Re: [Phys-l] Another g theory; is this wet or only damp?

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

Does anyone know who has "generally agreed" that this work is "all wet"?
Apparently, at least one referee has not so agreed, unless the author of 
"this work" is misrepresenting his sources.  See
	Phys.Rev.A49:678-694,1994 (Rueda and Haisch)
			Regards,
				Jack



On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Bernard Cleyet wrote:

> http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/BS-GR.pdf
>
> bc doesn't want to continue reading something generally agreed upon
> as being all wet.
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley