On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> 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.

No, Louie, it's called dimensional analysis, a powerful way to tell who
knows what they're talking about and who's just flatulent.

> What is *really* different between the two formula? Nothing, except
> squaring r for one and not for the other.

A BIG difference, flatulent one. Force is the derivative of potential:
F = (d/dr)(GM/r) = -GM/r^2

What'sa matter, Louie, are you as ignorant of calculus as you are of
physics?

> 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.

Don't be silly, Flatulent Louie, I told you before about the relationship of
potential and force, but you're too demented to remember and too ignorant
to understand.

> For example ( ignoring friction): Using my hand I push a block of wood across
> a table, using x energy
> You call that force.

No, physics-challenged Louie, energy is force times distance.

> 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.

How many times does a demented fool need to be instructed?
F = dE/dr. Don't understand calculus, either, eh, Louie?

You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics?
Fingerpainting?

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 10:45:31 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

> 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.

LooLoo

You reached a new low. Congratulations.

On 10/16/2023 7:27 AM, Bret Cassa Babakulov wrote:
> The Taliban has NEVER been a threat to the U.S.

You said the exact opposite of the truth, you lowly "engineer" Hanson.
"U.S. has never been a threat to Taleban" is the correct statement.
Taliban has had access to both Iranian and Pakestani nukes from the
beginning of their movement, and there are a few U.S. military bases
there within their reach.

Take your "engineer" ass to a newsgroup that does not begin with "sci".
The only place an "engineer" should not go, is among scientists.
Everywhere else, you can fake associating yourself with science.

"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
news:ca23d1af-d205-4978-9978-99b410f56a7cn@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:39:18 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> news:4da19488-6f30-4204...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:10:20 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >
> > "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> > >
> > > Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed
> > > cannot
> > > be c+v for any observer.
> > >
> > > The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at
> > > rest
> > > wrt each other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is
> > > invariant.
> >
> > Well..its not quite so simple.
> >
> > Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks.
> > Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are
> > assumed
> > to tick invariantly by the POR.
>
> > Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.
>
>> Sure they are. Its fundamental to the axioms of SR. According to SR,
>> clocks
>> tick at the same rate irrespective of inertial velocity, that is, clock
>> ticks are invariant with respect to inertial velocity.

>You're conflating "invariance" with "proper."

You are simply confused.

>> Clock tick *rates*, never change, according to the POR, thus clock tick
>> rates are invariant. That's what "invariant" means.

>Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.

Oh dear....you clearly do not understand SR, clocks or time.

SR holds that there is an entity "space-time" that is measured by different
observers with rulers and clocks. "space-time" is an invariant.

That is, in this context there is an entity "time" that is measured by
clocks.

In this context, observers travel through "time" at different rates. The
different rates, say 100 secs/sec is the equivalent of taking different
paths from London to Edinburgh. The clocks simple read off the amount of
time they cover. They don't run slow or fast.

That is, because clocks travel though "time" at different rates, according
to SR, clocks will be observed to run slow, despite that the clocks do not
run slow. This is "time dilation".

It works in the same way as Dr. Who in his TARDIS. Dr. Who's time and clocks
runs just as normal, however, he gets to the future before other observers.

Clocks running slow is a feature of background theories such as the Lorentz
Ether Theory, not Special Relativity.

> > > Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of
> > > observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the
> > > axioms of SR.
>
> > Of course it doesn't. The LT is a description of reality, not a caise of
> > it.
>
>> That's not the point, the statement isn't a claim that the LT is a cause
>> of
>> SR, it is a statement that the axioms of SR may be wrong yet the LT still
> >remains valid.
>
>> A cause of the LT might well be a background field.

>That is irrelevant. As Mermin said, "Shut up and calculate."

Oh dear.... you are a victim of the emperors new clothes syndrome.

It is relevant in that it is impossible for physical processes to occur
without physical causes.

It matters when physics has reached a brick wall in constructing a quantum
theory of gravity, almost certainly, in part, because of the incompatibility
of time in QM and GR.

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

It's also relevant in that those such as you don't understand that that they
are actually describing such background field explanations, yet believe that
they are describing SR.

> > > Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to
> > > their
> > > circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the
> > > LT.
> >
> >They are not circular, and they can be confirmed experimentally.
>
> Nope, the two axioms cannot be confirmed independently of each other.
>
> The two postulates of SR are clearly circular. This is obvious.
> Unfortunately, its also clear from the literature, that many have missed
> this.
>
>> The POR states that the laws of physics are independent of inertial
>> frame.
>> This means that clock tick rates must be independent of inertial frame.

>And that's where you go flying off into wrongland.

Again, you simply have no correct understanding of SR.

No observer can tell if he is moving with respect to another inertial
observer. This is fundamental to the POR mate. This means that no observer's
clock can tick any different from another.

Observers take "different paths in space-time". That's why clocks and
lengths, apparently, read differently, in SR, not because rules and clocks
change how they record events.

Background approaches modify the processes themselves.

You should take the time to actually understand the distinction to
understand SR correctly.

Once one understands SR correctly, one can then get a grasp of what issues
there are with it, and noted by Lee Smolin.

> The POR requires a definition of time to know that clocks satisfy it. Time
> is defined by clock tick rates.
>
>> The SOL also requires a definition of time, that is it relies on clock
>> tick
>>> rates being *assumed* to be independent of inertial frame.

>YOU are the only one assuming that :-))

It's fundamental to the SR interpretation of the LT, that clock ticks are
independent of inertial frame. This isn't debatable.

You have a comic book understanding of SR. Seriously.

>> That is, all measurements to confirm the invariance of the SOL, must use
>> clocks. However, its impossible to independently measure the tick rates
>> of
>> clocks, without referring back to the SOL. Thus the SOL and clock tick
>> rates
>> are inherently interlocked. They can both change together, and still
>> achieve
>> the same results.

>This violates the historical record. You must be a historian.

In other words "nope, I am unable to describe a method of measuring the SOL
AND clock rates independently, from inertial observers so will just blabber"

This is pretty simple. the SOL requires a definition of time and length. To
verify the SOL for another inertial system, one needs to independently
measure both the SOL and the TIME in that inertial system. This is
impossible.

The ability to have different definitions of time and the SOL is what allows
approaches such as

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

SR uses a consistent set of definitions, however, consistency does not mean
correct. This is why LET exists as valid theory.

> [Remainder of message deleted because of a basic misunderstanding
>of time in SR]

You are another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You have a pop media concept of SR, yet believe that you have it sussed.
Yeah....

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 21:09:11 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> No, Louie, it's called dimensional analysis, a powerful way to tell who
> knows what they're talking about and who's just flatulent.
> > What is *really* different between the two formula? Nothing, except
> > squaring r for one and not for the other.
> A BIG difference, flatulent one. Force is the derivative of potential:
> F = (d/dr)(GM/r) = -GM/r^2
>
> What'sa matter, Louie, are you as ignorant of calculus as you are of
> physics?

Not nearly as bad at physics as you are.
Force of gravity is GM/r.
r^2 is acceleration duh!
Notice even your Hero Einstein used GM/r to calculate
the effect of the force of gravity on his tick rates
One rule for Albert and the wrong rules for the competition.
It’s called match fixing by crooks.

> > 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.
> Don't be silly, Flatulent Louie, I told you before about the relationship of
> potential and force, but you're too demented to remember and too ignorant
> to understand.

> > For example ( ignoring friction): Using my hand I push a block of wood across
> > a table, using x energy
> > You call that force.
> No, physics-challenged Louie, energy is force times distance.

Evasive nonsense. Only a demented relativist would pretend pushing
block across a table is using force but pushing it up in the air isn’t.
No wonder relativity fails every one of its predictions.

> > 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.
> How many times does a demented fool need to be instructed?
> F = dE/dr. Don't understand calculus, either, eh, Louie?
>
I understand that you think that one uses force to push
horizontally. But not vertically. What magical new thingy do relativists call
force when applied vertically? Work? 🤣😂
I can assure you that I am using the same muscles and the same
energy to lift something up,with my arms as I do to push
it horizontally. Only a mentally challenged physics free mathematician
would pretend anything else.

> You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
> better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
> yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics?
> Fingerpainting?

Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...
Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
But not OK for classical?
Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
snip my question again?

On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 02:55:13 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.
> > 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.
> Flail, flail, flail.
> >
> >>> 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...
>
> Nobody said that gravity has nothing to do with GM/r. I even called that
> the gravitational potential many times.

And like I said..Einstein used r (g potential) to model his tick rates.
He knew it would work.
Why can’t classical theory use r?
The usual...one rule for relativity, another wrong one ( acceleration) for classical.
It’s called match fixing by crooked relativists.
Ives Stillwell did it too. They deliberately used
the wrong equation for classical to make sure it gave incorrect predictions..
And then stole the correct classical formula and pretended it was relativity’s
formula.
And by the way you are wrong to pretend area is r^2 for a push classical
model. As the “shadow cast” definitely does not not diminish by r^2.
I calculate what observer at Center of sphere would see. So at r, earths surface,
1/2 the observed area of the inside of the sphere is earth, the other 1/2 sky.
At 2r it’s 33% of total area of the inside of the sphere is earths shadow...etc.
(Its Not strictly r but definitely not r^2)
r=100% (earths surface)
2r=33%
3r =21%
4r=16%
5r=13%

There is little data on observed rates of increase in
ticking for 2r and above except gravity probe A&B and GPS.
But using that data in graph form* gives approx values for r as:
r 0
2r +320 ps
3r +400 ps
4r +500 ps
5r +580 ps

Not too far off from the classical predictions.

*source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#/media/File:Orbit_times.svg

-(Snip rest of nonsense )-

Den 17.10.2023 20:28, skrev Lou:
> On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 21:09:11 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
>> better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
>> yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics?
>> Fingerpainting?
>
> Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...
> Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
> the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
> But not OK for classical?
> Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
> snip my question again?

Apropos waiting for you to answer a question:

> Yesterday Lou wrote:
>>
>> I would ignore Einsteins “predictions” for the mercury anomalous preccession.
>> He only knew the amount for mercury and fiddled his formula to match that
>> observed.
>> Notice his formula doesn’t do so well for other planets. A fact relativists
>> like to ignore.
>> However if one uses a more correct classical formula r 1/(r+3R)^2 based on perehilion
>> not semi major axis as Albert incorrectly did. Then classical theory predicts more accurately
>> than GR. {where r is perehilion distance and R is radius of sun}

My response was:
>
> Mercury:
> Perihelion distance r = 4.60011E10 m
> Solar radius R = 696340E3 m
>
> If the equation is r/(r+3R)^2 we get
> the number 1.9890E-11 1/m
>
> What does this number mean?
> How do you get the numbers below?
> Is the equation wrong?
> In that case, what should it be?
> Please explain!
>
>> As follows:
>> Planet. Classical
>> Merc. 43.24
>> V. 8.33
>> E. 4.49

I would very much like to have your revolutionary
classical formula explained.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:48:41 AM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
? > "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> news:ca23d1af-d205-4978...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > You're conflating "invariance" with "proper."
>
> You are simply confused.

Au contraire, Ailing One, I know what "proper" means. You do, too, but you
want to call it something else. Not a good idea!

> > Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
>
> Oh dear....you clearly do not understand SR, clocks or time.

Pot, kettle, black, Confused One.

> SR holds that there is an entity "space-time" that is measured by different
> observers with rulers and clocks. "space-time" is an invariant.
>
> That is, in this context there is an entity "time" that is measured by
> clocks.

There is also rulers which measure the space part. You seem to be
ignoring that.

> In this context, observers travel through "time" at different rates.

Fuzzy language. All inertial observers travel through time at the
PROPER rate of 1 second/second. Clocks moving wrt an observer
are OBSERVED to travel through time at different rares. They still
have the same PROPER time of 1 sec/sec.

> The > different rates, say 100 secs/sec is the equivalent of taking different
> paths from London to Edinburgh. The clocks simple read off the amount of
> time they cover. They don't run slow or fast.

That's PROPER time.

> That is, because clocks travel though "time" at different rates, according
> to SR, clocks will be observed to run slow, despite that the clocks do not
> run slow. This is "time dilation".
The only you got wrong is that clocks do NOT "travel through time at
different rates." You're making the mistake that the reading of clocks observed
by an observer in relative motion is somehow unique and absolute. Another
observer moving at a different speed with disagree, so you can't say the moving
clock is running slow at some specific rate.

> Clocks running slow is a feature of background theories such as the Lorentz
> Ether Theory, not Special Relativity.

No, it's what YOU are saying, and it's weirdly distorted.

> > > A cause of the LT might well be a background field.
> >
> > That is irrelevant. As Mermin said, "Shut up and calculate."
>
> Oh dear.... you are a victim of the emperors new clothes syndrome.
>
> It is relevant in that it is impossible for physical processes to occur
> without physical causes.

Would you deny a physical process because you can't come up with
a physical process? :-))

> It matters when physics has reached a brick wall in constructing a quantum
> theory of gravity, almost certainly, in part, because of the incompatibility
> of time in QM and GR.

Another fuzzy assertion. Although basic QM has absolute time, QFT is based
on SR.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

Didn't you read the disclaimer at the beginning of that link?

"This article needs attention from an expert in Physics. The specific problem
is: his article has some interesting ideas in it, but some of it is wrong"

> It's also relevant in that those such as you don't understand that that they
> are actually describing such background field explanations, yet believe that
> they are describing SR.

Nope. You use fuzzy language like "background field explanations" with NO
explanation of its meaning. A sure sign of balderdash.

> > > Nope, the two axioms cannot be confirmed independently of each other.
> >
> > The two postulates of SR are clearly circular. This is obvious.

Nope. You are clearly arguing simplistically. The two-way speed of light can
be measured with one ruler and one clock. That allows idiots to come in and
claim that maybe the speed is different coming back than going out, but other
observations refute that. So, the fictitious requirement for two clocks is just
a "background field explanation."

> > > This means that clock tick rates must be independent of inertial frame.
> >
> > And that's where you go flying off into wrongland.
>
> Again, you simply have no correct understanding of SR.

Pot, kettle, black :-))

> No observer can tell if he is moving with respect to another inertial
> observer.

Of COURSE an observer can tell if he's moving wrt another observer!
What you should say is, "There is no such thing as absolute motion."
You are confusing yourself with more fuzzy language.
>This is fundamental to the POR mate.

It is after I've corrected your silly statement.

> This means that no observer's clock can tick any different from another.

And that's PROPER time, but a moving clock is observed to tick at a
slower rate.

> Observers take "different paths in space-time". That's why clocks and
> lengths, apparently, read differently, in SR, not because rules and clocks
> change how they record events.

If you'd just user the PROPER terms, like proper time:

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

and coordinate time:

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

you might get less confused about SR.

> Background approaches modify the processes themselves.

Only neophytes believe that.

> You should take the time to actually understand the distinction to
> understand SR correctly.

Pot, kettle, black :-)))

> Once one understands SR correctly, one can then get a grasp of what issues
> there are with it, and noted by Lee Smolin.

Of course there are problems with SR, but they're more subtle that your
misunderstandings. Well, you most likely understand that it fails when
gravitational effects are significant.

> > YOU are the only one assuming that :-))
>
> It's fundamental to the SR interpretation of the LT, that clock ticks are
> independent of inertial frame. This isn't debatable.

I just did :-))

> You have a comic book understanding of SR. Seriously.

Pot, kettle, black :-))))

> > This violates the historical record. You must be a historian.
>
> In other words "nope, I am unable to describe a method of measuring the SOL
> AND clock rates independently, from inertial observers so will just blabber"

You describe yourself very well.

> This is pretty simple. the SOL requires a definition of time and length.

No problem, we have those.

> To verify the SOL for another inertial system, one needs to independently
> measure both the SOL and the TIME in that inertial system. This is
> impossible.

Dead wrong, Kevin. The MMX used the same equipment in different
(approximately) inertial frames to measure the SoL. Admittedly, the
measurements were performed in air and had deleterious effects, but
LLR experiments are consistent with the SoL not being dependent on
the motion of the mirror on the moon.

> The ability to have different definitions of time and the SOL is what allows
> approaches such as
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_dynamics
>
> SR uses a consistent set of definitions, however, consistency does not mean
> correct.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman

And SR has passed every test restricted to its domain of applicability.

> This is why LET exists as valid theory.

It's only valid in a subset of SR's validity, so nobody with common sense
would use it.

> > [Remainder of message deleted because of a basic misunderstanding
> > of time in SR]
>
> You are another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Pot, kettle, black :-))))

> You have a pop media concept of SR, yet believe that you have it sussed.
> Yeah....

Pot, kettle, black :-))))

Kevin, I can back up everything I say with evidence. You got nuttin'

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 21:09:11 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 14:26:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > No, Louie, it's called dimensional analysis, a powerful way to tell who
> > knows what they're talking about and who's just flatulent.
> >
> > > What is *really* different between the two formula? Nothing, except
> > > squaring r for one and not for the other.
> >
> > A BIG difference, flatulent one. Force is the derivative of potential:
> > F = (d/dr)(GM/r) = -GM/r^2
> >
> > What'sa matter, Louie, are you as ignorant of calculus as you are of
> > physics?
>
> Not nearly as bad at physics as you are.
> Force of gravity is GM/r.

Louie, Louie, Louie, you just flunked your first test in high school physics!

> r^2 is acceleration duh!

Nope, a = GM/r^2. And F = ma, therefore F = GMm/r^2 You just flunked
your second test in high school physics!

> Notice even your Hero Einstein used GM/r to calculate
> the effect of the force of gravity on his tick rates

GM/r is NOT force, Loco Louie. You fell into your own trap and proved
it above.
> One rule for Albert and the wrong rules for the competition.
> It’s called match fixing by crooks.

Nope, it's called Loco Louie louses up physics.

> > > 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.
> >
> > Don't be silly, Flatulent Louie, I told you before about the relationship of
> > potential and force, but you're too demented to remember and too ignorant
> > to understand.
> >
> > > For example ( ignoring friction): Using my hand I push a block of wood across
> > > a table, using x energy
> > > You call that force.
> >
> > No, physics-challenged Louie, energy is force times distance.
>
> Evasive nonsense.

Definitely not, Loco Louie. It's in elementary physics texts.

> Only a demented relativist would pretend pushing
> block across a table is using force but pushing it up in the air isn’t.

Fuzzy thinking, Flatulent Louie. It takes NO force to push a block
across a frictionless table. Pushing a block UP doesn't involve
friction, so your comparison was apples to ants.

> No wonder relativity fails every one of its predictions.

No wonder you're reduced to lying to protect your demented ego.

> > How many times does a demented fool need to be instructed?
> > F = dE/dr. Don't understand calculus, either, eh, Louie?
>
> I understand that you think that one uses force to push
> horizontally. But not vertically. What magical new thingy do
> relativists call force when applied vertically? Work?

We've been talking BASIC high school physics, Louie. It doesn't
address anything about relativity.

> > You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
> > better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
> > yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics?
> > Fingerpainting?
>
> Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...
> Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
> the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
> But not OK for classical?
> Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
> snip my question again?

Louie, Louie, Loco Louie! 1st, relativity IS classical physics.
2nd, YOU are the only fool claiming that tick rates are due to
the force of gravity. Everyone's been telling you over and over
that its gravitational potential, GM/r, which is NOT force.
You seem to spend a lot of time playing with your mental blocks.

Any normal person would have begun questioning his assumptions
long ago. I sure would have. But here you are running around in
circles instead of flunking your physics tests.

“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin

“A fool is someone whose arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance.”
― Orrin Woodward

On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:57:39 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Fuzzy language. All inertial observers travel through time at the
> PROPER rate of 1 second/second. Clocks moving wrt an observer
> are OBSERVED to travel through time at different rares.

A lie, of course, as expected from a relativistic idiot.
Anyone can check GPS.

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:31:39 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
>
> On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:57:39 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Fuzzy language. All inertial observers travel through time at the
> > PROPER rate of 1 second/second. Clocks moving wrt an observer
> > are OBSERVED to travel through time at different rares.
? > A lie, of course, as expected from a relativistic idiot.
Says the lying ignoramus. Congenital liars like Wozzie are a danger
to society:

"A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with
making truth itself appear like falsehood."
-- William Shenstone

Fortunately, no one listens to Prevaricating Wozzie when he repeats his
disgusting perfidy.

> Anyone can check GPS.

Wozzie-boy should have his mouth washed out with soap for repeating
this lie ad nauseam.

On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 14:39:24 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:31:39 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
> >
> > On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:57:39 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Fuzzy language. All inertial observers travel through time at the
> > > PROPER rate of 1 second/second. Clocks moving wrt an observer
> > > are OBSERVED to travel through time at different rares.
> ?
> > A lie, of course, as expected from a relativistic idiot.
> Says the lying ignoramus. Congenital liars like Wozzie are a danger
> to society:
>
> "A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with
> making truth itself appear like falsehood."
> -- William Shenstone

Yeah, sure, and GPS clocks can't be real because they
don't fit Harrie's vision of the reality. That's the obvious
truth of The Shit, isn't it?

> > Anyone can check GPS.
>
> Wozzie-boy should have his mouth washed out with soap for repeating
> this lie ad nauseam.

Keep spitting and raving, trash, it's still proven that the
mumble of your idiot guru was not even consistent.

On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 8:54:12 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
>
> On 10/18/2023 8:39 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:31:39 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
> > >
> > > Anyone can check GPS.
> >
> > Wozzie-boy should have his mouth washed out with soap for repeating
> > this lie ad nauseam.
>
> Yes, anyone can check GPS and see it depends on GR to work correctly,
> showing Wozzie is lying like mad, stating the opposite of reality.

Indeed. I can't understand people like Wozzie and the trolls.

“How much better would life be if a liar’s pants really did catch fire?
-- Rebel Circus

Well, same goes for people who frequent this group that seem incapable of
accepting reality.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
-- Bertrand Russell

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 8:54:12 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
>> Yes, anyone can check GPS and see it depends on GR to work correctly,
>> showing Wozzie is lying like mad, stating the opposite of reality.
>
> Indeed. I can't understand people like Wozzie and the trolls.
> “How much better would life be if a liar’s pants really did catch fire?
> -- Rebel Circus
> Well, same goes for people who frequent this group that seem incapable
> of accepting reality.

said by an invertebrate not undrestanding Entropy, speeds of light,
arrows, tensors, domains, logic, probabilities and so on.

𝗪𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀 – 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 lol
Newer versions of the US-made ATACMS would not stand against Russia’s air
defenses, a German journalist claims
https://r%74.com/news/585273-washington-ukraine-old-atacms-missiles/

The CIA-backed Kyiv regime must be stopped!!! These subverters at Kyiv and
Washington want to prolong the war as long as possible.

On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:27:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 21:09:11 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 14:26:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > No, Louie, it's called dimensional analysis, a powerful way to tell who
> > > knows what they're talking about and who's just flatulent.
> > >
> > > > What is *really* different between the two formula? Nothing, except
> > > > squaring r for one and not for the other.
> > >
> > > A BIG difference, flatulent one. Force is the derivative of potential:
> > > F = (d/dr)(GM/r) = -GM/r^2
> > >
> > > What'sa matter, Louie, are you as ignorant of calculus as you are of
> > > physics?
> >
> > Not nearly as bad at physics as you are.
> > Force of gravity is GM/r.
> Louie, Louie, Louie, you just flunked your first test in high school physics!
>
> > r^2 is acceleration duh!
>
> Nope, a = GM/r^2. And F = ma, therefore F = GMm/r^2 You just flunked
> your second test in high school physics!
> > Notice even your Hero Einstein used GM/r to calculate
> > the effect of the force of gravity on his tick rates
> GM/r is NOT force, Loco Louie. You fell into your own trap and proved
> it above.
> > One rule for Albert and the wrong rules for the competition.
> > It’s called match fixing by crooks.
> Nope, it's called Loco Louie louses up physics.
> > > > 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..
> > >
> > > Don't be silly, Flatulent Louie, I told you before about the relationship of
> > > potential and force, but you're too demented to remember and too ignorant
> > > to understand.
> > >
> > > > For example ( ignoring friction): Using my hand I push a block of wood across
> > > > a table, using x energy
> > > > You call that force.
> > >
> > > No, physics-challenged Louie, energy is force times distance.
> >
> > Evasive nonsense.
> Definitely not, Loco Louie. It's in elementary physics texts.
> > Only a demented relativist would pretend pushing
> > block across a table is using force but pushing it up in the air isn’t.
> Fuzzy thinking, Flatulent Louie. It takes NO force to push a block
> across a frictionless table. Pushing a block UP doesn't involve
> friction, so your comparison was apples to ants.

Evasive nonsense.
You ignored the fact I already above “ignoring friction.”
So answer the question. Ignoring or in addition to the effects
of friction, why does it take force to push a block across a
table but the same force isn’t used to push it up in height?
Cant answer.?
Thought not.

> > No wonder relativity fails every one of its predictions.
> No wonder you're reduced to lying to protect your demented ego.
> > > How many times does a demented fool need to be instructed?
> > > F = dE/dr. Don't understand calculus, either, eh, Louie?
> >
> > I understand that you think that one uses force to push
> > horizontally. But not vertically. What magical new thingy do
> > relativists call force when applied vertically? Work?
> We've been talking BASIC high school physics, Louie. It doesn't
> address anything about relativity.
> > > You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
> > > better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
> > > yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics?
> > > Fingerpainting?
> >
> > Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...
> > Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
> > the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
> > But not OK for classical?
> > Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
> > snip my question again?
> Louie, Louie, Loco Louie! 1st, relativity IS classical physics.
> 2nd, YOU are the only fool claiming that tick rates are due to
> the force of gravity. Everyone's been telling you over and over
> that its gravitational potential, GM/r, which is NOT force.

Cloud cuckoo land for gary. He thinks gravitational potential has nothing
to do with gravity!!! Joker.
Let me guess Gary. Gravitational potential is
an effect caused by magic gnomes in the 14th dimension and
has nothing to do with gravity?

Anyways you still couldnt answer the question. Thought not.
Here it is again.
If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms at different altitudes. Then why
cant a classical model use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms?

On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 20:44:40 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 17.10.2023 20:28, skrev Lou:
> > On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 21:09:11 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >> You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
> >> better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
> >> yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics?
> >> Fingerpainting?
> >
> > Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...
> > Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
> > the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
> > But not OK for classical?
> > Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
> > snip my question again?
> Apropos waiting for you to answer a question:
>
> > Yesterday Lou wrote:
> >>
> >> I would ignore Einsteins “predictions” for the mercury anomalous preccession.
> >> He only knew the amount for mercury and fiddled his formula to match that
> >> observed.
> >> Notice his formula doesn’t do so well for other planets. A fact relativists
> >> like to ignore.
> >> However if one uses a more correct classical formula r 1/(r+3R)^2 based on perehilion
> >> not semi major axis as Albert incorrectly did. Then classical theory predicts more accurately
> >> than GR. {where r is perehilion distance and R is radius of sun}
>
> My response was:
> >
> > Mercury:
> > Perihelion distance r = 4.60011E10 m
> > Solar radius R = 696340E3 m
> >
> > If the equation is r/(r+3R)^2 we get
> > the number 1.9890E-11 1/m
> >
> > What does this number mean?
> > How do you get the numbers below?
> > Is the equation wrong?
> > In that case, what should it be?
> > Please explain!
> >
> >> As follows:
> >> Planet. Classical
> >> Merc. 43.24
> >> V. 8.33
> >> E. 4.49
>
> I would very much like to have your revolutionary
> classical formula explained.

I responded in the other thread. But here’s a copy of that post:

Planet. Obs.— GR ——Classical
Merc—-43.1——43.5 —-43.24
Venus—8———-8.6——-8.33
Earth— 5———- 3.87—-4.49

> If the equation is r/(r+3R)^2 we get
> the number 1.9890E-11 1/m
>
> What does this number mean?
> How do you get the numbers below?
> Is the equation wrong?
> In that case, what should it be?
> Please explain!
>
> > As follows:
> > Planet. Classical
> > Merc. 43.24
> > V. 8.33
> > E. 4.49

Sorry lost in translation from my paper notes to google post
It should read 1/(r+3R)^2
You will get 4.324 x 10-16 for mercury which is where I get 43.24 for mercury.
And if you calculate all 4 planets you will see the progression clearly.

And my source for where I got *observed*...
Table 1 ‘observed’
43.1000 ± 0.5000 mercury
8.0000 ± 5.0000 Venus
5.0000 ± 1.0000 earth
Source:
G Nyambuya On the perehilion progression of planetary orbits Oxford Academic
(Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 403, 1381–1391 (2010) doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16196.x I

And this paper also has similar calculations:

Numerical Investigation of Relativistic Perihelion Shift
A Comparative Study Between the Analytical Approximation and Numerical Calculation for the Perihelion Shift Caused by General Relativity
PIA APPELQUIST OLOF NORDENSTORM

On 10/18/23 12:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on the tick
> rates of atoms at different altitudes.

Einstein didn't really "use r" to model the effects of gravity on the
tick rates of clocks. Rather, he used the metric of spacetime; in a
suitable region with weak gravity and speeds <<< c, the metric can be
accurately approximated as depending on the Newtonian gravitational
potential \Phi.

> Then why cant a classical model use r to model the effects of
> gravity on the tick rates of atoms?

Hmmmm. By "classical" I presume you mean Newtonian mechanics (or
equivalent, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, etc.) [#].

[#] Physicists use the term "classical" to mean
non-quantum, so SR and GR are classical theories.

Newtonian physics cannot "use r", or anything else, to model varying
tick rates of clocks, because it has time that is "Absolute, true and
mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably
without regard to anything external" [Newton].

Basically YOU have to make up an entirely new "theory" that "uses r" to
model tick rates in clocks (or atoms). That's silly, as YOU don't have
nearly enough knowledge to do so. Moreover, GR already does a very
accurate job of modeling them.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 19:17:55 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/18/2023 1:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:27:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> >> Louie, Louie, Loco Louie! 1st, relativity IS classical physics.
> >> 2nd, YOU are the only fool claiming that tick rates are due to
> >> the force of gravity. Everyone's been telling you over and over
> >> that its gravitational potential, GM/r, which is NOT force.
> >
> > Cloud cuckoo land for gary. He thinks gravitational potential has nothing
> > to do with gravity!!! Joker.
> He never said that, he said gravitational potential is not force, which
> it isn't. Obviously, gravitational potential does have something to do
> with gravity! It just isn't gravitational force. Units are wrong as is
> the distance relationship.
> > Let me guess Gary. Gravitational potential is
> > an effect caused by magic gnomes in the 14th dimension and
> > has nothing to do with gravity?
> No wonder why you are so confused.
> >
> > If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on
> > the tick rates of atoms at different altitudes.
> Because that's what comes out of the GR math which Einstein derived.
> Find an error with Einstein's GR work showing no such relationship and
> go collect your Nobel.

I’m not trying to find an error in his using r to model tick rates.
I’m trying to get you to admit that there is no reason why a classical model
can’t use r to model tick rates of atoms.

> > Then why
> > cant a classical model use r to model the effects of gravity on
> > the tick rates of atoms?
> Because Newton said that gravitational force is inversely proportional
> with distance squared.

Did Newton say that Einstein could ignore Newtons r^2 and use gravitational
potential r instead to model gravity’s effects on atomic tick rates.. But a classical model
couldn’t use gravitational potential r to model tick rates of atoms?

On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 19:16:30 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/18/23 12:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> > If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on the tick
> > rates of atoms at different altitudes.
> Einstein didn't really "use r" to model the effects of gravity on the
> tick rates of clocks.
>Rather, he used the metric of spacetime; in a
> suitable region with weak gravity and speeds <<< c, the metric can be
> accurately approximated as depending on the Newtonian gravitational
> potential \Phi.

If it walks like a duck quacks like a duck and looks like a duck ...it
is a duck.
Fact is...He used r instead of r^2.

> > Then why cant a classical model use r to model the effects of
> > gravity on the tick rates of atoms?
> Hmmmm. By "classical" I presume you mean Newtonian mechanics (or
> equivalent, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, etc.) [#].

No I’m talking physics not maths. Classical physics is not assumptions.
It is purely empirically based. We classical theorists do not accept assumptions
as observations.

And for hundreds of years we have know that resonant systems
are harmonic oscillators. And adding more weight or mass to a resonant
system causes its natural resonant frequency to decrease.
And all observations of atoms show us that an atom....is a resonant system.

> [#] Physicists use the term "classical" to mean
> non-quantum, so SR and GR are classical theories.
>
> Newtonian physics cannot "use r", or anything else, to model varying
> tick rates of clocks, because it has time that is "Absolute, true and
> mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably
> without regard to anything external" [Newton].
>
> Basically YOU have to make up an entirely new "theory" that "uses r" to
> model tick rates in clocks (or atoms). That's silly, as YOU don't have
> nearly enough knowledge to do so. Moreover, GR already does a very
> accurate job of modeling them.

I need a New theory?
No. Just 100’s of years of confirmed peer reviewed data. That’s what I
use. And it does model tick rates of atoms. Using centuries of observations
of resonant systems, harmonic oscillators and using r to model the increase
in tick rates at different altitudes.
Here is a classical model gravity strength at different altitudes
Using classical models gravitational shadow at different altitudes r:
r=100% (earths surface)
2r=33%
3r =21%
4r=16%
5r=13%

The available data from gravity probe and GPS is limited but wiki uses this data to
model a graph of the observed increase in tick rates at different altitudes r. From
which the values at different altitudes r are quoted below.
Notice in particular the progression from 2 to 5 r is very similar in rates for both
the classical predictions (cited above)and the observed data below.

r 0
2r 320
3r 440
4r 480
5r 540

Fact is Tom...you cant ignore the data just because it proves a classical
model can correctly predict observed tick rates of caesium atoms at
different altitudes.

On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:04:49 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:27:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > Not nearly as bad at physics as you are.
> > > Force of gravity is GM/r.
> >
> > Louie, Louie, Louie, you just flunked your first test in high school physics!
> >
> > > r^2 is acceleration duh!
> >
> > Nope, a = GM/r^2. And F = ma, therefore F = GMm/r^2 You just flunked
> > your second test in high school physics!
> >
> > > Notice even your Hero Einstein used GM/r to calculate
> > > the effect of the force of gravity on his tick rates
> >
> > GM/r is NOT force, Loco Louie. You fell into your own trap and proved
> > it above.
> >
> > > One rule for Albert and the wrong rules for the competition.
> > > It’s called match fixing by crooks.
> >
> > Nope, it's called Loco Louie louses up physics.
> >
> > > > No, physics-challenged Louie, energy is force times distance.
> > >
> > > Evasive nonsense.
> >
> > Definitely not, Loco Louie. It's in elementary physics texts.
> >
> > > Only a demented relativist would pretend pushing
> > > block across a table is using force but pushing it up in the air isn’t.
> >
> > Fuzzy thinking, Flatulent Louie. It takes NO force to push a block
> > across a frictionless table. Pushing a block UP doesn't involve
> > friction, so your comparison was apples to ants.
>
> Evasive nonsense.
> You ignored the fact I already above “ignoring friction.”

So why does it take force to push a block across a frictionless table
top, Loco Louie? :-))

> So answer the question. Ignoring or in addition to the effects
> of friction, why does it take force to push a block across a
> table but the same force isn’t used to push it up in height?
> Cant answer.?

I already answered, but you flunked your physics test anyway.

> Thought not.

Of course you don't think. If you did, you wouldn't make all these
ridiculous blunders.

> > > No wonder relativity fails every one of its predictions.
> >
> > No wonder you're reduced to lying to protect your demented ego
> >.
> > > > How many times does a demented fool need to be instructed?
> > > > F = dE/dr. Don't understand calculus, either, eh, Louie?
> > >
> > > I understand that you think that one uses force to push
> > > horizontally. But not vertically. What magical new thingy do
> > > relativists call force when applied vertically? Work?
> >
> > We've been talking BASIC high school physics, Louie. It doesn't
> > address anything about relativity.
> >
> > > > You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
> > > > better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
> > > > yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics?
> > > > Fingerpainting?
> > >
> > > Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...
> > > Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
> > > the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
> > > But not OK for classical?
> > > Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
> > > snip my question again?
> >
> > Louie, Louie, Loco Louie! 1st, relativity IS classical physics.
> > 2nd, YOU are the only fool claiming that tick rates are due to
> > the force of gravity. Everyone's been telling you over and over
> > that its gravitational potential, GM/r, which is NOT force.
>
> Cloud cuckoo land for gary. He thinks gravitational potential has
> nothing to do with gravity!!! Joker.

Loco Louie doesn't even understand high school physics. Otherwise,
he never make such ridiculous assertions.

> Let me guess Gary. Gravitational potential is
> an effect caused by magic gnomes in the 14th dimension and
> has nothing to do with gravity?

Is that your answer on your physics test? You flunked another one.

> Anyways you still couldnt answer the question. Thought not.
> Here it is again.
> If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on
> the tick rates of atoms at different altitudes. Then why
> cant a classical model use r to model the effects of gravity on
> the tick rates of atoms?

Flatulent Louie, relativity IS a classical theory. Perhaps you're
trying to argue Newtonian physics vs. relativity. Newtonian
physics assumes time is absolute, so OF COURSE it predicts no
tine dilation. Learn some physics, Lowbrow Louie

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/

On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 16:54:12 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 10/18/2023 8:39 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:31:39 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
> >> Anyone can check GPS.
> >
> > Wozzie-boy should have his mouth washed out with soap for repeating
> > this lie ad nauseam.
> Yes, anyone can check GPS and see it depends on GR to work correctly,

Only as long as you believe that setting clocks to your
ISO/proper time idiocy is some "Newton mode".

On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 17:32:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 8:54:12 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
> >
> > On 10/18/2023 8:39 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:31:39 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
> > > >
> > > > Anyone can check GPS.
> > >
> > > Wozzie-boy should have his mouth washed out with soap for repeating
> > > this lie ad nauseam.
> >
> > Yes, anyone can check GPS and see it depends on GR to work correctly,
> > showing Wozzie is lying like mad, stating the opposite of reality.
> Indeed. I can't understand people like Wozzie and the trolls.
>
> “How much better would life be if a liar’s pants really did catch fire?

For sure it would make them unable to lie that GPS clocks
are not real.

On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:58:55 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 17:32:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > “How much better would life be if a liar’s pants really did catch fire?
>
> For sure it would make them unable to lie that GPS clocks
> are not real.

Yep, just like Wozzie lies about them.

On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 05:16:11 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> Newton would slap you silly for trying to use potential where force
> belongs. Obviously Newton didn't know of GR, but he would certainly be
> capable of analyzing Einstein's equations and agree that

his moronic mumble was not even consistent.

Volney wrote:

> On 10/18/2023 2:56 PM, Lou wrote:
>> Did Newton say that Einstein could ignore Newtons r^2 and use
>> gravitational potential r instead to model gravity’s effects on atomic
>> tick rates.
>
> Newton would slap you silly for trying to use potential where force
> belongs. Obviously Newton didn't know of GR, but he would certainly be
> capable of analyzing Einstein's equations and agree that (for weak
> gravity & slow speeds), using potential is the correct answer.

bullshit. The stupid Newtone used 10 pages of paper to prove 1+1=2. You
are an idiot.

𝗨𝗦_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲-𝗿𝘂𝗻_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮_𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿_𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶a
𝗥𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗼_"𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲"_𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲’s Alsu Kurmasheva is reportedly suspected of gathering
sensitive military data
https://r%74.com/ru%73%73ia/585321-rfe-editor-detained-kurmasheva/

Any intel transfers, that results in Russian deaths: is life in prison...!

Radio Free Europe is a CIA spewing propaganda station. And you think BBC,
CNN, MSNC, FOX and other Anglo-Zionist shit propaganda machine are any
better?

Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty - CIA and NED funded, and scripted. All
lies and evil, American propaganda. Kick 'em all out of Russia. We don't
need any of their NGO's nor GMOs!

What is American media still doing in RF? At this point, if they are
stupid enough to be poking around Russia, they deserve to be locked up

Radio so called """free""" Europe. In Prague, were is their headquarter 𝘁𝗵𝗲
𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗿𝗮𝘇𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗶𝗿𝗲. Enough saying to wised man.

as Dual citizenship, put the bitch traitor in harsh prison the rest of she
fucking life.