On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 06:55:30 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the
> same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is

"Second during a second" is a tautology, not a law of nature.
And, anyway, GPS people are sane, so they fucked the laws
of nature [announced in its name by your idiot guru] and
made a second of 9 192 631 774 on a satellite and
9 192 631 770 on Earth.

Volney wrote:

> On 10/13/2023 4:00 AM, Lou wrote:
>> Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
>> down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to as
>> gravitational potential.
>
> No, it is not! Gravitational potential is not a force! Gravitational
> acceleration (times the mass) is the force. Gravitational potential and
> gravitational acceleration vary with distance differently. GR effects
> vary with potential (1/r relationship). Gravitational acceleration is
> what causes force/weight which would cause affects on a mass-based
> resonance.

and why? Is Zelensky's loyalty to Davos, City of London, Pentagon & Wall
Street, waning? What kind of 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱_𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 are you??

I met a refugee family from Ukraine in my country…they absolutely hated
Zelensky…said he is a corrupt criminal

POOF lol! And just like that, 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗶𝘀_𝗼𝘂𝘁_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀 cycle.
Congressman Jim Jordan of the US Congress is likely to win the vote for
the Speaker of the House, and as such 𝗻𝗼_𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 will be
approved for Ukraine! It's over for Ukraine. Zelensky had the opportunity
to settle a peace deal before it ever started, instead he took 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗦 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲
𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘁. The US government will use Israel issue
to renig on their promise to Ukraine.

but fuck, the 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗲𝘀 are about to lose Palestine too. What a fucking
turn around for capitalist america. They lose 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹 too, lol.

𝗘𝘅-𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗮𝗶𝗱𝗲_𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗻𝗲𝘄_𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
https://r%74.com/ru%73%73ia/584921-ukraine-dead-end-arestovich/

On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/13/2023 4:00 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 03:08:53 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2023 5:24 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
> >>
> >>>>>>>> They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank..
> >>
> >>>>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>>> Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
> >>>>>>> resonate at different frequencies will be..
> >>
> >>>>>> This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
> >>>>> Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
> >>
> >>>> Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on
> >>>> mass/gravitational force?
> >>>
> >>> I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the
> >>> caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.
> >> So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.
> >
> > No Volney. I’m trying to get you to realise that you have no evidence
> > to prove that external force cannot change natural frequencies of
> > atomic resonance.
> You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
> the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
> your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.

I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
(What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)

> > As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
> > resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
> > force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.
> No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the
> same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is
> only the effects of gravitational potential differences from one point
> to another which causes a frequency difference (via redshift or blueshift).

The first postulate. Hmm ..what part of the bible was that from again?

> > Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim
> You have no evidence whatsoever.

Oh I forgot...relativists don’t do evidence.
I suppose I better not mention my evidence from Hafael Keating or GPS.
It might destabilise an already destabilised relativist.

> > You have none to disprove it.
> You cannot disprove a negative.
Blarney
> >> Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r
> >> squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
> >>
> >
> > Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
> > down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
> > as gravitational potential.
> No, it is not! Gravitational potential is not a force! Gravitational
> acceleration (times the mass) is the force. Gravitational potential and
> gravitational acceleration vary with distance differently. GR effects
> vary with potential (1/r relationship). Gravitational acceleration is
> what causes force/weight which would cause affects on a mass-based
> resonance.

I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
frequencies to change at different altitudes.
Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
and compare disc sizes of both images.
The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
That distance relationship is not r^2.

Grow up, stop fantasising about magic goblins and relativistic
warp drives and start leaning basic maths and geometry for a change .

> > Even Albert recognised the connection between
> > resonant frequency and g potential.
> No, he knew GR varied with potential differences, not force, so there is
> no direct connection.

Didn’t stop him from using ‘r’ and not r^2 when he was trying to con his
followers into thinking changes in natural resonant frequencies due to
external force was actually magic goblins farting in different time dimensions.

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >
> > You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
> > the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
> > your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
>
> I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
> prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
> When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)

But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
in Pound Rebka.

> Fact is: Gravity is a force.

:-))

> Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force

Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.

> Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
> at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
> that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
> the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
> to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
> Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
> Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
> Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
> and compare disc sizes of both images.
> The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
> That distance relationship is not r^2.

Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.

> Grow up, stop fantasising about magic goblins and relativistic
> warp drives and start leaning basic maths and geometry for a change .

Pot, kettle, black :-))

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > >
> > > You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
> > > the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
> > > your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
> >
> > I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
> > prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
> > When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> > (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
> But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
> fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
> in Pound Rebka.

In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
Nothing to do with relativity.

> > Fact is: Gravity is a force.
> :-))

Said Gary as he floated off into space.
If it isn’t a force Gary,...then what is pushing you/pulling you
towards the earths surface?
Oh I know..Albert Einstein’s relativistic glue.

> > Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> > And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
> Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.

If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
to do with gravitational potential?

Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes..
GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc

> > Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
> > at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
> > that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
> > the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
> > to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
> > Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
> > Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
> > Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
> > and compare disc sizes of both images.
> > The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
> > That distance relationship is not r^2.
> Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2..

You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
between force and distance from Center.
It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
the change in rate of velocity.

Lou wrote:

> On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in
>> free fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma
>> rays in Pound Rebka.
>
> In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the
> detector at a different altitude that create the illusion of
> relativistic dilation.

amazing the harnagel talks about the atoms, force and freefall in same
sentence. You guys don't undrestand anything in physics. You don't know
what it is. What a fucking education system in america. For instance this
title

𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘_𝗨𝗣𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦:_𝗥𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀_𝗡𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹,_𝗛𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿_𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗛𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀
https://sputnikglobe.com/20231015/live-updates-red-cross-negotiating-with-
israel-hamas-to-deliver-medicine-to-hostages-1114206311.html

a red cross 𝗶𝘀_𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 with an israel??

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 6:30 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2023 4:00 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 03:08:53 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 10/12/2023 5:24 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>>>>> Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
> >>>>>>>>> resonate at different frequencies will be..
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
> >>>>>>> Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on
> >>>>>> mass/gravitational force?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the
> >>>>> caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.
> >>>> So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.
> >>>
> >>> No Volney. I’m trying to get you to realise that you have no evidence
> >>> to prove that external force cannot change natural frequencies of
> >>> atomic resonance.
> >> You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
> >> the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
> >> your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
> >
> > I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
> > prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
> No, they don't. You only wish that they do.

But they do. Didn’t you claim that the observed change in ticking rates
at different altitudes is defined by GM/r?
That change is due to the different force exerted on atoms at different
altitudes. As defined by GM/r.
You can’t win the argument. Because relativity only assumes that observed
effects are relativistic. All theory, including relativity or classical, is assumption only.
As long as assumptions matches predictions.
Also in classical theory resonance had already been observed as a precedence.
In that changing a resonant systems weight or mass will alter
it’s natural resonant frequency. Heavier= slower . As observed in Caesium atoms.
At least Classical theory has precedence. SR and GR don’t.

> > When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> > (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
> The Cs atoms in an atomic clock are in freefall.

Whatever. They are not changing altitude.

> >
> >>> As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
> >>> resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
> >>> force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.
>
> >> No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the
> >> same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is
> >> only the effects of gravitational potential differences from one point
> >> to another which causes a frequency difference (via redshift or blueshift).
> >
> > The first postulate. Hmm ..what part of the bible was that from again?
> Go show the first postulate as being false and collect your Nobel Prize.

I was trying to point out that the first postulate is only one of many
interpretations of reality. It is not the only “truth”
To pretend it is would be religious dogma.

> It's like conservation of momentum, conservation of charge and so forth.
> If they were shown to be false so much physics just falls apart. The
> first postulate simply states the laws of physics are the same
> everywhere (and everywhen). Meaning, in this case, 1 second to a local
> observer is 9192631770 Cs atomic transitions, whether the atomic clock
> is on earth or in orbit.

You obviously haven’t thought much about how resonance works.
Under a resonant model...If at earths surface my atomic clock clicks
out the seconds. I will see it tick out seconds. If I move up to 6000k
above earths surface resonance will slow my clock ticking down slightly
BUT, I will always only see it tick out seconds and not notice any difference.
Regardless of altitude. Only if I compare my clock to another at
a different altitude will I see any difference.And it will always be
the other clock which is running at a different rate. Not mine.

> >
> >>> Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim
>
> >> You have no evidence whatsoever.
> >
> > Oh I forgot...relativists don’t do evidence.
> No, you don't do evidence. You haven't shown *any* evidence in this thread.
> > I suppose I better not mention my evidence from Hafael Keating or GPS.
> You don't have any evidence from them. They are evidence supporting
> SR/GR instead.

That is your problem. You think an observation can only confirm
your preferred theories assumption.
Thats not how physics works.
You get observations and data. And then see which theories predictions
match the observations. And in many cases data matches multiple
theories. As with MMX or H-K.

> > It might destabilise an already destabilised relativist.
> >
> >>> You have none to disprove it.
>
> >> You cannot disprove a negative.
>
> > Blarney
> Yet it's true. Provide a proof that unicorns don't exist. A real proof,
> not just "nobody has ever seen one".
> >>>> Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r
> >>>> squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
> >>> down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
> >>> as gravitational potential.
>
> >> No, it is not! Gravitational potential is not a force! Gravitational
> >> acceleration (times the mass) is the force. Gravitational potential and
> >> gravitational acceleration vary with distance differently. GR effects
> >> vary with potential (1/r relationship). Gravitational acceleration is
> >> what causes force/weight which would cause affects on a mass-based
> >> resonance.
> >
> > I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
> > Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> > And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
> > atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
> > frequencies to change at different altitudes.
> GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
>
> GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.

Wrong. GMm/r and GMm/r^2 are only mathematical formulas.
Neither are a force. They are squiggles on paper.
Force is what we experience when we are pulled to the floor by an invisible unknown
mechanism. No one knows what “force” really is. We can only measure it

> > Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
> > at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
> > that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
> > the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
> > to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
> Yet the force is known since Newton to go as inverse r squared.

Volney wrote:

> Yet it's true. Provide a proof that unicorns don't exist. A real proof,
> not just "nobody has ever seen one".

a rhinoceros.

‘𝗬𝗼𝘂_𝗼𝘄𝗲_𝘂𝘀’_–_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻_𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝘁𝗼_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆
Dmitry Kuleba said he’s been trying to instill sense of guilt among
officials in Berlin in citing events of WWI and WWII
https://r%74.com/russia/584957-ukrainian-fm-kuleba-germany-guilt-complex/

Seems like Nazi Ukrainians learnt from their mistakes and the mistakes of
Nazi Germany. So 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮, now they are
marching 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁. To the Nazi Ukrainians, 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗮𝘁 𝗕𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗻, go
all the way to the 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗻. From the Dnipro to Thames, hail Nazi Ukraine.
Just make a 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲

The most interesting guilt aspect 𝗶𝘀_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱_𝗼𝗻_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀. Around
25 million from WW2 and yet Germans insist on helping the NATO nazi
Ukrainians 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀. Could Russians be offended?

Europe owes Ukrainian nothing. After this s𝗵𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗪𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗼𝗻
𝗽𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗲𝘁𝘀.
You dragged into a war. We owe you nothing. Ancient mad people who run
Ukraine. They sending Ukrainian 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝘆 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲. Signed. Philip
X.
Like the Netherlands, I also have 1000 questions.

This 𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 must end. Signed. European.

True. Germany owes Kuleba a lamp post dodging punishment. Since the
beginning of the SVO, Ukraine has received 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁_$33_𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 from the G7
countries. They have become key 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲
𝗯𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲𝘀. This was announced by the Minister
of Finance of Ukraine Sergei Marchenko

"OK Ukraine. Here's a pretzel and some lederhosen. Now we're even. You're
on your own"

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 6:30 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2023 4:00 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 03:08:53 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 10/12/2023 5:24 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>>>>> Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
> >>>>>>>>> resonate at different frequencies will be..
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
> >>>>>>> Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on
> >>>>>> mass/gravitational force?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the
> >>>>> caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.
> >>>> So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.
> >>>
> >>> No Volney. I’m trying to get you to realise that you have no evidence
> >>> to prove that external force cannot change natural frequencies of
> >>> atomic resonance.
> >> You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
> >> the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
> >> your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
> >
> > I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
> > prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
> No, they don't. You only wish that they do.
> > When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> > (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
> The Cs atoms in an atomic clock are in freefall.
> >
> >>> As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
> >>> resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
> >>> force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.
>
> >> No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the
> >> same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is
> >> only the effects of gravitational potential differences from one point
> >> to another which causes a frequency difference (via redshift or blueshift).
> >
> > The first postulate. Hmm ..what part of the bible was that from again?
> Go show the first postulate as being false and collect your Nobel Prize.
> It's like conservation of momentum, conservation of charge and so forth.
> If they were shown to be false so much physics just falls apart. The
> first postulate simply states the laws of physics are the same
> everywhere (and everywhen). Meaning, in this case, 1 second to a local
> observer is 9192631770 Cs atomic transitions, whether the atomic clock
> is on earth or in orbit.
> >
> >>> Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim
>
> >> You have no evidence whatsoever.
> >
> > Oh I forgot...relativists don’t do evidence.
> No, you don't do evidence. You haven't shown *any* evidence in this thread.
> > I suppose I better not mention my evidence from Hafael Keating or GPS.
> You don't have any evidence from them. They are evidence supporting
> SR/GR instead.
> > It might destabilise an already destabilised relativist.
> >
> >>> You have none to disprove it.
>
> >> You cannot disprove a negative.
>
> > Blarney
> Yet it's true. Provide a proof that unicorns don't exist. A real proof,
> not just "nobody has ever seen one".
> >>>> Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r
> >>>> squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
> >>> down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
> >>> as gravitational potential.
>
> >> No, it is not! Gravitational potential is not a force! Gravitational
> >> acceleration (times the mass) is the force. Gravitational potential and
> >> gravitational acceleration vary with distance differently. GR effects
> >> vary with potential (1/r relationship). Gravitational acceleration is
> >> what causes force/weight which would cause affects on a mass-based
> >> resonance.
> >
> > I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
> > Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> > And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
> > atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
> > frequencies to change at different altitudes.
> GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
>
> GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.

Not to mention ...escape velocity. The force needed to counter
the force of gravity is modelled by r. Not r^2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

> > Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
> > at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
> > that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
> > the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
> > to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
> Yet the force is known since Newton to go as inverse r squared.
> > Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
> > Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
> > Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
> > and compare disc sizes of both images.
> > The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
> But 1/4 the area, which is what counts.
> > That distance relationship is not r^2.
> The exposed area is.
> >
> >
> > Grow up, stop fantasising about magic goblins and relativistic
> > warp drives and start leaning basic maths and geometry for a change .
> The math and geometry of special relativity is beautiful, fascinating.
> >
> >>> Even Albert recognised the connection between
> >>> resonant frequency and g potential.
>
> >> No, he knew GR varied with potential differences, not force, so there is
> >> no direct connection.
> >
> > Didn’t stop him from using ‘r’ and not r^2 when he was trying to con his
> > followers into thinking changes in natural resonant frequencies due to
> > external force was actually magic goblins farting in different time dimensions.
> Word salad. Albert never connected resonant frequencies to inverse r.

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 2:18:24 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
> > > prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
> > > When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> > > (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
> >
> > But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
> > fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
> > in Pound Rebka.
>
> In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
> at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation..
>
> If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
> the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase
> and decrease the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
> Nothing to do with relativity.

Sly Louie ignores the fact that Cs atoms aren't subjected to the force of
gravity, only to its potential.

> > > Fact is: Gravity is a force.
> >
> > :-))
>
> Said Gary as he floated off into space.
> If it isn’t a force Gary,...then what is pushing you/pulling you
> towards the earths surface?

F = Del GM/r, that's a derivative for those challenged mathematically.

> Oh I know..Albert Einstein’s relativistic glue.

It's simple Newtonian calculus, Louie.

> > > Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> > > And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
> >
> > Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.
>
> If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
> work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
> What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
> to do with gravitational potential?

Louie, Louie, Louie! You're the only one pretending it has nothing to do
with GM/r. F = Del GM/r, so GM/r DOES have "something" to do with
force. It's just that the force varies as 1/r^2, not 1/r.

> Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
> frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
> GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc

Repeating falsehoods don't make them true. There is no force on the Cs
atoms in atomic clocks, either on earth or in space. You slyly choose not
to admit that inconvenient fact.

> > > Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
> > > at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
> > > that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
> > > the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
> > > to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
> > > Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
> > > Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
> > > Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
> > > and compare disc sizes of both images.
> > > The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
> > > That distance relationship is not r^2.
>
> > Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
>
> You can’t change the rules governing the universe.

Pot, kettle, black :-))

> Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
> It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r

> And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
> between force and distance from Center.

Nope. Hafele-Keating confirms that it's not force, but potential.

> It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.

No one's making that mistake, Louie. Physicists know that a = F/m.

> Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
> measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
> the change in rate of velocity.

Or does acceleration create force? Deceleration is just negative
acceleration. When a moving object is suddenly stopped by running
into a stationary object, the stationary object is subjected to a force.
So force is a way to measure acceleration.

Lou wrote:

> On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
>> GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.
>
> Not to mention ...escape velocity. The force needed to counter the force
> of gravity is modelled by r. Not r^2

a r^2 is still an r in r^2, fucking stupid. Not to mention that 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗺𝘀, but 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗯𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘀. Moreover, the wannabe country, capitalist america, 𝘂𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗱 by double citizenship 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗲𝘀, is about to lose all wars. Double citizenship ruling another country 𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻. You are a citizen 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆, my friend.

these impertinent and indolent monkeys are demanding 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 to 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 on be giving 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 and stuff 𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 to the fucking nazi ukraine.

𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝗮𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_–_𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿
https://r%74.com/business/584960-western-partners-losing-focus-ukraine-aid/

Ukraine looking for someone who can throw them a bone

Why the western tax payers have to pay for a war that has nothing to do with them, instead of forcing Kiev regime to negociate? Ukraine 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢, 𝗻𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗨. It seems that the hatred of Russia is too expensive, 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗘𝗨 𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗿𝘀.

Ukraines only hope of salvation now is for the people 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹, surrender to Russia 𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗯𝗲𝗴 to recome part of the Russian Federation.

I wonder how much of 𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 this Marchenko khazar goy nazist 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁. In any case, those big money goes first and foremost through 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿_𝗱𝗶𝗿𝘁𝘆_𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀.

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 08:05:57 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> first postulate simply states the laws of physics are the same
> everywhere (and everywhen). Meaning, in this case, 1 second to a local
> observer is 9192631770 Cs atomic transitions, whether the atomic clock
> is on earth or in orbit.

No, stupid Mike, anyone can checj, it's 9192631774 on the
orbit. Even that idiot Roberts is admitting that GPS second
is different from the one from your insane church.

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 14:20:04 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 2:18:24 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
> > > > prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
> > > > When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> > > > (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
> > >
> > > But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
> > > fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
> > > in Pound Rebka.
> >
> > In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
> > at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
> >
> > If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
> > the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase
> > and decrease the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
> > Nothing to do with relativity.
> Sly Louie ignores the fact that Cs atoms aren't subjected to the force of
> gravity, only to its potential.

If gravitational potential (GM/r) has nothing to do with gravity,
then why do we need work done (force) to lift mass up to a higher
altitude?

> > > > Fact is: Gravity is a force.
> > >
> > > :-))
> >
> > Said Gary as he floated off into space.
> > If it isn’t a force Gary,...then what is pushing you/pulling you
> > towards the earths surface?
> F = Del GM/r, that's a derivative for those challenged mathematically.
> > Oh I know..Albert Einstein’s relativistic glue.
> It's simple Newtonian calculus, Louie.
> > > > Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> > > > And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
> > >
> > > Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.
> >
> > If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
> > work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
> > What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
> > to do with gravitational potential?
> Louie, Louie, Louie! You're the only one pretending it has nothing to do
> with GM/r. F = Del GM/r, so GM/r DOES have "something" to do with
> force. It's just that the force varies as 1/r^2, not 1/r.

> > Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
> > frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
> > GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
> Repeating falsehoods don't make them true. There is no force on the Cs
> atoms in atomic clocks, either on earth or in space. You slyly choose not
> to admit that inconvenient fact.
> > > > Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
> > > > at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
> > > > that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
> > > > the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
> > > > to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
> > > > Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
> > > > Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
> > > > Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
> > > > and compare disc sizes of both images.
> > > > The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
> > > > That distance relationship is not r^2.
> >
> > > Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
> >
> > You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
> Pot, kettle, black :-))
> > Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
> > It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
>
> > And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
> > between force and distance from Center.
> Nope. Hafele-Keating confirms that it's not force, but potential.

That’s an odd assumption to say atoms feel no force.
You forgot...gravity. That’s a force. Calling it potential
or work is just another fancy word for force.
It’s like plumbers calling themselves hydraulic engineers.
They’re all plumbers to me.

> > It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
> No one's making that mistake, Louie. Physicists know that a = F/m.
> > Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
> > measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
> > the change in rate of velocity.
> Or does acceleration create force? Deceleration is just negative
> acceleration. When a moving object is suddenly stopped by running
> into a stationary object, the stationary object is subjected to a force.
> So force is a way to measure acceleration.

Chicken and egg maybe. But I think Force came first.
This discussion can go on in a circle forever. You and Volney will
say potential isn’t force. I will then say it is force. Seeing as it’s
only ever needed to counter force. And the only thing that can counter force...
is more force.

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 20:22:49 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 10/15/2023 8:19 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/14/2023 6:30 PM, Lou wrote:
>
> >>> I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
> >>> Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> >>> And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
> >>> atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
> >>> frequencies to change at different altitudes.
>
> >> GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
> >>
> >> GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.
> >
> > Not to mention ...escape velocity. The force needed to counter
> > the force of gravity is modelled by r. Not r^2
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
> >
> Escape velocity is a velocity (duh-h-h!), not a force! It is determined
> by the amount of potential (GM/r) it has to work against for an object
> to escape.

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

Volney wrote:

>> It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
>> Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
>> measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
>> the change in rate of velocity.
>
> Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR
> varying as potential, not acceleration/force.

well, that's not a potential. A potential may fall when used. The
curvature gradient doesn't. Meanwhile "𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗼
𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀”

𝗔𝗹𝗹_𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗯𝗹𝗲_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝘁𝗼_𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀
The call comes as Moscow claims that Kiev's much-hyped counteroffensive
has run out of steam
https://r%74.com/russia/584971-ukraine-conscripts-paper-check/

Those meant for slaughter 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿. That's exactly what
capitalism does with people which are fools.

He's sending his citizens to known death, and he doesn't care. Once this
is over he'll 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿 mansion in Florida.

That would include "the last Ukrainian". Who will the U.S./NATO sacrifice
next? Well 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 I think

I'm an American and if my country ever needed me for a war I'd learn
Spanish

as a Canadian I would go to jail before I would fight in a war for Canada
𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆…Turdeau and his liberal government has wrecked
canada…𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:14:09 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
>
> On 10/15/2023 4:18 AM, Lou wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
> > > fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
> > > in Pound Rebka.
> >
> > In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
> > at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
>
> Assertion is not proof. GR explains Pound-Rebka perfectly.

And the frequency shift is directly proportional to height, ergo, 1/r, not 1/r^2.

> > If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
> > the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
> > the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
> > Nothing to do with relativity.
>
> Babble.
>
> > If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
> > work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
> > What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
> > to do with gravitational potential?
>
> You don't know the difference between gravitational potential and force
> if you write that.

Louie tries to rewrite Newton (who knew perfectly well the difference
between F = GMm/r^2 and GM/r). Louie is more than three centuries out
of date.

> > Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
> > frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
> > GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
>
> Nope. Assuming the conclusion at best.

Louie doesn't know the difference between force and potential, so know he's
using weasel-words like "strength."

> > > > ....
> > >
> > > Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
> >
> > You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
> > Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
> > It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
>
> That's the potential. Force goes as GM/r².

Now he's trying to pretend that GM/r is force :-))

> > And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
> > between force and distance from Center.
>
> Assuming the conclusion.
>
> > It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
> > Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
> > measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
> > the change in rate of velocity.
>
> Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR
> varying as potential, not acceleration/force.

It's hard to argue physics with someone who flunked high school physics
and doesn't want to learn.

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 2:31:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:14:09 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
> >
> > On 10/15/2023 4:18 AM, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
> > > > fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
> > > > in Pound Rebka.
> > >
> > > In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
> > > at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
> >
> > Assertion is not proof. GR explains Pound-Rebka perfectly.
> And the frequency shift is directly proportional to height, ergo, 1/r, not 1/r^2.
> > > If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
> > > the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
> > > the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
> > > Nothing to do with relativity.
> >
> > Babble.
> >
> > > If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
> > > work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
> > > What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
> > > to do with gravitational potential?
> >
> > You don't know the difference between gravitational potential and force
> > if you write that.
> Louie tries to rewrite Newton (who knew perfectly well the difference
> between F = GMm/r^2 and GM/r). Louie is more than three centuries out
> of date.
> > > Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
> > > frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
> > > GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
> >
> > Nope. Assuming the conclusion at best.
> Louie doesn't know the difference between force and potential, so know he's
> using weasel-words like "strength."
>
> > > > > ....
> > > >
> > > > Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
> > >
> > > You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
> > > Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
> > > It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
> >
> > That's the potential. Force goes as GM/r².
> Now he's trying to pretend that GM/r is force :-))
> > > And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
> > > between force and distance from Center.
> >
> > Assuming the conclusion.
> >
> > > It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
> > > Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
> > > measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
> > > the change in rate of velocity.
> >
> > Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR
> > varying as potential, not acceleration/force.
> It's hard to argue physics with someone who flunked high school physics
> and doesn't want to learn.
>
> “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
> administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine

How do you measure the difference between an absolute motion and a relative?
The atom has motion that can compete with light's absolute. At a motion BH
the atom can leave light behind. How can the relative compete with the absolute?

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 22:31:21 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:14:09 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
> >
> > On 10/15/2023 4:18 AM, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
> > > > fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
> > > > in Pound Rebka.
> > >
> > > In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
> > > at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
> >
> > Assertion is not proof. GR explains Pound-Rebka perfectly.
> And the frequency shift is directly proportional to height, ergo, 1/r, not 1/r^2.
> > > If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
> > > the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
> > > the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
> > > Nothing to do with relativity.
> >
> > Babble.
> >
> > > If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
> > > work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
> > > What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
> > > to do with gravitational potential?
> >
> > You don't know the difference between gravitational potential and force
> > if you write that.
> Louie tries to rewrite Newton (who knew perfectly well the difference
> between F = GMm/r^2 and GM/r). Louie is more than three centuries out
> of date.
> > > Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
> > > frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
> > > GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
> >
> > Nope. Assuming the conclusion at best.
> Louie doesn't know the difference between force and potential, so know he's
> using weasel-words like "strength."
>
> > > > > ....
> > > >
> > > > Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
> > >
> > > You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
> > > Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
> > > It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
> >
> > That's the potential. Force goes as GM/r².
> Now he's trying to pretend that GM/r is force :-))

If GM/r is not modelling gravitational force....then why is it called
*gravitational* potential?
And if you are suggesting doing ‘work’ involves applying no force or
energy...then please let me know the secret because you have
just invented free energy.

And why is it that it’s OK for relativity to use GM/r to model the ticking
rates of atoms at different altitudes ..but not OK for a classical model
to use GM/r to model the ticking rates of atoms at different altitudes ?

> > > And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
> > > between force and distance from Center.
> >
> > Assuming the conclusion.
> >
> > > It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
> > > Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
> > > measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
> > > the change in rate of velocity.
> >
> > Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR
> > varying as potential, not acceleration/force.
> It's hard to argue physics with someone who flunked high school physics
> and doesn't want to learn.
>
> “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
> administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 19:22:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/15/2023 8:19 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/14/2023 6:30 PM, Lou wrote:
>
> >>> I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
> >>> Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> >>> And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
> >>> atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
> >>> frequencies to change at different altitudes.
>
> >> GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
> >>
> >> GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.
> >
> > Not to mention ...escape velocity. The force needed to counter
> > the force of gravity is modelled by r. Not r^2
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
> >
> Escape velocity is a velocity (duh-h-h!), not a force! It is determined
> by the amount of potential (GM/r) it has to work against for an object
> to escape.

Of course escape velocity isn’t a force. That’s why it’s called escape
*velocity*
GM/r^2 isn’t a force either . It’s a change in the rate of velocity.
But you need force (gravity)to accelerate something downwards
and you need force to move it up to counter the downward force of gravity.
And that force is modelled by GM/r
As all good textbooks confirm.

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 19:14:09 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/15/2023 4:18 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
> >>>> the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
> >>>> your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
> >>>
> >>> I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
> >>> prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
> >>> When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> >>> (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
> >> But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
> >> fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
> >> in Pound Rebka.
> >
> > In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
> > at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
> Assertion is not proof. GR explains Pound-Rebka perfectly.
> > If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
> > the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
> > the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
> > Nothing to do with relativity.
> Babble.
> >>> Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> >>> And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
> >> Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.
> >
> > If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
> > work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
> > What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
> > to do with gravitational potential?
> You don't know the difference between gravitational potential and force
> if you write that.

Ahh! I thought you wouldn’t be able to answer my question without admitting
you need force to get work done.

> >
> > Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
> > frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
> > GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
> Nope. Assuming the conclusion at best.
> >
> >>> Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
> >>> at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
> >>> that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
> >>> the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
> >>> to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
> >>> Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
> >>> Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
> >>> Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
> >>> and compare disc sizes of both images.
> >>> The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
> >>> That distance relationship is not r^2.
>
> >> Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
> >
> > You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
> > Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
> > It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
> That's the potential. Force goes as GM/r².
> > And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
> > between force and distance from Center.
> Assuming the conclusion.
> > It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
> > Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
> > measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
> > the change in rate of velocity.
> Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR
> varying as potential, not acceleration/force.

GR is a separate theory to classical theory. But if you are trying to
suggest that work needed to raise mass to a higher altitude,
as dictated by gravitational potential, doesn’t need any force to counter
the downward force of gravity. Then you and Gary have just invented free energy.
I would patent your idea fast.

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 19:22:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/15/2023 8:19 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/14/2023 6:30 PM, Lou wrote:
>
> >>> I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
> >>> Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> >>> And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
> >>> atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
> >>> frequencies to change at different altitudes.
>
> >> GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
> >>
> >> GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.
> >
> > Not to mention ...escape velocity. The force needed to counter
> > the force of gravity is modelled by r. Not r^2
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
> >
> Escape velocity is a velocity (duh-h-h!), not a force! It is determined
> by the amount of potential (GM/r) it has to work against for an object
> to escape.

The kinematic data from Hafael Keating shows the horizontal acceleration
(produced by force) of the east and westward planes on tick rates follows
the same rate as GM/r does for the gravity force pushing down. In other words...
Comparing tick rates of different strengths of horizontal force applied to the
plane (and thus the caesium atoms) shows that less force applied leads to a
proportionally smaller rate of increase of ticking of the resonant frequency
of the atoms. And greater force applied results in a larger rate of decrease
in the ticking of the atoms natural frequency. Confirming that
GM/r must be used to model not only the force of gravity at different altitudes
on atoms tick rates. But also for the force applied horizontally.

First is speed in kilometers per hour relative to earth Center followed by tick rate in
nanoseconds gained, lost.

Westward plane 800 kph +96
Observer 1600 kph. 0
Westward plane 2400 kph -184

Notice the higher the speed of the plane relative to the earth Center
the greater the rate of change in the slowing of the ticking rate. Echoing GM/r
in gravitational force on rate of change in ticking.( Ie more G force slower ticking)
A 800 kph increase in speed to 1600, relative to earth Center gives only a 90
nanosecond decrease in ticking. ANOTHER 800 kph increase in speed to 2400
for the eastward plane results in approx 180 nanosecond decrease in ticking..
In other words the stronger the downward force of G and the stronger the
horizontal force applied. Leads to a greater rate of decrease in ticking.

Lou wrote:

> On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 19:22:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> Escape velocity is a velocity (duh-h-h!), not a force! It is determined
>> by the amount of potential (GM/r) it has to work against for an object
>> to escape.
>
> The kinematic data from Hafael Keating shows the horizontal acceleration
> (produced by force) of the east and westward planes on tick rates
> follows the same rate as GM/r does for the gravity force pushing down

there is no 𝗽𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻, my friend. Your own 3𝗗_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿 proves
it. 𝗡𝗼_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲_𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴. That's why the fucking Newtone was wrong.

there is no push i𝗻_𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗶𝘀_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝗮_𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆_–_𝗲𝘅-𝗣𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 <a>lol</a>
Washington “had never committed to defend” Kiev, so failure to do so
𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻’𝘁_𝗵𝘂𝗿𝘁_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮’𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆, <a>lol</a>, according to Elbridge Colby
https://r%74.com/news/585044-ex-pentagon-strategist-ukraine-not-us-ally/

wow, now the khazar goy 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝘂𝗸𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮 will attack america, lol.

Preparing the initial words 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗴𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲. Money
wasn't a problem..𝘄𝗲_𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁!

What planet is this guy from? Didn't he hear Biden promise "𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝘁
𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀!". But, he is partly correct that Ukraine has never been a U.S. ally.
Instead it has been 𝗮 𝗨.𝗦. 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗴𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻'𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝗿 on Russia for him.

As for the Taliban: The Taliban has NEVER been a threat to the U.S. That
𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗔𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥 𝗚𝗲𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗕𝘂𝘀𝗵 𝗳𝗮𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 to justify his invasion of that country.

"𝗙𝗼𝗿_𝗔𝘀_𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴_𝗔𝘀_𝗜𝘁_𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀",_𝗰𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀. Take some responsibility for your
failures, finally.

Volney wrote:

>>> Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with
>>> GR varying as potential, not acceleration/force.
>>
>> well, that's not a potential. A potential may fall when used. The
>> curvature gradient doesn't. Meanwhile "𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱
>> 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀”
>
> Yes, nymshifter, the Ukrainians sure have been busy slaughtering the

good post. Do it again.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗶𝘀_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝗮_𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆_–_𝗲𝘅-𝗣𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹,_𝗹𝗼𝗹
Washington “had never committed to defend” Kiev, so failure to do so
𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻’𝘁_𝗵𝘂𝗿𝘁_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮’𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆, according to Elbridge Colby
https://r%74.com/news/585044-ex-pentagon-strategist-ukraine-not-us-ally/

Ukraine was 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗨𝗦𝗔. In this case, it was
Zelensky and his cronies, 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳𝗳 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲'𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘀.

Ukraine has 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗝𝗼𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻. There is
no other explanation for why the U.S. 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗕𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗼𝗳 𝗨.𝗦. 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿
𝗱𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀 over to Ukraine 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Soon, the little coke addicted
𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗴𝗲 𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱, forced to confess and 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻'𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻
𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲, then summarily executed by the Russian Army.

That must sting a bit.

Just laying the groundwork for NATO’s 𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗸 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗮 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲. The bus
under which 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃 𝗸𝗹𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆 will be thrown is currently being warmed up!

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 5:19:02 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> GM/r^2 isn’t a force either .

Let's look at units: kilograms, meters, seconds.

The units of velocity are meters/second (m/s).
The units of acceleration are m/s^2.
The units of force (F = ma) are kgm/s^2, called a Newton (N)

The constant G has the units N m^2/kg^2
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

Therefore GMm/r^2 has the units (N m^2/kg^2)kg^2/m^2) = N = force.

GM/r has the units (N m^2/kg^2)kg/m = N m/kg, which is NOT force.
In fact it's kg m/s^2 m/kg = m^2/s^2.

> It’s a change in the rate of velocity.

Nope. A change in the rate of velocity is acceleration, m/s^2.

> But you need force (gravity)to accelerate something downwards

Nope, a jet plane can go in a dive and its engines can accelerate its
speed faster than gravity can accelerate it.

> and you need force to move it up to counter the downward force
> of gravity.

The FIRST time you've said something right, Louie.

> And that force is modelled by GM/r
> As all good textbooks confirm.

You've obviously not studied any textbooks. There's never been a
textbook that agrees with your bizarre fantasies which you witlessly
attempt to foist upon this discussion group.

On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 14:26:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 5:19:02 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > GM/r^2 isn’t a force either .
> Let's look at units: kilograms, meters, seconds.
>
> The units of velocity are meters/second (m/s).
> The units of acceleration are m/s^2.
> The units of force (F = ma) are kgm/s^2, called a Newton (N)
>
> The constant G has the units N m^2/kg^2
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
>
> Therefore GMm/r^2 has the units (N m^2/kg^2)kg^2/m^2) = N = force.
>
> GM/r has the units (N m^2/kg^2)kg/m = N m/kg, which is NOT force.
> In fact it's kg m/s^2 m/kg = m^2/s^2.

This is playing at maths to make the same force look
like two completely different types of phenomena.
What is *really* different between the two
formula? Nothing, except squaring r for one and not for the other.
Both have G, both have mass, and both have (G and mass) divided
by distance.
The only difference is that one equation is just 1/r, 1/2R, etc
And the other increases the rate of change in the inverse proportion by
squaring r like this 1/r2, 1/2r^2 ,etc
The thing I find amazing about you mathematicians when you do
physics is how you pretend the same 2 things are not related at all.

For example ( ignoring friction): Using my hand I push a block of wood across
a table, using x energy
You call that force.
Then, using my hand and the same amount of energy I push the same block of wood
up vertically into the air.
You say that has nothing to do with force and say it’s work.!
And try to prove your argument by saying work is calculated
by a completely different set of units of measurement.
But they are both the same, and not different at all.
They are both force applied to mass.