Some folks memory retention spans are just woeful. A refresher: check out successively posts 230, 232, 235, 239, 288, or any before or since or in-between if you wish. I'm still waiting for a detailed equation-by-equation critique of rebuttal to Misner. paddoboy should stop that WW2-style carpet bombing campaign and ask any of his email correspondents to actually get down to attempting a more modern approach of precision bombing. Pointing specifically to any demonstrably true errors of logic and/or maths in: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9506082 Arguing that anonymous referee failure to approve publishing such detailed rebuttal is somehow proof of basic error rather than 'industry pressure' or suchlike, is bad logic. One would need to see the detailed exchanges before even considering passing judgement.
Perhaps its your own agenda that needs to be brought into question? I'll wait until Professor Wills replies. But facts is facts is facts....Considering how long this has been around, it hasn't caused much of a stir. [Ignoring any conspiracy fabricating Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!]
Endlessly and automatically accusing non-conformists of 'having an agenda' or being 'conspiracy theorists' is really bad form. Shit-stirrers though cannot rise above such tactics, and impress only fellow-travelers of similar bent. Furnishing truly relevant details as per challenge in #301 is of course far beyond their capacity.
Its no sin if these guys do not know about Yilmaz, but Barryboy, what are you afraid of naming these guys ? Are you afraid that Tasja will cross verify with them, trying to show off that you can also get some response from professors? They are not apologetic if they do not know Yilmaz Theory, then why should you be?
As I said, when you chased off Professor Link Bennett, with your childish nonsense, [ as illustrated in your post here] it made me rethink. Still don't worry, we have more to go yet. And obviously your usual idiotic conspiracy nonsense was another reason.
I am sick of your continued reference to your screwer....he is still haunting you...... Come on Paddoboy, show some gumption and live the life in present. Give the names, otherwise an adverse inference shall be drawn against you...
All inferences I have made with regards to you are true. What inferences you draw against me is of no concern, as your reputation here as a liar, troll and clown is well known.
Thats what you say.........I have proved you a liar, forgot that "I said diameter - I did not say diameter".....You are a troll, despite clear proof of mistakes you did not admit.....clown, that fits you baby, an alice in the wonderland with some shaky popposcience knowldege and attempting to write the tutorials, only comedy will come out....
The question is why should we second-guess the decision of the peer-reviewers to publish Misner and to reject publication of the answer? Moreover if, as you seem to accept, the answer contains the claim which contradicts elementary GR textbook mathematics, namely that the Newtonian limit of GR is invalid? But, ok, let's take a short look: Why? As I understand, here they simply presuppose that the Newtonian limit has to be correct, and that's why the assumption made by Misner is incorrect. So, this looks like the logic of "Let's assume that the conclusion of Misner is wrong. Then, we conclude, the assumption of Misner is wrong. QED."
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Calm down lad, the truth is down in black and white, and what you say and have said in the past, has made a rod for your own back...no one to blame but yourself. Remember, whether you like it or not, your peers on this forum shall make that final judgmental call.....
And both tutorials stand as reasonably factual with no criticism from anyone other than the village idiot.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When I have a gang of anti relativists ganging up on me, that are still not able to come to any common agreement, other than mainstream is wrong, I know I'm doing something right. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are doing nothing but proving that you are a fool, rather proving again and again, unable to think for yourself so you must follow others.....
They have not, because few of them know that you are otherwise a nice fool......so no point bursting your balloon...
Well if that were factual, I would step back, but we all know that the situation as you have shown everyday, is the reverse.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In actual fact my choice is simple. read what I need from the experts out at the coal face: Then listen to the "would be's if they could be's" that can only ever mouth off on forums such as this, and are abject failures at something that those real scientists at the coal face have achieved. The choice is simple my dear god....listen and interpret the nonsense from frauds such as yourself with no other place to go> Or listen and learn from those at least doing something rather than bleating like the sheep in the herd of absolute failures that inhabit science forums, decrying what they can't have and what they don't know.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Take it easy, you'll have a coronary. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Second-guessing? It'a a matter of benefit of doubt. No recognized GR authority has stepped forward to provide a detailed, publicly available reply to the rebuttal article. If any have the actual ammo, it's strange none have in some 20 years attempted to fire it there in arXiv - no need to worry about journal publication of such. Hence just leave anonymous referees out of it. Invalid in a particular sense and setting - self-gravitating perfect fluid sphere. As detailed in the article. Is that actually so? I suggest in particular you study rather carefully and with as little prejudice as possible, that beginning p4 and down to at least the main para following eqn (23). See if that doesn't answer your question or rather assumption. If you wish to detail anything else that you consider suspect, please refer to particular pages, para's, and equation #'s. Good luck.
The portion of your comment above is part of an underlying problem with your "mainstream" crusade. Think about it. The mainstream for 300 years, as far as Gravity is concerned, was defined by Newton. Had no one looked beyond Newton's conclusions, we would not today have your mainstream. How long did Einstein's new mainstream fail to present a credible alternative to Newton, before he arrived at your mainstream? Progress in science is as much defined by those who challenge consensus, as it is by those who merely test or try to reconcile it, against new observations. There has to be room in physics, especially theoretical physics, for those who challenge what we think of as mainstream today, at least until the theory that underlies today's mainstream, has been proven to be something more than theory.
