ERROR correction (in summary called Readme.all (ASCII text file 19.10.1994))

I noticed one error sentence in my old summary of my Usenet articles
(Readme.all): the following lines are false
(due my confusion mixed from Indian Wisdom texts and the Holy
Bible texts):

**************************START of error lines*****************
"There also exist structure called God's houses, which is
certain number of mini-universes arranged on straight line like pearls
on ribbon."
**************************END error lines**********************

Summary files (three together) are stored in:

ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/H...das/Readme.all
(collected 19.10.1994) (stored 26.10.1994)
other two summary text files (ASCII) are Readme.MID a(stored 6.11.1996)
and Readme.SEE (stored 3.11.1996).
I'am sorry about the error.

Best Regards,

Hannu Poropudas

wrote:

I noticed one error sentence in my old summary of my Usenet articles
(Readme.all): the following lines are false
(due my confusion mixed from Indian Wisdom texts and the Holy
Bible texts):
[snip]

Idiot. One stands astounded that a privy cleaner apologizes for
farting during work.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Uncle Al wrote:
wrote:

I noticed one error sentence in my old summary of my Usenet
articles
(Readme.all): the following lines are false
(due my confusion mixed from Indian Wisdom texts and the Holy
Bible texts):
[snip]

Idiot. One stands astounded that a privy cleaner apologizes for
farting during work.


I'am sad to see you continue with your unbusinesslike comments.

Hannu

"There is a bottle of poison, if you look it closer you
see that a bit of it is taken."

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Complaint about Alan M. Schwartz unbusinesslike
posting in News groups sci.astro, sci.physics and
sci.physics.particle.


Alan M. Schwartz ( = Uncle Al)
his real name and his present email address mentioned
in his article "Affine versus metric gravitation parity test" 22 Nov
2004 (04.80.Cc, 11.30.Er). His real name
Uncle Alan M. Schwartz is mentioned also in
article " Galileo; inertia, and free fall", 21 Nov 2001 11:42:21
-0800, Message_ID =
written by (Auntie_Al) in Newsgroup
alt.sci.physics)

I ask that how a person who call himself
a scientist writes such a **** about which
is a copy below ?

Regards,

Hannu Poropudas

----COPY of unbusinesslike posting below -----

Message-ID:
From: Uncle Al
Organization: The Noble Krell
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics
Subject: ERROR correction (in summary called Readme.all (ASCII text
file
19.10.1994))
References: .com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 16
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:30:43 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.5.212.127
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: fed1read04 1106587837 68.5.212.127 (Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:30:37
EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:30:37 EST

wrote:

I noticed one error sentence in my old summary of my Usenet articles
(Readme.all): the following lines are false
(due my confusion mixed from Indian Wisdom texts and the Holy
Bible texts):
[snip]

Idiot. One stands astounded that a privy cleaner apologizes for
farting during work.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------



Uncle Al wrote:
wrote:

I noticed one error sentence in my old summary of my Usenet
articles
(Readme.all): the following lines are false
(due my confusion mixed from Indian Wisdom texts and the Holy
Bible texts):
[snip]

Idiot. One stands astounded that a privy cleaner apologizes for
farting during work.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Critics about Uncle Al's writing
(Schwartz Alan M. 2004.
Affine versus metric gravitation parity.
12 pages. 31.1.2005 online Uncle Al's homepage.
12 Nov 2004, 04.80.Cc, 11.30.Er
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf ):


"A teleparallel gravitation stress-energy pseudotensor antisymmetric
to parity transformation constructs volume integral for total
gravitation four-momentum and total angular momentum. It obtains by
comparing vectors at different points of spacetime- a coframe field -
unlike GR. When the coframe field changes the pseudotensor changes (not
gauge - invariant; not covariant under general coordinate
transformations) [8]. This defines an integral energy-momentum as a
redistribution of energy between material and gravitation (coframe)
fields obeying an exact conservation law. The Lagrangian for GR can
arise from the coframe field only and be antisymmetric to parity
transformation. Extremal parity test masses may violate the EP."
(Schwartz)

EP = Equivalence Principle

"The Weak EP assumes a flat gravitation field is a local
approximation around a given world-point. Stronger EP statements
include the Weak EP [1]." (Schwartz)

"Affine / teleparallel theories embody spacetime torsion. They ignore
the EP and can violate it [3]." (Schwartz)

Above text are from (Uncle Al = Alan M. Schwartz)
Schwartz Alan M. 2004.
Affine versus metric gravitation parity.
12 pages. 31.1.2005 online Uncle Al's homepage.
12 Nov 2004, 04.80.Cc, 11.30.Er


Critics:

The weak point of the writing (and hence the whole writing may be
questionable) may be the following:

"It obtains by comparing vectors at different points of spacetime- a
coframe field - unlike GR."

I think that "comparing vectors at different points of spacetime"
is a mathematical problem which is not solved in GR .

Parallel transport is one tool in trying to solve this in GR but it
depends on the path in question.

The problem in trying to generalize equation

covariat_div(T) + sum_mu nabla_mu(T) = 0

,where T is called the stress-energy tensor into integral form is best
explained by Michael Weiss and John Baez ("Is Energy Conserved in
General Relativity" in Physics FAQ dated 7.11.2000): We would need an
extension of Gauss's theorem. Now the flux through a face is not a
scalar, but a vector (the flux of energy-momentum through the face).
The argument just sketched involves adding these vectors, which are
defined at different points in spacetime. Such "remote vector
comparison" runs into trouble precisely for curved spacetimes. The
mathematician Levi-Civita invented the standard solution to this
problem, and dubbed it "parallel transport". It is easy to picture
parallel transport: just move the vector along a path, keeping its
direction "as constant as possible". The parallel transport of a
vector depends on the transportation path. But parallel transportation
over an "infinitesimal distance" suffers no such ambiguity. (It's
not hard to see the connection with curvature). To compute a
divergence, we need to compare quantities (here vectors) on opposite
faces. Using parallel transport for this leads to the covariant
divergence. This is well-defined, because we are dealing with an
infinitesimal hypervolume. But to add up fluxes all over a finite-sized
hypervolume (as in the contemplated extension of Gauss's theorem)
runs smack into dependence on transportation path. So the flux integral
is not well-defined, and we have no analogue for Gauss's theorem
(Weiss, Baez).

Pseudotensors may indicate that total energy is not properly defined at
least in GR.

I investigated also related problem when I defined +, -, * and /
operations for my directed geodesic lines on a sphere surface (special
case) in my surface algebras but I think that question remained somehow
open to further investigations (definitions succeeded when directed
geodesic lines started from the same point but how to define +, -, *
and / operations for directed geodesic lines which starts from
different points remained somehow open except the case of - operation
in first case where one directed geodesic line was moved to start from
the same starting point as others).

Steve Carlip wrote: Local conservation of energy holds only in a
stationary gravitational field in GR. In particular, an an expanding
Universe is not stationary, and there is no local energy conservation
law. Also in GR, no local gravitational potential energy density can be
defined. The principle of equivalence implies that there can be no
covariant gravitational stress-energy tensor due one can always choose
coordinates in which the geodesics are arbitrarily close to straight
line in a small region, which implies that the gravitational energy in
that region is arbitrarily close to zero; but a tensor that vanishes in
any coordinate system vanishes in every coordinate system. The best one
can hope for is a "quasilocal gravitational energy", energy defined
in a finite region. (Steve Carlip: " energy in a comoving volume,
where is the energy going ?", sci.astro.research, 10.12.2001 and
"Gravitational Potential in GR", sci.physics.relativity,
23.2.1998).

If I remember right H-M said years ago that the Weak Equivalence
Principle (local property) is correct but the Strong Equivalence
Principle (global property) is wrong.


Best Regards,

Hannu Poropudas
Vesaisentie 9E
90900 Kiiminki
Finland






Uncle Al wrote:
wrote:

**********************************************
***deleted rubbish text***********************
***(Uncle Al's unbusinesslike comments)*****
**********************************************

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf