On 11/14/2023 5:06 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 22:58:54 UTC, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/13/23 3:07 PM, Lou wrote:
>>> a true classical model does not use acceleration to describe the
>>> force of gravity.
>> Well, there is no such thing as a "true" model in physics -- physical
>> models are valid or invalid, but we humans can never know whether they
>> are "true". But we can know when they are false, and the "classical
>> model" known as Newtonian mechanics (NM) is known to be false (but it is
>> often useful as an approximation).
>>
> Exactly....it’s false. Gravity force isn’t acceleration based on r^2.

No, force is the mass * acceleration. Newton's Second Law, you know.

The acceleration due to gravity, according to Newton, is GM/r^2.
The force on a mass m due to gravity, according to Newton, is GMm/r^2.

> Thats what I have been trying to get you lot to understand
> this whole time.

Newton says you're completely wrong.

Einstein realised this and used potential.

Not for the equivalent of gravitational acceleration or force!

> Laplace
> realised that gravity force was potential. Newton knew this and
> called gravity force a scalar field. And others like Levy also
> proposed this

Wrong.

> The ridiculous part of your argument is that although do you admit
> r^2 doesn’t work

r^2 does work in Newton's approximation.

> ...you cannot bear to have anyone point out
> that to make a classical theory work...one must use r of potential.

Classical Newtonian gravity uses 1/r^2 for acceleration and force. You
have been claiming classical gravity uses 1/r and it is COMPLETELY WRONG!

> Despite being in the hypocritical position of accepting that
> GR theory can ditch r^2…and use r of potential.
>
>
>> As far as the relationship between acceleration and force is concerned,
>> here in the context of NM, what is used is Newton's second law:
>> F = m a
>> where F is the total force on an object, m is its mass, and a is its
>> acceleration. This is implicitly relative to some inertial frame; F, m,
>> and a are all invariant under Galilean transforms (change of coordinates
>> to a different inertial frame).
>
> Word salad. R^2 isn’t F=ma. It is a ridiculous F=a. You know it is.
> Dont pretend it isn’t.

Nope. Newton's Second Law relates force and acceleration. F=ma.
>
>>> Only relativists (or idiots) think in a classical model
>>> acceleration=force.
>> NONSENSE! NOBODY thinks that. YOU are confused. The only "classical
>> model" here is Newtonian mechanics, and in NM the second law applies:
>> F = m a
>
> No...YOU think acceleration=force. Not me.,You just spent your whole post trying
> to pretend in a classical model that m/s^2= force.
> It isn’t . ITS CALLED ACCELERATION. Einstein realised this.

You are (deliberately!) leaving out the mass in Newton's
force/acceleration relationship. Again, F=ma.
>
>>> They do it to make sure a classical model can’t correctly predict
>>> the change of resonant frequencies of atoms at different potentials.
>> More nonsense. In Newtonian mechanics, time is universal and NM predicts
>> zero "time dilation" under any and all circumstances. NM is DIFFERENT
>> from relativity, and wrong.
>>
> The only nonsense is your silly claim that I said a classical model
> predicts time dilation. That’s GR.
> A classical model says no time dilation is occuring. What you
> are seeing is a harmonic oscillator (c-133) changing its resonant
> frequency due to an external force of gravity.

How could it if the Newtonian force is proportional to 1/r^2 but the
perceived frequency difference goes as 1/r?

> And we have known harmonic oscillators do change frequencies
> under external force for longer than GR has been around.

But we also know they don't go as 1/r.
>
>>> Force of gravity was called potential by Laplace.[...]
>>
>> Still more nonsense. The force of gravity is minus the gradient of the
>> gravitational potential. They have NEVER been "equal" as you suppose.
>>
> The force of gravity increases the closer you get to the mass.
> Proportional to r.

Nope. Proportional to 1/r^2.

> That’s what potential really is.

Nope. Potential is proportionate to 1/r. It doesn't even have the units
of force or acceleration.

>> You REALLY need to learn basic physics. Your GUESSES AND FANTASIES are
>> wrong.
>
> If I’m wrong to model the effects of gravity with r...then why is
> OK for Albert to use r of potential to model the effects of gravity?

Because Einstein wasn't showing the effect of Newtonian forces. He found
a new relationship that simplifies to the potential. It has nothing to
do with Newtonian force or acceleration at all, and it is not due to any
"the change of resonant frequencies of atoms" word salad.

On 11/14/23 4:06 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 22:58:54 UTC, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/13/23 3:07 PM, Lou wrote:
>>> a true classical model does not use acceleration to describe the
>>> force of gravity.
>> Well, there is no such thing as a "true" model in physics --
>> physical models are valid or invalid, but we humans can never know
>> whether they are "true". But we can know when they are false, and
>> the "classical model" known as Newtonian mechanics (NM) is known to
>> be false (but it is often useful as an approximation).
>>
> Exactly....it’s false. Gravity force isn’t acceleration based on
> r^2.

Oh for goodness sake! I forgot how stupid and ignorant you are.

NM is known to be false, by a few parts per trillion, such as the
precession of the perihelion of mercury, or the "gravitational time
dilation" exhibited by GPS satellites. Confusing 1/r and 1/r^2 would
involve factors billions or trillions of times larger. GR, of course,
fixes these errors in NM.

> Thats what I have been trying to get you lot to understand this
> whole time.

You have no hope of doing that, because a) YOU don't understand it, and
b) it is WRONG.

> Einstein realised this and used potential.

Not for gravitational force, but rather for gravitational potential --
DUH! He then used approximation techniques to show that in the Newtonian
approximation to GR the relevant component of the metric tensor involved
the Newtonian gravitational potential.

> Laplace realised that gravity force was potential.

Nope. He was not STUPID AND IGNORANT like you.

Again, in NM for gravity: force != potential;
rather, force = m * -grad potential, and since F = m a,
acceleration = -grad potential.

In GR neither gravitational force nor gravitational potential appears in
the theory. The relative acceleration between small objects due to
gravity is expressed by the Raychaudhuri equation.

> [... more nonsense]

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 06:00:17 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/14/23 4:06 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 22:58:54 UTC, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 11/13/23 3:07 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>> a true classical model does not use acceleration to describe the
> >>> force of gravity.
> >> Well, there is no such thing as a "true" model in physics --
> >> physical models are valid or invalid, but we humans can never know
> >> whether they are "true". But we can know when they are false, and
> >> the "classical model" known as Newtonian mechanics (NM) is known to
> >> be false (but it is often useful as an approximation).
> >>
> > Exactly....it’s false. Gravity force isn’t acceleration based on
> > r^2.
> Oh for goodness sake! I forgot how stupid and ignorant you are.
>
> NM is known to be false

Samely as Earth was known to be flat.
You're an ignorant, fanatic idiot and your
"knowing" is worthless.

, by a few parts per trillion, such as the
> precession of the perihelion of mercury, or the "gravitational time
> dilation" exhibited by GPS satellites.

A lie. Of course. Time is what clocks indicate, isn't it?
There is no time dilation idiocy for GPS satellites.
Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 04:59:55 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 11/14/2023 5:06 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 22:58:54 UTC, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 11/13/23 3:07 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>> a true classical model does not use acceleration to describe the
> >>> force of gravity.
> >> Well, there is no such thing as a "true" model in physics -- physical
> >> models are valid or invalid, but we humans can never know whether they
> >> are "true". But we can know when they are false, and the "classical
> >> model" known as Newtonian mechanics (NM) is known to be false (but it is
> >> often useful as an approximation).
> >>
> > Exactly....it’s false. Gravity force isn’t acceleration based on r^2.
> No, force is the mass * acceleration. Newton's Second Law, you know.
>
So why are you pretending the force of gravity is measured as little g (m/s^2)?
Since when does force=acceleration?

> The acceleration due to gravity, according to Newton, is GM/r^2.
> The force on a mass m due to gravity, according to Newton, is GMm/r^2.
> > Thats what I have been trying to get you lot to understand
> > this whole time.
> Newton says you're completely wrong.

No. Newton said the force of gravity was proportional to r.
He called it a scalar field just to confuse idiots.

> Einstein realised this and used potential.
> Not for the equivalent of gravitational acceleration or force!

Does GR use Gm/r^2 anywhere in its calculations?
No
Does GR use r?
Yes.
Does GR use r to model tick rates at different altitudes?
Yes
Looks like if it’s OK for GR to ignore little g and use r...
It’s OK for a classical model to do the same.
Anyways Newton did say force can be calculated with just r.
He called it a scalar field.

> > Laplace
> > realised that gravity force was potential. Newton knew this and
> > called gravity force a scalar field. And others like Levy also
> > proposed this
> Wrong.
Only if you are a liar. And ignore the facts.

> > The ridiculous part of your argument is that although do you admit
> > r^2 doesn’t work
> r^2 does work in Newton's approximation.
No it doesn’t. You said yourself tick rates are proportionally to r..
> > ...you cannot bear to have anyone point out
> > that to make a classical theory work...one must use r of potential.
> Classical Newtonian gravity uses 1/r^2 for acceleration and force. You
> have been claiming classical gravity uses 1/r and it is COMPLETELY WRONG!

Said the relativist who knows that to correctly calculate the effects
of the force of gravity..one must use r

> > Despite being in the hypocritical position of accepting that
> > GR theory can ditch r^2…and use r of potential.
> >
> >
> >> As far as the relationship between acceleration and force is concerned,
> >> here in the context of NM, what is used is Newton's second law:
> >> F = m a
> >> where F is the total force on an object, m is its mass, and a is its
> >> acceleration. This is implicitly relative to some inertial frame; F, m,
> >> and a are all invariant under Galilean transforms (change of coordinates
> >> to a different inertial frame).
> >
> > Word salad. R^2 isn’t F=ma. It is a ridiculous F=a. You know it is.
> > Dont pretend it isn’t.
> Nope. Newton's Second Law relates force and acceleration. F=ma.

Yes. And notice force does not equal acceleration.
As you are trying to pretend a classical model says.

> >
> >>> Only relativists (or idiots) think in a classical model
> >>> acceleration=force.
> >> NONSENSE! NOBODY thinks that. YOU are confused. The only "classical
> >> model" here is Newtonian mechanics, and in NM the second law applies:
> >> F = m a
> >
> > No...YOU think acceleration=force. Not me.,You just spent your whole post trying
> > to pretend in a classical model that m/s^2= force.
> > It isn’t . ITS CALLED ACCELERATION. Einstein realised this.
> You are (deliberately!) leaving out the mass in Newton's
> force/acceleration relationship. Again, F=ma.

Im not. You are. How many times have you said the force of gravity
equals just acceleration. Millions of times.

> >
> >>> They do it to make sure a classical model can’t correctly predict
> >>> the change of resonant frequencies of atoms at different potentials.
> >> More nonsense. In Newtonian mechanics, time is universal and NM predicts
> >> zero "time dilation" under any and all circumstances. NM is DIFFERENT
> >> from relativity, and wrong.
> >>
> > The only nonsense is your silly claim that I said a classical model
> > predicts time dilation. That’s GR.
> > A classical model says no time dilation is occuring. What you
> > are seeing is a harmonic oscillator (c-133) changing its resonant
> > frequency due to an external force of gravity.
> How could it if the Newtonian force is proportional to 1/r^2 but the
> perceived frequency difference goes as 1/r?

You have a very short attention span. I just told you even Newton
said the force of gravity was r. He called it a scalar field
It’s only dishonest relativists who pretend that force=acceleration in a classical model.

> > And we have known harmonic oscillators do change frequencies
> > under external force for longer than GR has been around.
> But we also know they don't go as 1/r.

Really.? That’s odd. Obviously you forgot.
GPS clock rates match those predicted by a classical model
using force of gravity proportional to r.
> >
> >>> Force of gravity was called potential by Laplace.[...]
> >>
> >> Still more nonsense. The force of gravity is minus the gradient of the
> >> gravitational potential. They have NEVER been "equal" as you suppose.
> >>
> > The force of gravity increases the closer you get to the mass.
> > Proportional to r.
> Nope. Proportional to 1/r^2.

No Volney. Force does not equal acceleration.

> > That’s what potential really is.
> Nope. Potential is proportionate to 1/r. It doesn't even have the units
> of force or acceleration.

Only an idiot would think that if it takes more energy to lift an
object to a higher altitude that must mean that the force of gravity
increases with altitude!!!

> >> You REALLY need to learn basic physics. Your GUESSES AND FANTASIES are
> >> wrong.
> >
> > If I’m wrong to model the effects of gravity with r...then why is
> > OK for Albert to use r of potential to model the effects of gravity?
> Because Einstein wasn't showing the effect of Newtonian forces. He found
> a new relationship that simplifies to the potential. It has nothing to
> do with Newtonian force or acceleration at all, and it is not due to any
> "the change of resonant frequencies of atoms" word salad.

In other words Einstein used r to model the effects of the force of gravity..
And to cover it up..he changed the name of “force of gravity” to potential.

On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 05:00:17 UTC, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/14/23 4:06 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 22:58:54 UTC, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 11/13/23 3:07 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>> a true classical model does not use acceleration to describe the
> >>> force of gravity.
> >> Well, there is no such thing as a "true" model in physics --
> >> physical models are valid or invalid, but we humans can never know
> >> whether they are "true". But we can know when they are false, and
> >> the "classical model" known as Newtonian mechanics (NM) is known to
> >> be false (but it is often useful as an approximation).
> >>
> > Exactly....it’s false. Gravity force isn’t acceleration based on
> > r^2.
> Oh for goodness sake! I forgot how stupid and ignorant you are.
>
Said the guy who thinks force=acceleration
Even idiots aren’t that stupid.

> NM is known to be false, by a few parts per trillion, such as the
> precession of the perihelion of mercury, or the "gravitational time
> dilation" exhibited by GPS satellites. Confusing 1/r and 1/r^2 would
> involve factors billions or trillions of times larger. GR, of course,
> fixes these errors in NM.

NM got lots of things wrong. He falsely put all the mass at the center of the
volume of the mass. But,.. If one spreads the mass out across the suns volume
or the galaxy disc then the classical predictions of preccession and
galaxy rotation curves can be made consistent with the observations

> > Thats what I have been trying to get you lot to understand this
> > whole time.
> You have no hope of doing that, because a) YOU don't understand it, and
> b) it is WRONG.
> > Einstein realised this and used potential.
> Not for gravitational force, but rather for gravitational potential --

He certainly conned you. He called the force of gravity... potential,
Used r instead...and got the correct results.
Sad part is he just copied Newton’s scalar field.
Newton himself knew the force of gravity was proportional to r.
He never meant the acceleration of little g to be interpreted by idiots as
a force.

> DUH! He then used approximation techniques to show that in the Newtonian
> approximation to GR the relevant component of the metric tensor involved
> the Newtonian gravitational potential.
> > Laplace realised that gravity force was potential.
> Nope. He was not STUPID AND IGNORANT like you.
>
Said the guy who thinks force=acceleration.

> Again, in NM for gravity: force != potential;
> rather, force = m * -grad potential, and since F = m a,
> acceleration = -grad potential.
>
> In GR neither gravitational force nor gravitational potential appears in
> the theory. The relative acceleration between small objects due to
> gravity is expressed by the Raychaudhuri equation.

Exactly. Finally you woke up and smelt the coffee.
GR does not use little g’s r^2, as I have been trying to tell you guys.
And he does use the r of potential. As I’ve been telling you lot.
Except to con his followers, he refers to potential using other
names like “ Raychaudhuri equation.”
But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck
Then it’s a potential duck.

On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Lou <volney..@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > >
> > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different rates,
> > > > > -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely kinematic,
> > > > > so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > >
> > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > >
> > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > calculated using r.
> > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about your r,
> > > and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> > > You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> > > to situations with spherical symmetry.
> > >
> > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace called
> > > > gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a scalar field.
> > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's scalar
> > > > field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > >
> > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by about 200m
> > relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r distance doesn't
> > exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense. Splitting hairs though
> > on your part to pretend somehow this rules out a classical model
> > which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify why it would.
> > In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume *exactly* the
> > *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be *absolutely* accurate
> > the geoid surface has to be used. Not the actual distance r.
> > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that
> > generally, the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
> > (And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)
> So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> Newtonian potential.
> So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> don't matter for what follows.
>
> Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> potential = constant
> On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> potential = same constant
> On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
>
> The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
>
> What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> and if you can by how much,
>

I’m wondering if this claim of yours is another piece of BS.
I’ve looked up measuring clock rates at the geoid and so far
it seems this actually hasn’t been done yet. It’s only considered
possible with the latest tech.
So I know relativists don’t like evidence but please...
back up your claims with a few citations.

On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 21:00:54 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
>
> General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]

What to expect from a mumbling inconsistently idiot.
Has he ever heard of pendulum clocks?

Volney wrote:

>> Word salad. R^2 isn’t F=ma. It is a ridiculous F=a. You know it is.
>> Dont pretend it isn’t.
>
> Nope. Newton's Second Law relates force and acceleration. F=ma.

which is wrong of course. I wonder the Newtone ever understood math and
his own theory. On surface of earth an mass object stays fixed, hence no
acceleration, but the force exerted is not zero. My ohh my.

and they wonder in schools people don't undrestand mechanics.

𝗪𝗛𝗢_𝗽𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗼𝗹𝗲𝘀𝗲_𝘀𝗲𝘅𝘂𝗮𝗹_𝗮𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗺𝘀_$250_𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵_–_𝗔𝗣
The recipients are among women and girls that the global health agency’s
employees allegedly exploited 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗮_2018-2020_𝗘𝗯𝗼𝗹𝗮_𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
https://r%74.com/africa/587314-who-congolese-sexual-abuse-compensation/

To Sick to read, 250 dollars for sexual abuse. That Hideous. What sick
people we live among

Is that for an hour?

Absolutely disgusting

Jesus Christ! What an insult!

The WHO is full of Zionists, that's why.

Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Lou <volney..@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different
> > > > > > rates, -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely
> > > > > > kinematic, so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > > calculated using r.
> > > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about your r,
> > > > and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> > > > You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> > > > to situations with spherical symmetry.
> > > >
> > > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace
> > > > > called gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a
> > > > > scalar field.
> > > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's
> > > > > scalar field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> > > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > > >
> > > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by
> > > about 200m relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r
> > > distance doesn't exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense.
> > > Splitting hairs though on your part to pretend somehow this rules out
> > > a classical model which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify
> > > why it would. In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume *exactly* the
> > > *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be *absolutely* accurate
> > > the geoid surface has to be used. Not the actual distance r.
> > > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that
> > > generally, the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
> > > (And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)
> > So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> > The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> > Newtonian potential.
> > So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> > The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> > The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> > (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> > don't matter for what follows.
> >
> > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> > potential = constant
> > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > potential = same constant
> > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
> >
> > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> >
> > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> > No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> > and if you can by how much,
> >
>
> I'm wondering if this claim of yours is another piece of BS.
> I've looked up measuring clock rates at the geoid and so far
> it seems this actually hasn't been done yet.

At last. You are a bit late, considering your grandiose claims.

On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 22:01:54 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Accurate comparisons over long times established that those rate
> differences are proportional to the difference in Newtonian potential
> between their locations.
> (as predicted by general relativity

A lie, of course, your fellow idiot Tom could explain
you that The Shit is predicting the same rate everywhere..

, in the Newtonian limit)
>
> Those rate difference are (and must) be taken into account
> to compute TAI.

Sure, not even you are stupid enough to treat this
"time dilation mumble" seriously.

On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 21:01:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Lou <jjlodder @..uk> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Lou <@JJ.comwrote:
> > >
> > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Lou wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different
> > > > > > > rates, -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely
> > > > > > > kinematic, so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force..
> > > > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > > > calculated using r.
> > > > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about your r,
> > > > > and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> > > > > You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> > > > > to situations with spherical symmetry.
> > > > >
> > > > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace
> > > > > > called gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a
> > > > > > scalar field.
> > > > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's
> > > > > > scalar field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> > > > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > > > >
> > > > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > > > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by
> > > > about 200m relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r
> > > > distance doesn't exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense..
> > > > Splitting hairs though on your part to pretend somehow this rules out
> > > > a classical model which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify
> > > > why it would. In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > > > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > > > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume *exactly* the
> > > > *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be *absolutely* accurate
> > > > the geoid surface has to be used. Not the actual distance r.
> > > > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that
> > > > generally, the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
> > > > (And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > > > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)
> > > So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> > > The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> > > Newtonian potential.
> > > So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> > > The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> > > The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> > > (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> > > don't matter for what follows.
> > >
> > > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> > > potential = constant
> > > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > > potential = same constant
> > > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
> > >
> > > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> > >
> > > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> > > No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> > > and if you can by how much,
> > >
> >
> > I'm wondering if this claim of yours is another piece of BS.
> > I've looked up measuring clock rates at the geoid and so far
> > it seems this actually hasn't been done yet.
> At last. You are a bit late, considering your grandiose claims.
> > It's only considered possible with the latest tech. So I know relativists
> > don't like evidence but please... back up your claims with a few
> > citations.
> Standards laboratory all over the world have been keeping clusters of
> atomic clocks, and they have been comparing them.
> Over fifty years ago they noticed systematic differences in clock rates
> between standards laboratories, with those situated at higher altitudes
> running faster. (as seen by clocks near sea level)
> Accurate comparisons over long times established that those rate
> differences are proportional to the difference in Newtonian potential
> between their locations.
> (as predicted by general relativity, in the Newtonian limit)
>
> Those rate difference are (and must) be taken into account
> to compute TAI. All this has been going on for decades,
> to stabilities of order 10^-15,
> and all accurate timekeeping depends on it.
>
Interesting trivia thanks. But as for classical theory and as with most
relativists,...when discussing clock rates vs altitude.
I will be content to use r.

Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 21:01:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Lou <jjlodder @..uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Lou <@JJ.comwrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > Lou wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different
> > > > > > > > rates, -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely
> > > > > > > > kinematic, so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > > > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands
> > > > > > > > falsified.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > > > > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > > > > calculated using r.
> > > > > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about
> > > > > > your r, and you are ignoring all sound advice by others. You can
> > > > > > go on obfuscating because you limit yourself to situations with
> > > > > > spherical symmetry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > > > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > > > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > > > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace
> > > > > > > called gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a
> > > > > > > scalar field.
> > > > > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's
> > > > > > > scalar field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> > > > > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > > > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > > > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > > > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > > > > >
> > > > > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > > > > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by
> > > > > about 200m relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r
> > > > > distance doesn't exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense.
> > > > > Splitting hairs though on your part to pretend somehow this rules out
> > > > > a classical model which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify
> > > > > why it would. In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > > > > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > > > > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume
> > > > > *exactly* the *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be
> > > > > *absolutely* accurate the geoid surface has to be used. Not the
> > > > > actual distance r.
> > > > > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that generally,
> > > > > the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2. (And
> > > > > to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > > > > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into
> > > > > account)
> > > > So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> > > > The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> > > > Newtonian potential.
> > > > So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> > > > The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> > > > The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> > > > (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> > > > don't matter for what follows.
> > > >
> > > > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> > > > potential = constant
> > > > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > > > potential = same constant
> > > > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > > > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
> > > >
> > > > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > > > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> > > >
> > > > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> > > > No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> > > > and if you can by how much,
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if this claim of yours is another piece of BS.
> > > I've looked up measuring clock rates at the geoid and so far
> > > it seems this actually hasn't been done yet.
> > At last. You are a bit late, considering your grandiose claims.
> > > It's only considered possible with the latest tech. So I know relativists
> > > don't like evidence but please... back up your claims with a few
> > > citations.
> > Standards laboratory all over the world have been keeping clusters of
> > atomic clocks, and they have been comparing them.
> > Over fifty years ago they noticed systematic differences in clock rates
> > between standards laboratories, with those situated at higher altitudes
> > running faster. (as seen by clocks near sea level)
> > Accurate comparisons over long times established that those rate
> > differences are proportional to the difference in Newtonian potential
> > between their locations.
> > (as predicted by general relativity, in the Newtonian limit)
> >
> > Those rate difference are (and must) be taken into account
> > to compute TAI. All this has been going on for decades,
> > to stabilities of order 10^-15,
> > and all accurate timekeeping depends on it.
> >
> Interesting trivia thanks. But as for classical theory and as with most
> relativists,...when discussing clock rates vs altitude.
> I will be content to use r.

On Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 16:47:03 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Lou <albertco.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 21:01:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Lou <jjlodder @..uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Lou <@JJ.comwrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > Lou wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different
> > > > > > > > > rates, -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely
> > > > > > > > > kinematic, so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > > > > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands
> > > > > > > > > falsified.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > > > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > > > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > > > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > > > > > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > > > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > > > > > calculated using r.
> > > > > > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about
> > > > > > > your r, and you are ignoring all sound advice by others. You can
> > > > > > > go on obfuscating because you limit yourself to situations with
> > > > > > > spherical symmetry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > > > > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > > > > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > > > > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > > > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > > > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > > > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > > > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > > > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace
> > > > > > > > called gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a
> > > > > > > > scalar field.
> > > > > > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > > > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's
> > > > > > > > scalar field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> > > > > > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > > > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > > > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > > > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > > > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > > > > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > > > > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > > > > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > > > > > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by
> > > > > > about 200m relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r
> > > > > > distance doesn't exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense.
> > > > > > Splitting hairs though on your part to pretend somehow this rules out
> > > > > > a classical model which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify
> > > > > > why it would. In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > > > > > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > > > > > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume
> > > > > > *exactly* the *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be
> > > > > > *absolutely* accurate the geoid surface has to be used. Not the
> > > > > > actual distance r.
> > > > > > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that generally,
> > > > > > the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2. (And
> > > > > > to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > > > > > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into
> > > > > > account)
> > > > > So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> > > > > The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> > > > > Newtonian potential.
> > > > > So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> > > > > The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> > > > > The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> > > > > (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> > > > > don't matter for what follows.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> > > > > potential = constant
> > > > > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > > > > potential = same constant
> > > > > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > > > > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid..
> > > > >
> > > > > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > > > > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> > > > > No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> > > > > and if you can by how much,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering if this claim of yours is another piece of BS.
> > > > I've looked up measuring clock rates at the geoid and so far
> > > > it seems this actually hasn't been done yet.
> > > At last. You are a bit late, considering your grandiose claims.
> > > > It's only considered possible with the latest tech. So I know relativists
> > > > don't like evidence but please... back up your claims with a few
> > > > citations.
> > > Standards laboratory all over the world have been keeping clusters of
> > > atomic clocks, and they have been comparing them.
> > > Over fifty years ago they noticed systematic differences in clock rates
> > > between standards laboratories, with those situated at higher altitudes
> > > running faster. (as seen by clocks near sea level)
> > > Accurate comparisons over long times established that those rate
> > > differences are proportional to the difference in Newtonian potential
> > > between their locations.
> > > (as predicted by general relativity, in the Newtonian limit)
> > >
> > > Those rate difference are (and must) be taken into account
> > > to compute TAI. All this has been going on for decades,
> > > to stabilities of order 10^-15,
> > > and all accurate timekeeping depends on it.
> > >
> > Interesting trivia thanks. But as for classical theory and as with most
> > relativists,...when discussing clock rates vs altitude.
> > I will be content to use r.
> You can be as wrong and content as you want to be.
> Don't expect people to listen to you though.
> > > Note that your rantings about r versus r^2 do not come into this at all.
> > > They cannot do so, because r varies to order 10^-3 over the geoid,
> > > many orders of magnitude more than observed clock rates.
> > >
> > Irrelevent pedantry.
> Yes, merely pointing out that you are off by ten orders of magnitude.

On 11/15/2023 4:40 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 04:59:55 UTC, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/14/2023 5:06 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 22:58:54 UTC, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/23 3:07 PM, Lou wrote:
>>>>> a true classical model does not use acceleration to describe the
>>>>> force of gravity.
>>>> Well, there is no such thing as a "true" model in physics -- physical
>>>> models are valid or invalid, but we humans can never know whether they
>>>> are "true". But we can know when they are false, and the "classical
>>>> model" known as Newtonian mechanics (NM) is known to be false (but it is
>>>> often useful as an approximation).
>>>>
>>> Exactly....it’s false. Gravity force isn’t acceleration based on r^2.
>> No, force is the mass * acceleration. Newton's Second Law, you know.
>>
> So why are you pretending the force of gravity is measured as little g (m/s^2)?
> Since when does force=acceleration?

Never. Force, according to Newton's second law, is F=mg since little g
is an acceleration (9.81 m/s^2 at sea level)
>
>> The acceleration due to gravity, according to Newton, is GM/r^2.
>> The force on a mass m due to gravity, according to Newton, is GMm/r^2.
>>> Thats what I have been trying to get you lot to understand
>>> this whole time.
>> Newton says you're completely wrong.
>
> No. Newton said the force of gravity was proportional to r.
> He called it a scalar field just to confuse idiots.

Lie.
>
>> Einstein realised this and used potential.
>> Not for the equivalent of gravitational acceleration or force!

Another lie. GR math is completely different from classical gravity. It
does come up with the same answers as classical gravity which is an
approximation.
>
> Does GR use Gm/r^2 anywhere in its calculations?
> No

Because that's classical gravity.

> Does GR use r?
> Yes.

As an approximation.

> Does GR use r to model tick rates at different altitudes?
> Yes

Misleading. Perceived tick rates is not force.

> Looks like if it’s OK for GR to ignore little g and use r...

Little g is from classical physics. GR states gravity isn't even a force
but approximating it as one is GMm/r^2 and for earth's surface gives the
acceleration little g.

> It’s OK for a classical model to do the same.
> Anyways Newton did say force can be calculated with just r.

You lie.
>
>>> The ridiculous part of your argument is that although do you admit
>>> r^2 doesn’t work

>> r^2 does work in Newton's approximation.

> No it doesn’t. You said yourself tick rates are proportionally to r.

The PERCEIVED tick rate due to blueshift, for weak field gravity, is
proportional to 1/r. Classical force goes as GMm/r^2.

>>> ...you cannot bear to have anyone point out
>>> that to make a classical theory work...one must use r of potential.

>> Classical Newtonian gravity uses 1/r^2 for acceleration and force. You
>> have been claiming classical gravity uses 1/r and it is COMPLETELY WRONG!
>
> Said the relativist who knows that to correctly calculate the effects
> of the force of gravity..one must use r

Completely wrong. GM/r does not even have units of acceleration or
force. It has units of meters^2/seconds^2 which doesn't even have a
secondary unit name.
>
>>>> As far as the relationship between acceleration and force is concerned,
>>>> here in the context of NM, what is used is Newton's second law:
>>>> F = m a
>>>> where F is the total force on an object, m is its mass, and a is its
>>>> acceleration. This is implicitly relative to some inertial frame; F, m,
>>>> and a are all invariant under Galilean transforms (change of coordinates
>>>> to a different inertial frame).
>>>
>>> Word salad. R^2 isn’t F=ma. It is a ridiculous F=a. You know it is.
>>> Dont pretend it isn’t.

>> Nope. Newton's Second Law relates force and acceleration. F=ma.
>
> Yes. And notice force does not equal acceleration.
> As you are trying to pretend a classical model says.

Nope. F=ma is not F=a.
>
>>>
>>>>> Only relativists (or idiots) think in a classical model
>>>>> acceleration=force.
>>>> NONSENSE! NOBODY thinks that. YOU are confused. The only "classical
>>>> model" here is Newtonian mechanics, and in NM the second law applies:
>>>> F = m a
>>>
>>> No...YOU think acceleration=force. Not me.,You just spent your whole post trying
>>> to pretend in a classical model that m/s^2= force.
>>> It isn’t . ITS CALLED ACCELERATION. Einstein realised this.

>> You are (deliberately!) leaving out the mass in Newton's
>> force/acceleration relationship. Again, F=ma.
>
> Im not. You are. How many times have you said the force of gravity
> equals just acceleration. Millions of times.

No, never. The formula for classical force is GMm/r^2. I never said
force is acceleration, classical force is mass * acceleration. Again,
you are deliberately leaving out the mass and accusing me of what you did.
>
>>>
>>>>> They do it to make sure a classical model can’t correctly predict
>>>>> the change of resonant frequencies of atoms at different potentials.
>>>> More nonsense. In Newtonian mechanics, time is universal and NM predicts
>>>> zero "time dilation" under any and all circumstances. NM is DIFFERENT
>>>> from relativity, and wrong.
>>>>
>>> The only nonsense is your silly claim that I said a classical model
>>> predicts time dilation. That’s GR.
>>> A classical model says no time dilation is occuring. What you
>>> are seeing is a harmonic oscillator (c-133) changing its resonant
>>> frequency due to an external force of gravity.

>> How could it if the Newtonian force is proportional to 1/r^2 but the
>> perceived frequency difference goes as 1/r?
>
> You have a very short attention span. I just told you even Newton
> said the force of gravity was r.

No, he did not. You are lying when you say that. Newton explicitly
stated the force formula is GMm/r^2. Inversely proportional to r^2, not
proportional to r.

He called it a scalar field
> It’s only dishonest relativists who pretend that force=acceleration in a classical model.
>
>>> And we have known harmonic oscillators do change frequencies
>>> under external force for longer than GR has been around.
>> But we also know they don't go as 1/r.
>
> Really.? That’s odd. Obviously you forgot.
> GPS clock rates match those predicted by a classical model
> using force of gravity proportional to r.

No, the GPS clock ticks at 1 second per second. The signal is
blueshifted when received on earth so the timebase used for the
transmission frequencies runs a bit slow to compensate. And, of course,
classical force is proportional to 1/r^2. If you disagree, argue with
Newton.
>>>
>>>>> Force of gravity was called potential by Laplace.[...]
>>>>
>>>> Still more nonsense. The force of gravity is minus the gradient of the
>>>> gravitational potential. They have NEVER been "equal" as you suppose.
>>>>
>>> The force of gravity increases the closer you get to the mass.
>>> Proportional to r.

>> Nope. Proportional to 1/r^2.
>
> No Volney. Force does not equal acceleration.

That's why I said "proportional to 1/r^2. The amount of proportion is
the mass m. The classical Newtonian formula is GMm/r^2.
>
>>> That’s what potential really is.

>> Nope. Potential is proportionate to 1/r. It doesn't even have the units
>> of force or acceleration.
>
> Only an idiot would think that if it takes more energy to lift an
> object to a higher altitude that must mean that the force of gravity
> increases with altitude!!!

The force doesn't. The potential is different.
>
>>>> You REALLY need to learn basic physics. Your GUESSES AND FANTASIES are
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> If I’m wrong to model the effects of gravity with r...then why is
>>> OK for Albert to use r of potential to model the effects of gravity?
>> Because Einstein wasn't showing the effect of Newtonian forces. He found
>> a new relationship that simplifies to the potential. It has nothing to
>> do with Newtonian force or acceleration at all, and it is not due to any
>> "the change of resonant frequencies of atoms" word salad.
>
> In other words Einstein used r to model the effects of the force of gravity.
> And to cover it up..he changed the name of “force of gravity” to potential.

On 11/16/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:

> Looks like your idols ...Schwarzschild, Pound Rebka, Einstein etc etc
> ...all used r!!

And none of them EVER said that any force or acceleration was
proportional to 1/r. Too bad for you!

On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 01:56:37 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

> No, the GPS clock ticks at 1 second per second.

Sutre it does. And it doesn't tick at 1(socend of a
relativistic idiot) per second.

> You lie. Why do you lie?
Oh, stupid Mike, whoever is treating physics seriously
must end impudently lying.

On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 05:56:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 11/16/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:
>
> > Looks like your idols ...Schwarzschild, Pound Rebka, Einstein etc etc
> > ...all used r!!
> And none of them EVER said that any force or acceleration was
> proportional to 1/r. Too bad for you!

You don’t seem to realise your own con.
Just because they called force of gravity by some other name in GR...
Doesn’t mean it’s not force of gravity.
Here I’ll do it. In classical physics I’ll call gravity force jujube. And jujube
uses r to model the strength of jujube at different altitudes.
There see! Call the force of gravity: jujube or metric or potential or
gravitational time dilation or gravity well and you can pretend it’s not
the force of gravity
Fortunately only idiots will fall for that bit of snake oil.
Or maybe I should say...Unfortunately.

On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 00:56:37 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 11/15/2023 4:40 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 04:59:55 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >> On 11/14/2023 5:06 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 22:58:54 UTC, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>>> On 11/13/23 3:07 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> a true classical model does not use acceleration to describe the
> >>>>> force of gravity.
> >>>> Well, there is no such thing as a "true" model in physics -- physical
> >>>> models are valid or invalid, but we humans can never know whether they
> >>>> are "true". But we can know when they are false, and the "classical
> >>>> model" known as Newtonian mechanics (NM) is known to be false (but it is
> >>>> often useful as an approximation).
> >>>>
> >>> Exactly....it’s false. Gravity force isn’t acceleration based on r^2.
> >> No, force is the mass * acceleration. Newton's Second Law, you know.
> >>
> > So why are you pretending the force of gravity is measured as little g (m/s^2)?
> > Since when does force=acceleration?
> Never. Force, according to Newton's second law, is F=mg since little g
> is an acceleration (9.81 m/s^2 at sea level)
> >
> >> The acceleration due to gravity, according to Newton, is GM/r^2.
> >> The force on a mass m due to gravity, according to Newton, is GMm/r^2.
> >>> Thats what I have been trying to get you lot to understand
> >>> this whole time.
> >> Newton says you're completely wrong.
> >
> > No. Newton said the force of gravity was proportional to r.
> > He called it a scalar field just to confuse idiots.
> Lie.
> >
> >> Einstein realised this and used potential.
> >> Not for the equivalent of gravitational acceleration or force!
> Another lie. GR math is completely different from classical gravity. It
> does come up with the same answers as classical gravity which is an
> approximation.
> >
> > Does GR use Gm/r^2 anywhere in its calculations?
> > No
> Because that's classical gravity.
> > Does GR use r?
> > Yes.
> As an approximation.
> > Does GR use r to model tick rates at different altitudes?
> > Yes
> Misleading. Perceived tick rates is not force.
> > Looks like if it’s OK for GR to ignore little g and use r...
> Little g is from classical physics. GR states gravity isn't even a force
> but approximating it as one is GMm/r^2 and for earth's surface gives the
> acceleration little g.
> > It’s OK for a classical model to do the same.
> > Anyways Newton did say force can be calculated with just r.
> You lie.
> >
> >>> The ridiculous part of your argument is that although do you admit
> >>> r^2 doesn’t work
>
> >> r^2 does work in Newton's approximation.
>
> > No it doesn’t. You said yourself tick rates are proportionally to r.
> The PERCEIVED tick rate due to blueshift, for weak field gravity, is
> proportional to 1/r. Classical force goes as GMm/r^2.
> >>> ...you cannot bear to have anyone point out
> >>> that to make a classical theory work...one must use r of potential.
>
> >> Classical Newtonian gravity uses 1/r^2 for acceleration and force. You
> >> have been claiming classical gravity uses 1/r and it is COMPLETELY WRONG!
> >
> > Said the relativist who knows that to correctly calculate the effects
> > of the force of gravity..one must use r
> Completely wrong. GM/r does not even have units of acceleration or
> force. It has units of meters^2/seconds^2 which doesn't even have a
> secondary unit name.
> >
> >>>> As far as the relationship between acceleration and force is concerned,
> >>>> here in the context of NM, what is used is Newton's second law:
> >>>> F = m a
> >>>> where F is the total force on an object, m is its mass, and a is its
> >>>> acceleration. This is implicitly relative to some inertial frame; F, m,
> >>>> and a are all invariant under Galilean transforms (change of coordinates
> >>>> to a different inertial frame).
> >>>
> >>> Word salad. R^2 isn’t F=ma. It is a ridiculous F=a. You know it is.
> >>> Dont pretend it isn’t.
>
> >> Nope. Newton's Second Law relates force and acceleration. F=ma.
> >
> > Yes. And notice force does not equal acceleration.
> > As you are trying to pretend a classical model says.
> Nope. F=ma is not F=a.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>> Only relativists (or idiots) think in a classical model
> >>>>> acceleration=force.
> >>>> NONSENSE! NOBODY thinks that. YOU are confused. The only "classical
> >>>> model" here is Newtonian mechanics, and in NM the second law applies:
> >>>> F = m a
> >>>
> >>> No...YOU think acceleration=force. Not me.,You just spent your whole post trying
> >>> to pretend in a classical model that m/s^2= force.
> >>> It isn’t . ITS CALLED ACCELERATION. Einstein realised this.
>
> >> You are (deliberately!) leaving out the mass in Newton's
> >> force/acceleration relationship. Again, F=ma.
> >
> > Im not. You are. How many times have you said the force of gravity
> > equals just acceleration. Millions of times.
> No, never. The formula for classical force is GMm/r^2. I never said
> force is acceleration, classical force is mass * acceleration. Again,
> you are deliberately leaving out the mass and accusing me of what you did..
> >
> >>>
> >>>>> They do it to make sure a classical model can’t correctly predict
> >>>>> the change of resonant frequencies of atoms at different potentials..
> >>>> More nonsense. In Newtonian mechanics, time is universal and NM predicts
> >>>> zero "time dilation" under any and all circumstances. NM is DIFFERENT
> >>>> from relativity, and wrong.
> >>>>
> >>> The only nonsense is your silly claim that I said a classical model
> >>> predicts time dilation. That’s GR.
> >>> A classical model says no time dilation is occuring. What you
> >>> are seeing is a harmonic oscillator (c-133) changing its resonant
> >>> frequency due to an external force of gravity.
>
> >> How could it if the Newtonian force is proportional to 1/r^2 but the
> >> perceived frequency difference goes as 1/r?
> >
> > You have a very short attention span. I just told you even Newton
> > said the force of gravity was r.
> No, he did not. You are lying when you say that. Newton explicitly
> stated the force formula is GMm/r^2. Inversely proportional to r^2, not
> proportional to r.
>
> He called it a scalar field
> > It’s only dishonest relativists who pretend that force=acceleration in a classical model.
> >
> >>> And we have known harmonic oscillators do change frequencies
> >>> under external force for longer than GR has been around.
> >> But we also know they don't go as 1/r.
> >
> > Really.? That’s odd. Obviously you forgot.
> > GPS clock rates match those predicted by a classical model
> > using force of gravity proportional to r.
> No, the GPS clock ticks at 1 second per second. The signal is
> blueshifted when received on earth so the timebase used for the
> transmission frequencies runs a bit slow to compensate. And, of course,
> classical force is proportional to 1/r^2. If you disagree, argue with
> Newton.

Under GR clocks are considered to all tick at 1s per second and the
change in tick rates proportional to r is caused by the force of gravity
(Called potential in GR) red or blueshifting the imaginary photon.
But under a classical model harmonic oscillators natural frequencies
resonate at different rates at different altitudes proportional to r
due to external force (of gravity).
And you cannot prove that this is a false claim.
Anymore than I can prove the claim of GR is false.
Because the same observations confirm predictions by both
theories.
The advantage with the classical prediction is that we already know
there is a force of gravity proportional to r. Newton called it scalar
field and many others including Laplace called it potential.And we
already have a precedence for harmonic oscillators natural f changing
due to external force going way back well before Albert.
But there is no precedence or previous observations confirming
time dilation or gravitational time dilation.

On 11/17/23 3:01 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 05:56:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/16/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like your idols ...Schwarzschild, Pound Rebka, Einstein
>>> etc etc ...all used r!!
>> And none of them EVER said that any force or acceleration was
>> proportional to 1/r. Too bad for you!
>
> You don’t seem to realise your own con.

No "con". It's just that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
GRAVITATIONAL FORCE AND GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. The error is YOURS.

> Just because they called force of gravity by some other name in GR...
> Doesn’t mean it’s not force of gravity.

There is no force of gravity in GR. The closest thing to it is certain
components of the geometrical connection (which must be multiplied by
the mass of the object to compute "gravitational force" on the object),
small objects only, weak fields only, speeds << c only.

> Here I’ll do it. In classical physics I’ll call gravity force
> jujube. And jujube uses r to model the strength of jujube at
> different altitudes.

This is BLATANTLY WRONG. In classical physics, gravitational force is
proportional to 1/r^2. You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

> Fortunately only idiots will fall for that bit of snake oil.

Yes, YOU are trying to foist snake oil on your readers. STOP IT!

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 11/17/23 3:01 AM, Lou wrote:
>> On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 05:56:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
>>> On 11/16/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks like your idols ...Schwarzschild, Pound Rebka, Einstein etc etc
>>>> ...all used r!!
>>> And none of them EVER said that any force or acceleration was
>>> proportional to 1/r. Too bad for you!
>>
>> You don’t seem to realise your own con.
>
> No "con". It's just that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
> GRAVITATIONAL FORCE AND GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. The error is YOURS.

nor you do. There is no such thing as 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲. Bye. Try again. You
must be a foreigner from another country.

Volney wrote:
> On 11/16/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:
>> Looks like your idols ...Schwarzschild, Pound Rebka, Einstein etc etc
>> ...all used r!!
> And none of them EVER said that any force or acceleration was
> proportional to 1/r. Too bad for you!

you seems insignificant. Post something I can read. I love 𝗖𝗖𝗖𝗣.

𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗳𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗮_𝗻𝗲𝘄_‘𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻’_–_𝗕𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴
https://r%74.com/ru%73%73ia/587476-zelensky-maidan-protests-moscow/

Zelensky kaput!

make no misstake, this savage 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 psychopath will station guards
around the capitol to gun down any and every civilian protestor, it's
completely in his 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝗶𝘀𝗵 nature to gun down civilians in their
thousands.

more than 1 millions western nazified 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝘂𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 killed by this forced
westernized 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 gay actor motherfucker.

Volney wrote:

> On 11/15/2023 4:40 AM, Lou wrote:
>> So why are you pretending the force of gravity is measured as little g
>> (m/s^2)? Since when does force=acceleration?
>
> Never. Force, according to Newton's second law, is F=mg since little g
> is an acceleration (9.81 m/s^2 at sea level)

now you change your story. Until now you said F=ma, now g, which still is
an acceleration to a force which is zero. It looks like 𝗖𝗖𝗖𝗣 fucked your
capitalist western ass, by 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁_𝗶𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 and everything.

𝗕𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗟𝗘_𝗙𝗢𝗥_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗘𝗧_𝗢𝗙_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗔𝗣𝗘𝗦!_(1973)
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/8A7J2mTpNvNl/

On 11/17/2023 4:01 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 05:56:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/16/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like your idols ...Schwarzschild, Pound Rebka, Einstein etc etc
>>> ...all used r!!
>> And none of them EVER said that any force or acceleration was
>> proportional to 1/r. Too bad for you!
>
> You don’t seem to realise your own con.
> Just because they called force of gravity by some other name in GR...
> Doesn’t mean it’s not force of gravity.
> Here I’ll do it. In classical physics I’ll call gravity force jujube. And jujube
> uses r to model the strength of jujube at different altitudes.

Those last two sentences contradict each other. Either jujube is a
force, or it varies proportionately to r. You can't have both, because
classical force is GMm/r^2. But I'll play along and say jujube varies as r.

> There see! Call the force of gravity: jujube or metric or potential or
> gravitational time dilation or gravity well and you can pretend it’s not
> the force of gravity

Since jujube and potential vary according to 1/r, they won't have units
of force, so neither one can be force.

> Fortunately only idiots will fall for that bit of snake oil.

So why are you trying to use that snake oil as some sort of example?

On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 07:12:06 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 11/17/2023 4:01 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 05:56:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >> On 11/16/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>
> >>> Looks like your idols ...Schwarzschild, Pound Rebka, Einstein etc etc
> >>> ...all used r!!
> >> And none of them EVER said that any force or acceleration was
> >> proportional to 1/r. Too bad for you!
> >
> > You don’t seem to realise your own con.
> > Just because they called force of gravity by some other name in GR...
> > Doesn’t mean it’s not force of gravity.
> > Here I’ll do it. In classical physics I’ll call gravity force jujube. And jujube
> > uses r to model the strength of jujube at different altitudes.
> Those last two sentences contradict each other. Either jujube is a
> force, or it varies proportionately to r. You can't have both, because
> classical force is GMm/r^2. But I'll play along and say jujube varies as r.
> > There see! Call the force of gravity: jujube or metric or potential or
> > gravitational time dilation or gravity well and you can pretend it’s not
> > the force of gravity
> Since jujube and potential vary according to 1/r, they won't have units
> of force, so neither one can be force.

So you think Force is defined by m/s^2?
I thought m/s^2 refers to acceleration.

> > Fortunately only idiots will fall for that bit of snake oil.
> So why are you trying to use that snake oil as some sort of example?

On 11/18/2023 7:20 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 07:12:06 UTC, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/17/2023 4:01 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 05:56:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 11/16/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like your idols ...Schwarzschild, Pound Rebka, Einstein etc etc
>>>>> ...all used r!!
>>>> And none of them EVER said that any force or acceleration was
>>>> proportional to 1/r. Too bad for you!
>>>
>>> You don’t seem to realise your own con.
>>> Just because they called force of gravity by some other name in GR...
>>> Doesn’t mean it’s not force of gravity.
>>> Here I’ll do it. In classical physics I’ll call gravity force jujube. And jujube
>>> uses r to model the strength of jujube at different altitudes.
>> Those last two sentences contradict each other. Either jujube is a
>> force, or it varies proportionately to r. You can't have both, because
>> classical force is GMm/r^2. But I'll play along and say jujube varies as r.
>>> There see! Call the force of gravity: jujube or metric or potential or
>>> gravitational time dilation or gravity well and you can pretend it’s not
>>> the force of gravity
>> Since jujube and potential vary according to 1/r, they won't have units
>> of force, so neither one can be force.
>
> So you think Force is defined by m/s^2?
> I thought m/s^2 refers to acceleration.

YOU were the one who called "jujube" a force, not me! I'll repeat:
Newton's Second Law is force = mass * acceleration.

(and why do you insist something with units of m^2/s^2 is a force?)