On Jun 25, 9:18 pm, Dono <sa... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

I had a look at your solution :
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/cyclotron.htm

Please provide a link to YOUR solution.

It's best if you keep the two links together.

Jerry

On Jun 25, 8:02 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

On Jun 25, 9:18 pm, Dono <sa... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

I had a look at your solution :
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/cyclotron.htm

Please provide a link to YOUR solution.

It's best if you keep the two links together.

Jerry

you should have it by now
tough to get Pete to admit to error and lying (almost as difficult as
the other Peter,aka "Surfer")

I haven't looked at Pete's work yet, since a lot
of my time has been spent with my
grandmother, who had a stroke while in town
for my graduation. She is having to relearn how
to speak and to write, although all of her other
faculties are intact. Her speech is very slow
and she is pronouncing every word one by one,
which makes it difficult for me to understand
her. Chinese words have "official" tones, but in
normal speech, the tones glide into each other.
My ears are attuned to normal speech, and
hearing the words spoken as if read from a
dictionary is very confusing to my ears. My
grandfather has been staying with her all day,
and he has been near exhaustion.

Then again, I'm also preparing to start my
residency in a few days, so if I don't read your
two derivations in the next week, I can't
promise ever to get to them.

Tom Roberts wrote on Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:28:33 +0200:
Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:54:31 +0200:
It's much more than that. GR is formulated in terms of the metric and
its derivatives, and the metric _IS_ the geometry.
Only on a geometric formulation.
No. My statement was about how words are used. The metric and its
connection determine the geometry -- that is now those words are used.
You can discuss fields and such, but at base when the Lagrangian for
those fields is the scalar curvature of the manifold, those fields
determine the geometry.

The theory of GR is formulated in terms of a metric g_ab and its
corresponding connection (both linked via the metricity condition as you
know).

But (and this is where you always fail) this is *not* true for DPI or FTG
theories. In FTG g_ab is not the metric of spacetime and has not
associated a connection (indeed the equation of motion is not geodesic).

Sometimes this non-geometrical g_ab is called an "effective metric" to
emphasize that is not the real metric but just a geometrical analogy may
be useful in some cases.

Not a single experiment or observation has tested a geometrical picture
of gravitation and disproved non-geometrical theories of gravity.

Of course more advanced and general formulations of electrodynamics
have *not* fibre bundle formulation. Geometry again is recovered as
approximation.
"More advanced" = unsupported and unproven.

Far from true.

For instance, Chubykalo et
al's paper has "instantaneous interactions" only in the title, and does
not show any actual problem with retarded L-W potentials (though I
believe they displayed an inadequacy of the standard notation).

I already tried to correct your misreadings and misunderstandings about
their paper in the past but, I am sorry, without success.

To see this, try my earlier challenge: show where in their paper
any
property of the source is evaluated at the instantaneous time,
not the
retarded time.

Your confusion between the time implicit with the time explicit
dependence was also corrected in the past.