On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:47:26 -0700, ---- wrote:

This is very interesting,
BUT COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!

*THE* DEFINITIVE WORK ON GRAVITY IS:
========================================
AETHRO-KINEMATICS BY STEVEN RADO ©1994
========================================

This is the electronic edition.
It’s a different column format than
the official published hard copy, but
I believe it’s the same exact text.

==================
YOU GOTTA READ IT
* TO BELIEVE IT! *
==================

Until you read it,
you just DON'T KNOW
SHIT about gravity!

That is *NOT* a
casual statement!

OR a poetic
exaggaration!

If you have
not read Rado,

YOU ARE COMPLETELY
IGNORANT OF GRAVITY!

========================
PREPARE TO BE *STUNNED*!
========================

AFTERADO
YOUKNOW!

BOOK COVER:
http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_1.pdf
[The GIF should move. See Steve's site logo.]

ADOBE ACROBAT READER INSTRUCTIONS:
http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_2.pdf

===========================================
AETHRO-KINEMATICS TEXT:
http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_3.pdf
===========================================

Steve’s site is:
http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/

THAT’S *ALL* WE CAN DO FOR YOU!

======================
THE REST IS UP TO YOU!
*READ RADO AND K'NOW!*
======================


                O
                    ---  )
                 \


Net Prophet
[net-prophet.net]

P.S. EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT WANKER!
QUANTUM MECHANICS ARE IDIOTS TOO!
"STRING THEORISTS" ARE
JUST TIED UP IN K'NOTS!

FORGET EVERYONE AFTER MAXWELL!
STEVE SOLVES THE WHOLE PUZZLE!


==============================

_______________________________________________________________________
 >
 > NEW CANONICAL SCIENCE REPORT
 >
 > Theories reducing to Newtonian gravity: general relativity doesn't
 > _______________________________________________________________________
 >
 >
 > Scientific knowledge is accumulative. Theoretical and fundamental
 > scientists require a "single comprehensive theory applying to all
 > physical phenomena". Newtonian gravity is used for a broad range of
 > gravitational phenomena. This implies that any theory of gravity, to
 > be taken seriously, would reduce to Newtonian gravity in some limit.
 >
 > It has been broadly thought since its born in 1916 that general
 > relativity reduces to the theory of Newton. However, articles as "On
 > the Newtonian limit of general relativity" published in journals as
 > Comm. Math. Phys. still revise the issue about eight decades after.
 >
 > Experts on the Newtonian limit of general relativity as Joy Christian
 > openly accept that Newtonian theory is not the Galilean limit of
 > general relativity. Numerical relativists as Miguel Alcubierre Moya
 > recognize that "Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in
 > GR". Unfortunately both of them failed to see the deep implications
 > this has for the physics of gravity, some of which are noticed below.
 >
 > This Research report studies the Newtonian limit of six theories,
 > presenting the difficulties and inconsistencies found when rigorously
 > revised using new techniques. The theories considered are: general
 > relativity; nonlinear field theory; Stefanovich theory; the Weber &
 > Mach relational theory by Assis & Graneau; Vladimirov's relational
 > theory; and Stückelberg, Horwitz, & Piron action-at-a-distance theory
 > worked by Trump & Schieve.
 >
 > This Research report shows that (i) the assertion that general
 > relativity reduces to the theory of Newton as well as (ii) the
 > assertion that the quadratic-'field'-low-velocity geodesic equation of
 > motion is identical to the Newtonian equation of motion do not hold
 > upon close inspection. It is also demonstrated that some observational
 > difficulties of relativistic theories of gravity —such as the
 > unphysical boundaries imposed in general relativity— are related to
 > their lack of compatibility with Newtonian gravity.
 >
 > One of the main findings of this Research report is that all current
 > theories of gravity revised belong to one of two incompatible classes,
 > extending and generalizing the incompatibility between quantum
 > electrodynamics and quantum mechanics denounced by Dirac. The main
 > pros and cons for each kind are presented.
 >
 > Moreover, it is showed that the assertions of complete equivalence
 > between general relativity and the field theory over flat spacetime
 > are unfounded. Quasi-equivalence in a weak limit is showed.
 >
 > Finally, this Research report introduces the new post-relativity
 > theory and discusses its possibilities and advantages over current
 > theories. Cosmological and astrophysical puzzles, and specially the
 > topics of dark matter and dark energy, would be solved in this new
 > gravitational approach.
 >
 > This Research report starts a new era in our understanding
 > of the physics of interactions, beyond the profound cultural divide
 > between the relativity and the particle physicists' community in
 > dealing with spacetime. It is a shock for astrophysicists and
 > cosmologists who believed that our understanding of classical gravity
 > was already complete. It is also a strong shock for some subfields of
 > quantum gravity, specially for attempts like loop theory —deeply
 > rooted into the geometrical language of general relativity—. It turns
 > into a historical curiosity the premature claims about the end of
 > science advanced on that famous book —with the same apocalyptic title—
 > by John Horgan.
 >
 > Field theorists and particle physicists find satisfactory that the
 > non-geometrical approach to gravity works better, letting us to
 > advance in the task of unification of interactions. The relativistic
 > field theorist and fractal cosmologist Yurij Barishev writes: "yes it
 > is important problem that even Newtonian limit is badly defined in
 > geometrical approach". We only can speculate that this result would
 > fascinate even to Richard Feynman, one of the most celebrated
 > promoters of a non-geometrical approach to gravity.
 >
 > Whereas this work has been well received by theoretical physicists
 > working in generalizations of general relativity and of superstring
 > theory, general relativists have found repugnant the idea that general
 > relativity is not a complete theory of gravitation and that the
 > geometrical picture is not more a fundamental part of physics —in one
 > sense, their position is not different from that of the 20th century
 > physicists who strongly rejected the development of quantum mechanics
 > and its revolutionary change of picture—.
 >
 > Moreover, general relativists have confirming also that the usual
 > derivations given in texbooks on general relativity are flawed.
 >
 >
 > NEWS AND BLOG:
 > ______________
 >
 > 
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/20091005.html
 >
 > 
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
 >
 >
 > METADATA, REFERENCES, AND DOWNLOAD:
 > ___________________________________
 >
 > 
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html

KONCHOK.PENDAY wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:47:26 -0700, ---- wrote:
> 
> This is very interesting,
> BUT COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!
> 
> *THE* DEFINITIVE WORK ON GRAVITY IS:
> ========================================
> AETHRO-KINEMATICS BY STEVEN RADO ©1994
> ========================================


Kooks trying to out-kook each other?

	Yousuf Khan