauli matrices. Quaternion obsession has a
> characteristic symptom - the victim refuses to learn or be told
> anything else.
>
> -drl
I should have said Edwin Taylor. You can read about GPS and GR here:
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Apology to Prof. Taylor.
-drl
> chris.auburn@gmail.com wrote
>
> > Now I really, really do not want this thread to become another string
> > theory discussion. The point is that John's critique on the fixed
> > background was deep and non-trivial. IF Sweetser has shown that the
> > background metric can be either flat or curved to accurately describe a
> > point charge - electrically neutral or not - logically it appears to me
> > to flatten the critique. Does anyone else here think Sweeter has
> > pulled a rabbit out of the hat?
>
> No. One, I see no theory - I see some elementary operations with
> quaternions and dubious "hypotheses". Two - as has been pointed out to
> him many times, by me and by others, gravity can never, NEVER be a
> vector-based theory and remain consistent with observations. To make
> your own observation that shows the necessity of a tensor field
> theory, go down to Wal*Mart and purchase for yourself a GPS locating
> device. As Richard Taylor has pointed out, those things require GR
> corrections, and the corrections are totally consistent with tensor
> gravity. Gravity is a tensor theory - period.
>
> The truth is, Sweetser is obsessed with quaternion and seems to think that
> physics ends with the Pauli matrices. Quaternion obsession has a
> characteristic symptom - the victim refuses to learn or be told
> anything else.
>
> -drl
I should have said Edwin Taylor. You can read about GPS and GR here:
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Apology to Prof. Taylor.
-drl