Why intristic curvature is better than gravitomagnetism?

[BURT]

It's far from widely known fact that before Einstein's theory,
there was Heaviside's simpler approach to make gravitation Lorentz
invariant - by using a second set of Maxwell's equations - with
e.g. density of mass instead of density of charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

Actually it is widely known by physicists, and is even more widely
known to be wrong.

NONSENSE :-D
Gravitomagnetism is a well-defined *subset* of general relativity and
it is actually used by astrophysicists and astronomers.

Well, there's a slight difference between gravitomagnetism as derived
from linearized GR (which you disagree with!) and WHAT HE ACTUALLY
SAID.

The title says gravitomagnetism and the above Wikipedia link introduced
by the OP is about gravitomagnetism. You wrote your invalid comment
about gravitomagnetism just after the Wikipedia link about
gravitomagnetism.

"...there was Heaviside's simpler approach to make gravitation Lorentz
invariant - by using a second set of Maxwell's equations - with e.g.
density of mass instead of density of charge"
This is wrong.

  "Heaviside's work could be called a low-velocity, weak-field
  approximation
   to general relativity."
Also the replacement of density of charge by density of mass is an
standard procedure in literature to obtain the gravitomagnetic analog of
Maxwell.

Its' wrong. Observationally wrong. And not what you get if you linearize GR.
No point in arguing with you when you don't know what you are talking about.
[snip rest, unread]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

There is no charge since protons have to be forced together with
electrons B. ecause of their hypothetical opposite
charges they should come together quite easily. Nothing is preventing
it that you will prove.

Mitch Raemsch

["Juan R." González-Álvarez]

It's far from widely known fact that before Einstein's theory,
there was Heaviside's simpler approach to make gravitation
Lorentz invariant - by using a second set of Maxwell's equations
- with e.g. density of mass instead of density of charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

Actually it is widely known by physicists, and is even more widely
known to be wrong.

NONSENSE :-D
Gravitomagnetism is a well-defined *subset* of general relativity
and it is actually used by astrophysicists and astronomers.

Well, there's a slight difference between gravitomagnetism as
derived from linearized GR (which you disagree with!) and WHAT HE
ACTUALLY SAID.

The title says gravitomagnetism and the above Wikipedia link
introduced by the OP is about gravitomagnetism. You wrote your
invalid comment about gravitomagnetism just after the Wikipedia link
about gravitomagnetism.

"...there was Heaviside's simpler approach to make gravitation Lorentz
invariant - by using a second set of Maxwell's equations - with e.g.
density of mass instead of density of charge"
This is wrong.

"Heaviside's work could be called a low-velocity, weak-field
approximation
to general relativity."
Also the replacement of density of charge by density of mass is an
standard procedure in literature to obtain the gravitomagnetic analog
of Maxwell.

Its' wrong. Observationally wrong. And not what you get if you linearize
GR.

That linearized GR that you insist is wrong and mathematically inconsistent
in despite that you are being said the contrary for several years now?

I repeat, the replacement of density of charge by density of mass is an
standard procedure in literature to obtain gravitomagnetic analogs of Maxwell.

I repeat once again linearized GR, gravitomagnetism, Newtonian gravity, and the
like are not wrong.

[snip rest, unread]

Because you do not like to be reminded why you are a crackpot :-D

Sorry, but no snip will stop that your new messages against gravitomagnetism and
against linearized GR will be added to the page devoted to you

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-ii.html