On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 20:27:15 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:35:12 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
>
> > 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
> LooLoo
>
> Biswas is a known crank: https://iacs.academia.edu/AbhijitBiswas

You had better tell Paul. Because Paul, not me, is citing Biswas as evidence
to support relativity.

On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 20:34:33 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 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? :-))

Answer the question fatty. Why does it take force to push a block
across the table...but not up in the air?
Let me guess...you use ‘work’ not force to push things vertically.
And to do ‘work’ you don’t need to apply any force.
Have you patented this free energy invention of yours?

> > 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
>

No you didn’t answer. All you could say when asked the question
was to repeat the vacuous mantra “”GM/r DOES have something to do with
force. It's just that the force varies as 1/r^2, not 1/r. “
Or this silly zippo statement “GM/r,...is NOT force. “
Evasive or what.
Because if you think to calculate gravity force for different altitudes
one must use r^2 to calculate atomic tick rates,
Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
Let me guess: Gary’s 1st postulate:
“Different strengths of gravitational force at different
altitudes is calculated using r in relativity. But all other theories
have to use the incorrect calculation using r^2”
(Source: Book of Gary, last chapter in the bible)

On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 04:16:11 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/18/2023 2:56 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 19:17:55 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/18/2023 1:04 PM, Lou wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
> No, you are just flailing wildly, without a purpose or goal.
> > 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.
> A classical model like relativity? At well over 100 years old, quite
> classical compared to upstart models like QFT.
> >
> >>> Then why
> >>> cant a classical model use r to model the effects of gravity on
> >>> the tick rates of atoms?
> Because it simply doesn't work. Units are wrong, and numbers don't match
> measurements.
> >> 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.
> 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.
> > But a classical model
> > couldn’t use gravitational potential r to model tick rates of atoms?
> But classical relativity *does* model gravitational time dilation
> proportional to the potential 1/r. Again, do the math if you don't
> agree. Of course, the tick rates of atoms are always 1 second per second
> locally.

I’m glad you finally admitted that it’s OK for relativity to use r to
model force of gravity...but not OK for a classical model to use it.
Otherwise, heaven forbid! Classical theory could also correctly
predict and explain GPS etc.
And by the way area of earths shadow does fall off at r. Not r^2.
You just didn’t do the calculations. Or were unable to seeing as relativists
dont do geometry.

r=100% (earths surface)
2r=33%
3r =21%
4r=16%
5r=13%
Notice not only is it r! But it’s also very close to observations of tick rates
from other sources like gravity probe A and B and GPS
As listed below ( source wiki gravitational time dilation rates for different
altitudes)
(Picoseconds gained with r)
r 0
2r 320
3r 440
4r 480
5r 540

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 5:56:55 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 20:34:33 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > 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? :-))
>
> Answer the question fatty. Why does it take force to push a block
> across the table...but not up in the air?

I did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block
across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have
misrepresented what happens in the real world.

And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary
to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!

> Let me guess...you use ‘work’ not force to push things vertically.
> And to do ‘work’ you don’t need to apply any force.

F = ma, demented Louie. Uou flunked your third physics test.
> Have you patented this free energy invention of yours?

I have several patents, but I wouldn't be as stupid as you to
suggest such a ridiculous thing. This happens when you're
incapable of understanding physics.

> > > 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
>
> No you didn’t answer. All you could say when asked the question
> was to repeat the vacuous mantra “”GM/r DOES have something to do with
> force. It's just that the force varies as 1/r^2, not 1/r. “
> Or this silly zippo statement “GM/r,...is NOT force. “
> Evasive or what.

Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest
thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in
that condition are delusional.

> Because if you think to calculate gravity force for different altitudes
> one must use r^2 to calculate atomic tick rates,

Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just
MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively
that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r,
then GM/r just MUST be force.

> Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
> gravity on tick rates using just r!!!

He doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.

> Let me guess: Gary’s 1st postulate:
> “Different strengths of gravitational force at different
> altitudes is calculated using r in relativity. But all other theories
> have to use the incorrect calculation using r^2”
> (Source: Book of Gary, last chapter in the bible)

Silly Psychopathic Louie! You're like a donkey kicking against
a spiked goad. The donkey gets a damaged foot and you get
more and more insane. I have carefully explained everything you
need to know to answer your question completely, but you
continue to rail and rave instead of settling down and begin
learning. What you are doing is described as arrogant ignorance.

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may
deride it, but in the end, there it is.” -- Winston Churchill

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" –Confucius

On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 14:50:35 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest
> thing about physics, which is a description of the real world.

We know your "real world", poor religious crank. You
had to delete GPS clocks from it, as they didn't fit your
"description".

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> 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.

MODERNA VAX POISON KNOCKS OUT ANOTHER TIKTOK "INFLUENCER" CHICK (BUT THE
PENNY DOESN'T DROP STILL..)

On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 13:50:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 5:56:55 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 20:34:33 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > 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? :-))
> >
> > Answer the question fatty. Why does it take force to push a block
> > across the table...but not up in the air?
> I did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block
> across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have
> misrepresented what happens in the real world.
>
So Gary thinks it doesn’t take any force to move a block from one side
of the table to the other? Which special super powers do you use
to move the block?

> And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary
> to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!
> > Let me guess...you use ‘work’ not force to push things vertically.
> > And to do ‘work’ you don’t need to apply any force.
> F = ma, demented Louie. Uou flunked your third physics test.
> > Have you patented this free energy invention of yours?
> I have several patents, but I wouldn't be as stupid as you to
> suggest such a ridiculous thing. This happens when you're
> incapable of understanding physics.
> > > > 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
> >
> > No you didn’t answer. All you could say when asked the question
> > was to repeat the vacuous mantra “”GM/r DOES have something to do with
> > force. It's just that the force varies as 1/r^2, not 1/r. “
> > Or this silly zippo statement “GM/r,...is NOT force. “
> > Evasive or what.
> Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest
> thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in
> that condition are delusional.
> > Because if you think to calculate gravity force for different altitudes
> > one must use r^2 to calculate atomic tick rates,
> Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just
> MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively
> that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r,
> then GM/r just MUST be force.
> > Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
> > gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
> He doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:57:25 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 13:50:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > I did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block
> > across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have
> > misrepresented what happens in the real world.
>
> So Gary thinks it doesn’t take any force to move a block from one side
> of the table to the other? Which special super powers do you use
> to move the block?

It's called inertia, Lobotomized Louie. You just flunked your 4th physics test.

> > And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary
> > to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!
> > ....
> > Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest
> > thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in
> > that condition are delusional.
> > ....
> > Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just
> > MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively
> > that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r,
> > then GM/r just MUST be force.
> >
> > > Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
> > > gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
> >
> > He doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.
>
> So gravity has nothing to do with einsteins imaginary “gravitational
> Time dilation”

Only trolls misrepresent facts the way you do, Leprous Louie.
> Why is it called “gravitational” ( time dilation)?
> Does gravitational in german mean marvel superhero magic forces?

Your asinine misrepresentations means you just flunked the entire
physics course.

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn..”
-- Benjamin Franklin

On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 22:58:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:57:25 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 13:50:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > I did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block
> > > across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have
> > > misrepresented what happens in the real world.
> >
> > So Gary thinks it doesn’t take any force to move a block from one side
> > of the table to the other? Which special super powers do you use
> > to move the block?
> It's called inertia, Lobotomized Louie. You just flunked your 4th physics test.

I flunked the test? You did.
It’s called acceleration. And you use force to accelerate the block..
Not inertia.
Seeing as before you applied the force to the block..it wasn’t moving.

> > > And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary
> > > to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!
> > > ....
> > > Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest
> > > thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in
> > > that condition are delusional.
> > > ....
> > > Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just
> > > MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively
> > > that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r,
> > > then GM/r just MUST be force.
> > >
> > > > Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
> > > > gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
> > >
> > > He doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.
> >
> > So gravity has nothing to do with einsteins imaginary “gravitational
> > Time dilation”
> Only trolls misrepresent facts the way you do, Leprous Louie.
> > Why is it called “gravitational” ( time dilation)?
> > Does gravitational in german mean marvel superhero magic forces?
> Your asinine misrepresentations means you just flunked the entire
> physics course.
> “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
> -- Benjamin Franklin

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:43:04 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 22:58:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:57:25 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 13:50:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block
> > > > across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have
> > > > misrepresented what happens in the real world.
> > >
> > > So Gary thinks it doesn’t take any force to move a block from one side
> > > of the table to the other? Which special super powers do you use
> > > to move the block?
> >
> > It's called inertia, Lobotomized Louie. You just flunked your 4th physics test.
>
> I flunked the test? You did.

So now you're reduced to the childish, "Oh yeah, well so are you!" behavior..

> It’s called acceleration. And you use force to accelerate the block.
> Not inertia.

You asked what MOVES the block. Motion includes UNIFORM motion.
What causes a block to move across a frictionless table? I answered
correctly. The problem is that you use imprecise language.

> Seeing as before you applied the force to the block..it wasn’t moving.

Well, you didn't SAY it wasn't moving, so YOU are your own problem in
that you can't pose a proper thought experiment.

> > > > And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary
> > > > to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!
> > > > ....
> > > > Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest
> > > > thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in
> > > > that condition are delusional.
> > > > ....
> > > > Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just
> > > > MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively
> > > > that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r,
> > > > then GM/r just MUST be force.

No comment, Louie? This is the crux of your misunderstanding.

> > > > > Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
> > > > > gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
> > > >
> > > > He doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.
> > >
> > > So gravity has nothing to do with einsteins imaginary “gravitational
> > > Time dilation”
> >
> > Only trolls misrepresent facts the way you do, Leprous Louie.
> >
> > > Why is it called “gravitational” ( time dilation)?
> > > Does gravitational in german mean marvel superhero magic forces?
> >
> > Your asinine misrepresentations means you just flunked the entire
> > physics course.

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn..”
-- Benjamin Franklin

And, Loser Louie, you are adamantly unwilling to learn. You need to lose
one more thing: your vaunting ego.

Volney wrote:

> On 10/19/2023 8:04 AM, Lou wrote:
>> I’m glad you finally admitted that it’s OK for relativity to use r to
>> model force of gravity...
>
> Relativity does NOT use 1/r to model the force of gravity. It doesn't
> even have the correct units (which makes it automatically wrong!)

here you have it, the 𝗱𝗼𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗲_𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 khazar goy blinken's hand, right up
into the bidon's ass. Enjoy.

𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗗𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵_𝗕𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗲𝗻_𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘄_𝗝𝗼𝗲_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻'𝘀_𝗮𝘄𝗸𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱_𝗔𝗙1_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/XvsRqcwXXCaJ

On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 04:25:08 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/19/2023 8:04 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 04:16:11 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/18/2023 2:56 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>> But a classical model
> >>> couldn’t use gravitational potential r to model tick rates of atoms?
>
> >> But classical relativity *does* model gravitational time dilation
> >> proportional to the potential 1/r. Again, do the math if you don't
> >> agree. Of course, the tick rates of atoms are always 1 second per second
> >> locally.
> >
> > I’m glad you finally admitted that it’s OK for relativity to use r to
> > model force of gravity...
> Relativity does NOT use 1/r to model the force of gravity. It doesn't
> even have the correct units (which makes it automatically wrong!)

‘Relativity does not use 1/r to model the force of gravity’ !
You have changed your mind.
Here’s a quote from you earlier in this thread:
“ while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r). “

> > but not OK for a classical model to use it.
> > Otherwise, heaven forbid! Classical theory could also correctly
> > predict and explain GPS etc.
> Except that Newtonian gravity can't. (be careful of your wording. GR is
> considered a classical theory nowadays)

I don’t consider GR a classical theory.
Classical theory has light only at c relative to source.
Classical theory has no time dilation effects.
Classical theory has light as a wave only.

>There simply isn't anything in
> it with that effect. Remember in Newtonian physics time is universal
> everywhere so there is no equivalent to gravitational time dilation, nor
> could there be.
> > And by the way area of earths shadow does fall off at r. Not r^2.
> Umbra or penumbra?

I don’t like rules but looking at the two the umbra is closest.
Whether or not the shadow is fuzzy as Wiki umbra suggests is
hard to guess. Does gravity diffract? I haven’t studied that
possibility. Of course with gravity whether or not it’s push or
another model one has to take into account that the edge of the
shadow will be the edge of the sphere. And thus less mass at
the edge of the shadow.
The illustration Wiki supplies is handy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra,_penumbra_and_antumbra#/media/File:Kernschatten_und_Halbschatten.svg

Notice if you continue the the two converging ‘umbra’ lines
to the left. Where they meet, outside the image is where the observer
is when calculating the area of the sky covered/subtended by the earth shadow.

> > You just didn’t do the calculations. Or were unable to seeing as relativists
> > dont do geometry.
> >
> > r=100% (earths surface)
> > 2r=33%
> > 3r =21%
> > 4r=16%
> > 5r=13%
>
> > Notice not only is it r! But it’s also very close to observations of tick rates
> > from other sources like gravity probe A and B and GPS
> And your point is...? (no, not the one on top of your head)

Very funny. (Did you ever read the excellent cartoon strip Zippy the pinhead?)
My point is that within error margins of around 10 % it matches observations.
Note even Hafael Keating couldn’t do better than 10% errors.
And for total error for the eastward plane the relativistic prediction
is off from the observed by a 33% error!!

> > As listed below ( source wiki gravitational time dilation rates for different
> > altitudes)
> > (Picoseconds gained with r)
> > r 0
> > 2r 320
> > 3r 440
> > 4r 480
> > 5r 540
> >
> The 1/r potential is referenced to infinity, so this is a difference of
> potentials. With potential from r to 2r being half that from r to
> infinity, this could work for 640 picoseconds from r to infinity.
>

Whatever. Notice the progression of tick rates from r to r5
is matched very well by the progression in area of shadow
from r to r5. Nothing like the r^2 inverse relationship you
claimed elsewhere for classical theory.
As I mentioned earlier the “great” Hafael Keating “evidence”
supporting Einsteins theories is actually WAY off from his
relativistic predictions.
Between 10-30% off.!!

> So we can make a new table for differences between r and multiples
> assuming 1/r relationship:
>
> r r 0
> r 2r 320
> r 3r 427
> r 4r 480
> r 5r 512
>
> I don't know where you got your numbers from but a so-so match with 1/r.

<12% error max. Not as bad as Hafael Keatings 30% error for relativity.
My calculations can only be approximate values as I had to calculate
angle subtended by earth shadow on hypothetical observer using pencil
on paper with technical draughting equipment.
And measure off a online wiki graph for rough approx tick rates.
Seeing as no actual observed tick data is available for exact 1-5 r
distances. However my point really was ...it is *no where NEAR* 1/ r^2
as you claimed it had to be.

On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 04:35:09 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:43:04 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 22:58:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:57:25 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 13:50:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block
> > > > > across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have
> > > > > misrepresented what happens in the real world.
> > > >
> > > > So Gary thinks it doesn’t take any force to move a block from one side
> > > > of the table to the other? Which special super powers do you use
> > > > to move the block?
> > >
> > > It's called inertia, Lobotomized Louie. You just flunked your 4th physics test.
> >
> > I flunked the test? You did.
> So now you're reduced to the childish, "Oh yeah, well so are you!" behavior.
> > It’s called acceleration. And you use force to accelerate the block.
> > Not inertia.
> You asked what MOVES the block. Motion includes UNIFORM motion.
> What causes a block to move across a frictionless table? I answered
> correctly. The problem is that you use imprecise language.
> > Seeing as before you applied the force to the block..it wasn’t moving.
> Well, you didn't SAY it wasn't moving, so YOU are your own problem in
> that you can't pose a proper thought experiment.

Wasn’t it obvious that I meant move a block?
Ask anyone, physicist or otherwise and they will automatically
and correctly assume I meant move it from a stationary position.

> > > > > And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary
> > > > > to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!
> > > > > ....
> > > > > Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest
> > > > > thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in
> > > > > that condition are delusional.
> > > > > ....
> > > > > Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just
> > > > > MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively
> > > > > that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r,
> > > > > then GM/r just MUST be force.
> No comment, Louie? This is the crux of your misunderstanding.

I’m not the one who was pretending that the force of gravity on tick rates
wasn’t modelled by GM/r, when in fact Einstein was modelling the force
of gravity on tick rates using GM/r.
So why should I be expected to explain the contradiction in your own
argument?
That’s your responsibility.
Which is also why I asked you to explain why you think lifting an object vertically
does not need any force. If it doesnt then how does it get lifted vertically
without force.?

> > > > > > Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
> > > > > > gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > He doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.
> > > >
> > > > So gravity has nothing to do with einsteins imaginary “gravitational
> > > > Time dilation”
> > >
> > > Only trolls misrepresent facts the way you do, Leprous Louie.
> > >
> > > > Why is it called “gravitational” ( time dilation)?
> > > > Does gravitational in german mean marvel superhero magic forces?
> > >
> > > Your asinine misrepresentations means you just flunked the entire
> > > physics course.
>
> “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> And, Loser Louie, you are adamantly unwilling to learn. You need to lose
> one more thing: your vaunting ego.

Yes Gary and you have no ego.
Is that why your comments contain such filthy insults instead of
rational arguments ?
Let me guess...Jesus said to his flock...”whenever and wherever you
find someone who doesn’t agree with you..Kick their fuckin ass”

On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:07:17 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 04:35:09 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:43:04 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 22:58:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:57:25 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 13:50:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block
> > > > > > across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have
> > > > > > misrepresented what happens in the real world.
> > > > >
> > > > > So Gary thinks it doesn’t take any force to move a block from one side
> > > > > of the table to the other? Which special super powers do you use
> > > > > to move the block?
> > > >
> > > > It's called inertia, Lobotomized Louie. You just flunked your 4th physics test.
> > >
> > > I flunked the test? You did.
> >
> > So now you're reduced to the childish, "Oh yeah, well so are you!" behavior.

> > > It’s called acceleration. And you use force to accelerate the block.
> > > Not inertia.
> >
> > You asked what MOVES the block. Motion includes UNIFORM motion.
> > What causes a block to move across a frictionless table? I answered
> > correctly. The problem is that you use imprecise language.
> > > Seeing as before you applied the force to the block..it wasn’t moving.
> >
> > Well, you didn't SAY it wasn't moving, so YOU are your own problem in
> > that you can't pose a proper thought experiment.
>
> Wasn’t it obvious that I meant move a block?

A professor is giving a lecture and has made an assertion as part of his
presentation and says that It is obvious. Then he steps back, stares at
the board and ponders for several minutes. Then he turns and walks out
of the lecture hall. He is absent for a fairly long time and just before the
class is scheduled to end the professor reappears, and announces "Yes,
it is obvious."

> Ask anyone, physicist or otherwise and they will automatically
> and correctly assume I meant move it from a stationary position.

Only in your sloppy manners. I took it to mean uniform motion, and
I am a physicist.

> > > > > > And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary
> > > > > > to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!
> > > > > > ....
> > > > > > Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest
> > > > > > thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in
> > > > > > that condition are delusional.
> > > > > > ....
> > > > > > Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just
> > > > > > MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively
> > > > > > that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r,
> > > > > > then GM/r just MUST be force.
> >
> > No comment, Louie? This is the crux of your misunderstanding.
>
> I’m not the one who was pretending that the force of gravity on tick rates
> wasn’t modelled by GM/r, when in fact Einstein was modelling the force
> of gravity on tick rates using GM/r.

See? You continue to INSIST that tick rates MUST be affected by FORCE.
That is demonstrably incorrect, false, bogus, erroneous. You've been
instructed that force is NOT GM/r, yet you foolishly and arrogantly refuse to
accept simple high school physics. You exhibit extreme unwillingness to
learn.

> So why should I be expected to explain the contradiction in your own
> argument?
> That’s your responsibility.

My argument had no contradiction, Lying Louie. As Volney and I have pointed
out, F = GMm/r^2 in simple Newtonian high school physics. It's not possible
that GM/r can be a force since it has the wrong dimensional units.

> Which is also why I asked you to explain why you think lifting an object vertically
> does not need any force.
> If it doesnt then how does it get lifted vertically without force.?

No one claims an object at a planet's surface can resist gravity without a force
being involved. Where do you get these strange fantasies?

> > > > > > > Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
> > > > > > > gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.
> > > > >
> > > > > So gravity has nothing to do with einsteins imaginary “gravitational
> > > > > Time dilation”
> > > >
> > > > Only trolls misrepresent facts the way you do, Leprous Louie.
> > > >
> > > > > Why is it called “gravitational” ( time dilation)?
> > > > > Does gravitational in german mean marvel superhero magic forces?
> > > >
> > > > Your asinine misrepresentations means you just flunked the entire
> > > > physics course.
> >
> > “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
> > -- Benjamin Franklin
> > And, Loser Louie, you are adamantly unwilling to learn. You need to lose
> > one more thing: your vaunting ego.
>
> Yes Gary and you have no ego

Everyone has an ego. You, however, have much more than your share.
> Is that why your comments contain such filthy insults instead of
> rational arguments ?

Filthy? Seems like your going overboard again. When I have a discussion
with someone and they act like you do, I try to shake them out of their
fiercely held misconceptions. It seems to be impossible with kooks,
but I try in the hopes of finding a kook who believes in reality rather than
his fantasies.

> Let me guess...Jesus said to his flock...”whenever and wherever you
> find someone who doesn’t agree with you..Kick their fuckin ass”

No, Lying Louie, He upset the moneychangers' tables and drove them
out of the Temple with a whip. It's not a simple case of disagreement
with them or you: It's a case of your being adamantly opposed to what
is real.

On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 17:39:43 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Filthy? Seems like your going overboard again. When I have a discussion
> with someone and they act like you do, I try to shake them out of their
> fiercely held misconceptions. It seems to be impossible with kooks,
> but I try in the hopes of finding a kook who believes in reality rather than
> his fantasies.

Stop making wise faces, poor halfbrain. The mumble of
your idiot guru wasn't even consistent, and youe assertions
that GPS clocks can't be real because they don't fit your
"description of the reality" - are just funny.

> > Let me guess...Jesus said to his flock...”whenever and wherever you
> > find someone who doesn’t agree with you..Kick their fuckin ass”
> No, Lying Louie, He upset the moneychangers' tables and drove them
> out of the Temple with a whip. It's not a simple case of disagreement
> with them or you: It's a case of your being adamantly opposed to what
> is real.

Sorry, trash, your delusions are no way real. They're gedanken.
And the real reality is including GPS clocks.

On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 17:05:18 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 8:44 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 04:25:08 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/19/2023 8:04 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 04:16:11 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 10/18/2023 2:56 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> But a classical model
> >>>>> couldn’t use gravitational potential r to model tick rates of atoms?
> >>
> >>>> But classical relativity *does* model gravitational time dilation
> >>>> proportional to the potential 1/r. Again, do the math if you don't
> >>>> agree. Of course, the tick rates of atoms are always 1 second per second
> >>>> locally.
> >>>
> >>> I’m glad you finally admitted that it’s OK for relativity to use r to
> >>> model force of gravity...
> >> Relativity does NOT use 1/r to model the force of gravity. It doesn't
> >> even have the correct units (which makes it automatically wrong!)
> >
> > ‘Relativity does not use 1/r to model the force of gravity’ !
> > You have changed your mind.
> No, I haven't. Relativity does not model any inverse r effect as a
> force. Newtonian GM/r is NOT a force either. Remember, objects at
> different potentials are unaffected by the potential.
> > Here’s a quote from you earlier in this thread:
> > “ while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r). “
> GR effects, not force. Specifically the effect involved is the
> redshift/blueshift of a timing signal from different potentials, as
> Pound-Rebka discovered.
> >
> >>> but not OK for a classical model to use it.
> >>> Otherwise, heaven forbid! Classical theory could also correctly
> >>> predict and explain GPS etc.
>
> >> Except that Newtonian gravity can't. (be careful of your wording. GR is
> >> considered a classical theory nowadays)
> >
> > I don’t consider GR a classical theory.
> Nobody cares what you consider. GR is 100+ years old and has no quantum
> effects, unlike modern theories like QFT.
> > Classical theory has light only at c relative to source.
> > Classical theory has no time dilation effects.
> > Classical theory has light as a wave only.
> Again, nobody cares what you believe.
> >
> >> There simply isn't anything in
> >> it with that effect. Remember in Newtonian physics time is universal
> >> everywhere so there is no equivalent to gravitational time dilation, nor
> >> could there be.
> >>> And by the way area of earths shadow does fall off at r. Not r^2.
> >> Umbra or penumbra?
> >
> > I don’t like rules but looking at the two the umbra is closest.
> > Whether or not the shadow is fuzzy as Wiki umbra suggests is
> > hard to guess. Does gravity diffract? I haven’t studied that
> > possibility. Of course with gravity whether or not it’s push or
> > another model one has to take into account that the edge of the
> > shadow will be the edge of the sphere. And thus less mass at
> > the edge of the shadow.
> > The illustration Wiki supplies is handy.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra,_penumbra_and_antumbra#/media/File:Kernschatten_und_Halbschatten.svg
> And the area covered is proportional to the inverse square of the distance.
> >
> > Notice if you continue the the two converging ‘umbra’ lines
> > to the left. Where they meet, outside the image is where the observer
> > is when calculating the area of the sky covered/subtended by the earth shadow.
> Area covered is proportional to the inverse square of the distance,
> until the convergence, where the shading body's image becomes larger
> than the source.
> >

Try your calculation again. And *show me* how you calculate the size in the sky
in degrees of earths shadow for an observer at *2r*.
Dont forget...the shadow of the earth at r for the observer (standing on
the earths surface) is 50% (180 degrees ) of the total area
observed. So your area must be no more than 1/4 of that 50% if you use r^2

Here is an illustration to clarify what 180 degrees means.
In this wiki illustration linked below imagine you are the observer and
you are represented by the dot (earth) in the illustration.
The equatorial line of the outer sphere represents the earths surface
below you. So at r, you see 180 degrees sky above.
And earths shadow is 180 degrees below you, represented by the horizontal
equatorial line of the outer sphere in the illustration.
So then...at 2r you will look down below you and the earth has moved away
from your feet. And the earth now will take up a certain amount of your
vision below you, but less than the 180 degrees it did at r.
What angle do you think the earths shadow will now subtend at 2r?

If it follows inverse square..then your earth shadow should
subtend to no more than 1/4 of 180degrees.
I think you will find that this is an incorrect assumption you make.
Because I calculate earths shadow at 2 r will subtend to 60degrees of
the view below you. Only1/3 of 180degrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination#/media/File:Ra_and_dec_on_celestial_sphere.png

"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
news:98587af2-de8d-4a90-87e4-2f2f52730aa2n@googlegroups.com...

>> 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.

Oh dear.... "in this context" is a direct reference to the fact that
referring to "space-time" is a needless and an irrelevant complication.

Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space. If clocks read
differently it's because there are differences either in time or clocks,
thus space is not relevant.

> All inertial observers travel through time at the
>PROPER rate of 1 second/second.

Yep.

>Clocks moving wrt an observer
>are OBSERVED to travel through time at different rates.

Nope. If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never
physically read different when reunited.

Either clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time "space-time"
at different rates.

You can't have it both ways. Something has to give. There is a real physical
effect. An observation, by itself cannot account for all observers agreeing
on a final *difference*.

>They still have the same PROPER time of 1 sec/sec.

Yep.

>> 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."

Sure they do, according to SR.

Reunited clocks read different, thus its not an optical illusion type
effect, its a real, physical difference. This requires a physical
explanation.

Either clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time
("space-time") at different rates. Its the gamma factor dude.

An odometer reads different going from London to Edinburgh either because it
takes a different path OR because the odometer calibration changes.

> You're making the mistake that the reading of clocks observed
>by an observer in relative motion is somehow unique and absolute.

Nope. You are making the mistake of not reading what has actually been
written and substitute your own made up meanderings.

You are trying to answer questions posted by others, not me.

I have specifically explained in detail that clocks read differently and not
unique, and why they do. In contrast, you are just blabbering.

>Another observer moving at a different speed with disagree, so you can't
>say the moving
>clock is running slow at some specific rate.

Strawman. I never made that claim. I specifically denied that and gave the
only alternative, to wit, clocks travel through time at different rates,
according to SR

>> 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.

Nope.

You need to improve your English comprehension mate.

>> 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.

The incompatibility of time in QM and GR is well known and precise. It is
your knowledge of this that is fuzzy.

>Although basic QM has absolute time, QFT is based
>on SR.

Nope. QFT is based on the Lorentz Transform.

The LT does not depend on SR. It is a common misunderstanding that it does.

>> 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.

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

"In 2005, Robert B. Laughlin (Physics Nobel Laureate, Stanford University),
wrote about the nature of space: "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative
work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing
space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that
no such medium existed ... The word 'ether' has extremely negative
connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with
opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these
connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually
think about the vacuum. ... Relativity actually says nothing about the
existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any
such matter must have relativistic symmetry (i.e., as measured)."[40]"

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Professor (UK head of department) of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong (Adams
prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/

Royal Institute Lecture on YouTube on QFT (Quantum Field Theory)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

Time into video 0:31 :

"...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building blocks of
nature...?"

Time into video 19:30 :

"... so there is spread something throughout this room, something we call
the electron field… it’s like a fluid that fills… the entire universe… and
the ripples of this electron fluid… the waves of this fluid get tied into
little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics... and these
bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron....and the same
is true for every kind of particle in the universe..."

Thus QFT is an Ether in denial.

QF are "background fields".

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

>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."

Yeah... you just don't understand what you haven't been instructed in or
read in a book.

Sure, I understand, that you just haven't thought about the problem, because
no one pointed it out to you.

The TWLS is not the issue. We all know about the OWLS and TWLS problem. The
issue is that by definition, ANY speed require a measurement of *both* time
and length.

The SOL cannot be ascertained without definitions of time and length.

Alternative definitions of length and time result in the same LT.

The reason that this is possible is precisely because the two axioms SOL and
POR, cannot be verified independently of each other.

The POR require the assumption that moving clocks satisfy it, that is,
always tick at he same rate. However, determining the SOL in a moving frame
requires that time first be known. There are TWO unknowns, both the SOL ant
the clock tick rates

Its astounding that so many just can't get this. The reason is that most
just regurgitate what they are taught without going hey... there's a problem
there.

One is assuming that which one is trying to prove.

>> 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.

Ho hum..... Your trying very hard, vainly, to get brownie points..... its
trivially obvious that in the context of this discussion on SR that that
statement means

"No observer can tell if he is moving with respect to another inertial
observer if the observers are in closed boxes"

Its was a resentment of the Principle of Relativity. Dah....

>> 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.

Sure, a moving clock is only *observed* to tick slow, its not physically
real in SR, that is why the rational alternative, that is required to
explain why clocks physically read different, is that clocks travel through
"time" at different rates.

It has to be one or the other mate.

You are really confused as to what "space-time" actually means in SR,
physically.

On 10/23/23 3:33 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never
> physically read different when reunited. Either clocks physically
> slow down, OR they travel through time "space-time" at different
> rates. You can't have it both ways. [...]

Your attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration fails because YOU forgot
a third possibility: clocks following different paths through spacetime
have different path lengths between a given pair of endpoints, and the
clock's elapsed proper time is that path length.

This is no different from two sides of a triangle having
a different total path length than the third side.

> Reunited clocks read different, thus its not an optical illusion
> type effect, its a real, physical difference. This requires a
> physical explanation.

Yes. And relativity has such an explanation: path lengths.

> Either clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time
> ("space-time") at different rates.

Nope. The THIRD possibility holds: clocks following different paths
through spacetime have different path lengths between a given pair of
endpoints, and the clock's elapsed proper time is that path length.

No clock ever slows down, and every clock advances in
time (not "travels through time") at the usual 1 second
per second.

> You are making the mistake of not reading what has actually been
> written and substitute your own made up meanderings.

That is what YOU are doing.

> [... too much nonsense to be bothered with....]

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 05:51:58 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/23/23 3:33 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never
> > physically read different when reunited. Either clocks physically
> > slow down, OR they travel through time "space-time" at different
> > rates. You can't have it both ways. [...]
>
> Your attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration fails because YOU forgot
> a third possibility: clocks following different paths through spacetime
> have different path lengths between a given pair of endpoints, and the
> clock's elapsed proper time is that path length.

Come on, trash. Your "proper time" delusion means
nothing for anyone.
Even you, yourself, are not stupid enough to treat
it seriously, and your clock is really indicating
one of the zone times.

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:33:57 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> news:98587af2-de8d-4a90...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Oh dear.... "in this context" is a direct reference to the fact that
> referring to "space-time" is a needless and an irrelevant complication.

Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who
attempt to apply them to tachyons.

> Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space.

Not really. Clocks measure space, too:

https://www.homedepot.com/b/Tools-Hand-Tools-Measuring-Tools-Laser-Distance-Measurer/N-5yc1vZc23p

> If clocks read differently it's because there are differences either in time or clocks,
> thus space is not relevant.

I refer you to Tom Roberts' post.

> > Clocks moving wrt an observer are OBSERVED to travel through time at different rates.
>
> Nope. If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never
> physically read different when reunited.
>
> Either clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time "space-time"
> at different rates.
>
> You can't have it both ways. Something has to give. There is a real physical
> effect. An observation, by itself cannot account for all observers agreeing
> on a final *difference*.

I refer you to Tom Roberts' post.

> > > 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."
>
> Sure they do, according to SR.
>
> Reunited clocks read different, thus its not an optical illusion type
> effect, its a real, physical difference. This requires a physical
> explanation.
>
> Either clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time
> ("space-time") at different rates. Its the gamma factor dude.

Nope. I refer you to Tom Roberts' post.

> An odometer reads different going from London to Edinburgh either because it
> takes a different path OR because the odometer calibration changes.

Think "different path": see Tom Roberts' post.

> > You're making the mistake that the reading of clocks observed
> > by an observer in relative motion is somehow unique and absolute.
>
> Nope. You are making the mistake of not reading what has actually been
> written and substitute your own made up meanderings.

Hmm, you accuse me of not reading the literature and then accuse me of
reading the literature :-))

YOU seem to be the one "substituting your own made up meanderings"

> You are trying to answer questions posted by others, not me.

AH, but my answer applies directly to your meanderings, even if you don't
realize it.

> I have specifically explained in detail that clocks read differently and not
> unique, and why they do. In contrast, you are just blabbering.

Pot, kettle, black. But if different observers read different values for the
same clock, your argument that "clocks read differently" cannot be used
to claim "clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time ("space-
> time") at different rates."

> > Another observer moving at a different speed with disagree, so you can't
> > say the moving clock is running slow at some specific rate.
>
> Strawman. I never made that claim.

SR does, and it's unavoidable. You look at a subset of the phenomenon and
believe you have the whole thing figured out.

> I specifically denied that and gave the only alternative, to wit, clocks travel
> through time at different rates, according to SR

14. excluded middle, or false dichotomy

https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

> > > 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.
>
> The incompatibility of time in QM and GR is well known and precise. It is
> your knowledge of this that is fuzzy.
>
> > Although basic QM has absolute time, QFT is based on SR.
>
> Nope. QFT is based on the Lorentz Transform.
>
> The LT does not depend on SR. It is a common misunderstanding that it does.

It's seems to be a specific misunderstanding of YOU that the LT is part of SR.

> > > 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.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>
> "In 2005, Robert B. Laughlin (Physics Nobel Laureate, Stanford University),
> wrote about the nature of space: "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative
> work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing
> space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that
> no such medium existed ... The word 'ether' has extremely negative
> connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with
> opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these
> connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually
> think about the vacuum. ... Relativity actually says nothing about the
> existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any
> such matter must have relativistic symmetry (i.e., as measured)."[40]"
>
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

He sounds reasonable.

“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite
different.” – Steven Carlip

> Professor (UK head of department) of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong (Adams
> prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:
>
> http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/
>
> Royal Institute Lecture on YouTube on QFT (Quantum Field Theory)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
>
> Time into video 0:31 :
>
> "...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building blocks of
> nature...?"
>
> Time into video 19:30 :
>
> "... so there is spread something throughout this room, something we call
> the electron field… it’s like a fluid that fills… the entire universe… and
> the ripples of this electron fluid… the waves of this fluid get tied into
> little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics... and these
> bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron....and the same
> is true for every kind of particle in the universe..."
>
> Thus QFT is an Ether in denial.
>
> QF are "background fields".

You seem to be dismissing the most accurate theory we have to describe
one domain of reality.

> > > The two postulates of SR are clearly circular. This is obvious. s
> >
> > 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."
>
> Yeah... you just don't understand what you haven't been instructed in or
> read in a book.

See? Your disparagement of me is both A and not-A :-)))

> Sure, I understand, that you just haven't thought about the problem, because
> no one pointed it out to you.

#1. ad hominem. In your case, playing the "holier than thou" card.

> The TWLS is not the issue. We all know about the OWLS and TWLS problem.
> The issue is that by definition, ANY speed require a measurement of *both*
> time and length.
>
> The SOL cannot be ascertained without definitions of time and length.
>
> Alternative definitions of length and time result in the same LT.
>
> The reason that this is possible is precisely because the two axioms SOL and
> POR, cannot be verified independently of each other.
>
> The POR require the assumption that moving clocks satisfy it, that is,
> always tick at he same rate. However, determining the SOL in a moving frame
> requires that time first be known. There are TWO unknowns, both the SOL ant
> the clock tick rates

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> >
> > Oh dear.... "in this context" is a direct reference to the fact that
> > referring to "space-time" is a needless and an irrelevant complication.
> Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who
> attempt to apply them to tachyons.

You must be referring to your failed attempts.

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:21:01 AM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
>
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Oh dear.... "in this context" is a direct reference to the fact that
> > > referring to "space-time" is a needless and an irrelevant complication.
> >
> > Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who
> > attempt to apply them to tachyons.
>
> You must be referring to your failed attempts.

Only a despicable troll calls a published peer-reviewed paper a "failed
attempt" :-))
A troll who doesn't understand PEMDAS and who believes nature heeds
"definitions" proclaimed by humans.

A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:21:01 AM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh dear.... "in this context" is a direct reference to the fact that
> > > > referring to "space-time" is a needless and an irrelevant complication.
> > >
> > > Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who
> > > attempt to apply them to tachyons.
> >
> > You must be referring to your failed attempts.
> a published peer-reviewed paper

The ragpiece listed as a PREDATORY journal doesn't do any peer review, it publishes any crap (like your crap paper) for a fee.

On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 18:08:54 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> A troll who doesn't understand PEMDAS and who believes nature heeds
> "definitions" proclaimed by humans.

Better than a troll who believes that nature needs and has chosen
him to speak to others in its name.

On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 16:50:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> "one should never mix together the descriptions of one phenomenon
> yielded by different observers, otherwise--even in ordinary physics--
> one would immediately meet contradictions" -

As proven, not mixing anything one will immediately meet
the contradictions in The Shit anyway.