On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 2:06:26 AM UTC-8, 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.

Obviously force is not acceleration. What's your point?

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

You should have known already in high school that acceleration is not force..

> Einstein realised this and used potential.

This is gobbledygook.

> Laplace
> realised that gravity force was potential.

More gobbledygook. You have no idea what you are talking about.

> Newton knew this and
> called gravity force a scalar field.

Irrelevant. Gobbledygook.

The rest of your post is another pyramid of nonsense, not worth further debate.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 1:53:49 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> 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.

Nonsense.

> 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.

It never was by anyone except you who invented the whole fabrication.

> > 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.

No, Tom never said that (it contradicts even high school physics).
You can't even read.

> > 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.”

There is no potential in GR.

> But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck
> Then it’s a potential duck.

Again, there is no such thing as "gravitational potential" in GR.
Gravity is described by a metric which is a rank-2 tensor, it's
NOT a scalar (which is what potential is).

Pick a different hobby.

--
Jan

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 1:01:49 AM UTC-8, 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...

What other name?

> Doesn’t mean it’s not force of gravity.

Meaningless and irrelevant.

> Here I’ll do it.

Yeah, sure. Let me decimate you:

> 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

Newtonian gravitational potential and the spacetime metric of GR
are different things, both physically and mathematically.

> Fortunately only idiots will fall for that bit of snake oil.
> Or maybe I should say...Unfortunately.

You are just yet another arrogant ignoramus. Change your hobby,
this physics thing doesn't work for you.

--
Jan

On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 21:26:08 UTC, Volney wrote:
> 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:

You conveniently forgot...When I said jujube meant force I
meant the force of gravity is modelled with r. As in potential. But
could and is called by any different names including jujube if you wished

GR calls it curved spacetime etc. Newton called it scalar field.
Laplace called it gravitational potential. And I sarcastically said you
could call it whatever you want including jujube.
But it doesn’t matter. Because whether or not it’s called gravitational potential,
jujube,curvature of spacetime, gravity well, time dilation, scalar field etc....
it’s always still...the force of gravity.
And it’s always proportional to r. Not r^2
In GR or in classical theory.

M/s^2 is acceleration. Force is not measured in m/s^2

> Newton's Second Law is force = mass * acceleration.
>
> (and why do you insist something with units of m^2/s^2 is a force?)

You’re nuts.
YOU are insisting that force is measured in units of m/s^2! Not me.
I’m trying to tell you that force ISNT measured in units of m/s^2 as
you try to pretend when you say little g, which uses m/s^2, is the force
of gravity.
How could it be?
Little g cannot be force because it’s measured in m/s^2. That’s called
acceleration.
You think acceleration is force?
😂🤣

On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 04:50:54 UTC, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 1:53:49 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > 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.
> Nonsense.
> > 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.
> It never was by anyone except you who invented the whole fabrication.
> > > 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.
> No, Tom never said that (it contradicts even high school physics).
> You can't even read.
> > > 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.”
> There is no potential in GR.
> > But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck
> > Then it’s a potential duck.
> Again, there is no such thing as "gravitational potential" in GR.
> Gravity is described by a metric which is a rank-2 tensor, it's
> NOT a scalar (which is what potential is).
>
There is no potential in GR...because potential is called something
else. Curved spacetime metric etc.
All albert did was take potential...and give it a fancy new name.
Still the force of gravity. Only an idiot wouldn’t realise.

On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 04:42:44 UTC, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 2:06:26 AM UTC-8, 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.
> Obviously force is not acceleration. What's your point?

Better tell Tom and Volney. They are desperate to con everyone into thinking
Force =acceleration.

> > Thats what I have been trying to get you lot to understand
> > this whole time.
> You should have known already in high school that acceleration is not force.
> > Einstein realised this and used potential.
> This is gobbledygook.
> > Laplace
> > realised that gravity force was potential.
> More gobbledygook. You have no idea what you are talking about.
> > Newton knew this and
> > called gravity force a scalar field.

On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 04:54:10 UTC, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 1:01:49 AM UTC-8, 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...
> What other name?
> > Doesn’t mean it’s not force of gravity.
> Meaningless and irrelevant.
> > Here I’ll do it.
> Yeah, sure. Let me decimate you:
> > 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
> Newtonian gravitational potential and the spacetime metric of GR
> are different things, both physically and mathematically.

Yes Jan. whatever you say.
I drop a rock to the ground. Something pulls it down.
Albert said this pull was because of his “spacetime metric”
and was modelled with r
Classical physics calls this pull “gravitational potential.” and models
it with r
Ahh! So Jan thinks that because Albert called gravitational
potential “spacetime metric” it must be a completely seperate *physically*
from gravitational potential.😂🤣
Tell me. In your nutty universe when you drop a rock
is it pulled to the ground by 2 seperate effects ? Potential and metric?
Or are they both just different names for the same thing and
you are just an idiot?

Lou wrote:

> On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 04:54:10 UTC, JanPB wrote:
>> Newtonian gravitational potential and the spacetime metric of GR are
>> different things, both physically and mathematically.
>
> Yes Jan. whatever you say.
> I drop a rock to the ground. Something pulls it down.

it doesn't, fucking stupid. You are unskilled and uneducated, that's why
you this ignorant. And JanPB is stupid too. The later is a description of
the former potential, and nothing else.

On 11/19/2023 9:08 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 21:26:08 UTC, Volney wrote:
>> 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:
>
> You conveniently forgot...When I said jujube meant force I
> meant the force of gravity is modelled with r.

You contradict yourself. Gravity is modeled inversely proportional to
r^2, not r. Make up your mind; jujube is potential (GMm/r) or force
(GMm/r^2). It can't be both.

> As in potential. But
> could and is called by any different names including jujube if you wished

You can use any name you want, but if it's modeled as potential, it is
not a force. Full stop.
>
> GR calls it curved spacetime etc. Newton called it scalar field.
> Laplace called it gravitational potential. And I sarcastically said you
> could call it whatever you want including jujube.

None of these are force.

> But it doesn’t matter. Because whether or not it’s called gravitational potential,
> jujube,curvature of spacetime, gravity well, time dilation, scalar field etc....
> it’s always still...the force of gravity.
> And it’s always proportional to r. Not r^2
> In GR or in classical theory.

And once again, you counter Newton, who states classical force =
GMm/r^2. Why do you counter Newton's classical force?
>
> M/s^2 is acceleration. Force is not measured in m/s^2

Nor is force m^2/s^2. But again, Newton's second law is F=ma.
>
>
>> Newton's Second Law is force = mass * acceleration.
>>
>> (and why do you insist something with units of m^2/s^2 is a force?)
>
> You’re nuts.

I'm not the one claiming force is m^2/s^2!

> YOU are insisting that force is measured in units of m/s^2! Not me.

No I keep telling you F=ma, classical force is kg*m/s^2, force = GMm/r^2
and you frequently snip that.

> I’m trying to tell you that force ISNT measured in units of m/s^2 as
> you try to pretend when you say little g, which uses m/s^2, is the force
> of gravity.

No as I keep reminding you Newton's second law is F=ma, so force of
gravity is F=mg.

> How could it be?

It isn't. You are simply very confused.

> Little g cannot be force because it’s measured in m/s^2. That’s called
> acceleration.
> You think acceleration is force?
> 😂🤣

I'm the one who keeps reminding you of Newton's second law, force = mass
* acceleration, but you like snipping that.

And you are the one who thinks potential is force. The units are wrong.
Potential has units of m^2/s^2 which isn't force.

On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 16:02:18 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 11/19/2023 9:08 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 21:26:08 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >> 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:
> >
> > You conveniently forgot...When I said jujube meant force I
> > meant the force of gravity is modelled with r.
> You contradict yourself. Gravity is modeled inversely proportional to
> r^2, not r. Make up your mind; jujube is potential (GMm/r) or force
> (GMm/r^2). It can't be both.
> > As in potential. But
> > could and is called by any different names including jujube if you wished
> You can use any name you want, but if it's modeled as potential, it is
> not a force. Full stop.
> >
> > GR calls it curved spacetime etc. Newton called it scalar field.
> > Laplace called it gravitational potential. And I sarcastically said you
> > could call it whatever you want including jujube.
> None of these are force.
> > But it doesn’t matter. Because whether or not it’s called gravitational potential,
> > jujube,curvature of spacetime, gravity well, time dilation, scalar field etc....
> > it’s always still...the force of gravity.
> > And it’s always proportional to r. Not r^2
> > In GR or in classical theory.
> And once again, you counter Newton, who states classical force =
> GMm/r^2. Why do you counter Newton's classical force?
> >
> > M/s^2 is acceleration. Force is not measured in m/s^2
> Nor is force m^2/s^2. But again, Newton's second law is F=ma.
> >
> >
> >> Newton's Second Law is force = mass * acceleration.
> >>
> >> (and why do you insist something with units of m^2/s^2 is a force?)
> >
> > You’re nuts.
> I'm not the one claiming force is m^2/s^2!
> > YOU are insisting that force is measured in units of m/s^2! Not me.
> No I keep telling you F=ma, classical force is kg*m/s^2, force = GMm/r^2
> and you frequently snip that.
> > I’m trying to tell you that force ISNT measured in units of m/s^2 as
> > you try to pretend when you say little g, which uses m/s^2, is the force
> > of gravity.
> No as I keep reminding you Newton's second law is F=ma, so force of
> gravity is F=mg.
>
> > How could it be?
>
> It isn't. You are simply very confused.
> > Little g cannot be force because it’s measured in m/s^2. That’s called
> > acceleration.
> > You think acceleration is force?
> > 😂🤣
> I'm the one who keeps reminding you of Newton's second law, force = mass
> * acceleration, but you like snipping that.
>
Another lie from Baloney.
I deliberately left your f=ma in your post above. Just to show everyone how when
you are asked to proved your claim that force is measured in m/s^2
you wriggle out of it, change the subject and say f=ma.
But f=ma isn’t what’s being discussed.
It’s the m/s^2 of little g that you incorrectly insist is force.
So answer the question...is force measured in m/s^2 as you
claim the force of gravity is ?
Oops Volney, I bet you can’t answer that one either so you better change the subject
AGAIN for about the millionth time.

Anyways you also forget the whole reason why this discussion started.
You claimed the force of gravity could not be modelled using r in a classical
model. Despite the fact that you were unable to refute the fact that the classical
model predicts the area of the gravity shadow falls off proportional with r..
So to get out of admitting you can’t refute this you changed the subject and
pretended that force is measured in m/s^2.
A ridiculous claim which you know is ridiculous.
So when you were asked to prove that force is measured in m/s^2 you changed
the subject again grabbed at straws and said that F=ma.
And when it was pointed out to you that F=ma isn’t measured in m/s^2 and
you knew this is true, you lied again, and changed the subject *again* and
claimed that I was saying that force is measured in units
of m^2/s^2. Which I wasn’t.
Another lie and another subject change for desperate Volney
All done to get you off the hook for not being able to refute the fact
that a classical shadow gravity model has the force of gravity proportional
to r.
Amazing pack of lies, especially considering you know that Albert assumed
the force of gravity falls off with r and not Newton’s r^2.
Just because Albert called a duck a flying spacetime metric goblin..doesn’t mean
it isn’t a duck anymore.

On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 8:58:03 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 16:02:18 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > On 11/19/2023 9:08 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 21:26:08 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > >> 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:
> > >
> > > You conveniently forgot...When I said jujube meant force I
> > > meant the force of gravity is modelled with r.
> > You contradict yourself. Gravity is modeled inversely proportional to
> > r^2, not r. Make up your mind; jujube is potential (GMm/r) or force
> > (GMm/r^2). It can't be both.
> > > As in potential. But
> > > could and is called by any different names including jujube if you wished
> > You can use any name you want, but if it's modeled as potential, it is
> > not a force. Full stop.
> > >
> > > GR calls it curved spacetime etc. Newton called it scalar field.
> > > Laplace called it gravitational potential. And I sarcastically said you
> > > could call it whatever you want including jujube.
> > None of these are force.
> > > But it doesn’t matter. Because whether or not it’s called gravitational potential,
> > > jujube,curvature of spacetime, gravity well, time dilation, scalar field etc....
> > > it’s always still...the force of gravity.
> > > And it’s always proportional to r. Not r^2
> > > In GR or in classical theory.
> > And once again, you counter Newton, who states classical force =
> > GMm/r^2. Why do you counter Newton's classical force?
> > >
> > > M/s^2 is acceleration. Force is not measured in m/s^2
> > Nor is force m^2/s^2. But again, Newton's second law is F=ma.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Newton's Second Law is force = mass * acceleration.
> > >>
> > >> (and why do you insist something with units of m^2/s^2 is a force?)
> > >
> > > You’re nuts.
> > I'm not the one claiming force is m^2/s^2!
> > > YOU are insisting that force is measured in units of m/s^2! Not me.
> > No I keep telling you F=ma, classical force is kg*m/s^2, force = GMm/r^2
> > and you frequently snip that.
> > > I’m trying to tell you that force ISNT measured in units of m/s^2 as
> > > you try to pretend when you say little g, which uses m/s^2, is the force
> > > of gravity.
> > No as I keep reminding you Newton's second law is F=ma, so force of
> > gravity is F=mg.
> >
> > > How could it be?
> >
> > It isn't. You are simply very confused.
> > > Little g cannot be force because it’s measured in m/s^2. That’s called
> > > acceleration.
> > > You think acceleration is force?
> > > 😂🤣
> > I'm the one who keeps reminding you of Newton's second law, force = mass
> > * acceleration, but you like snipping that.
> >
> Another lie from Baloney.
> I deliberately left your f=ma in your post above. Just to show everyone how when
> you are asked to proved your claim that force is measured in m/s^2
> you wriggle out of it, change the subject and say f=ma.
> But f=ma isn’t what’s being discussed.
> It’s the m/s^2 of little g that you incorrectly insist is force.
> So answer the question...is force measured in m/s^2 as you
> claim the force of gravity is ?
> Oops Volney, I bet you can’t answer that one either so you better change the subject
> AGAIN for about the millionth time.
>
> Anyways you also forget the whole reason why this discussion started.
> You claimed the force of gravity could not be modelled using r in a classical
> model. Despite the fact that you were unable to refute the fact that the classical
> model predicts the area of the gravity shadow falls off proportional with r.
> So to get out of admitting you can’t refute this you changed the subject and
> pretended that force is measured in m/s^2.
> A ridiculous claim which you know is ridiculous.
> So when you were asked to prove that force is measured in m/s^2 you changed
> the subject again grabbed at straws and said that F=ma.
> And when it was pointed out to you that F=ma isn’t measured in m/s^2 and
> you knew this is true, you lied again, and changed the subject *again* and
> claimed that I was saying that force is measured in units
> of m^2/s^2. Which I wasn’t.
> Another lie and another subject change for desperate Volney
> All done to get you off the hook for not being able to refute the fact
> that a classical shadow gravity model has the force of gravity proportional
> to r.
> Amazing pack of lies, especially considering you know that Albert assumed
> the force of gravity falls off with r and not Newton’s r^2.
> Just because Albert called a duck a flying spacetime metric goblin..doesn’t mean
> it isn’t a duck anymore.

When it is claimed that f=ma, you don't seem to understand that the units are therefore expressed as kilograms-m/s^2, otherwise known as a Newton of force.

Just read pretty much any beginning physics book for verification!

Perhaps you have a learning disabiliy?

Einstein's general relativity (1917) is based on Maxwell's equations that are derived using Faraday's induction effect and an ether that does not exist. Plus, Faraday's induction effect is not gravitational. Your ineptitude has resulted in the US debt of $33T. The deficit in 2023 was $1.7B and the payment on the debt interest was $600B. Next year the projected interest will be $1.2T. In 2028, four years from now, the debt will be $40T and in 2032 the debt will be $60T where the deficit will be 50% of the budget.

On November 10, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> will run at their own inherent rate.
> 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.
>
> 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.
> 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.

Is the center of the geoid defined at the center of mass of the
planet, or at the geometric center? Center of mass, I presume.

This question becomes pertinent when you talk about the effect
of latitude.

--
Rich

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On November 10, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > will run at their own inherent rate.
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> > 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.
>
> Is the center of the geoid defined at the center of mass of the
> planet, or at the geometric center? Center of mass, I presume.

There is nothing to 'define'. The geoid is irregularly shaped,
and it doesn't have an obvious geometric centre. (unlike an ellipsoid)
Otoh there is an obvious physical centre: the point at which the
Newtonian potential is lowest.
It is the point at which the acceleration of gravity is exactly zero.

> This question becomes pertinent when you talk about the effect
> of latitude.

Depends on what you want 'latitude' to mean.
(geometrical or physical)
But those tiny differences between geoid and ellipsoid
are the next thing to worry about.
For the present it suffices to point out that our 'Lou'
is completely and hopelessly and incurably wrong,

Jan

PS For the kiddies: What a GPS unit does for you is to calculate
your position in 3-D space and time using a suitable coordinate system.
Next it projects your position onto the conventional WGS84 ellipsoid
to give you WGS84 latitude, longitude, and altitude.
(because that is what your printed map shows)
Finally it uses a rather crude built in mathematical geoid model
to correct the WGS84 height to geoid height.
It wouldn't do for the thing to tell you consistently
that you are ten meters under water, or floating in the air,
when you are actually standing on a beach.

On November 26, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rate.
>>> 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.
>
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
> >
> > Is the center of the geoid defined at the center of mass of the
>> planet, or at the geometric center? Center of mass, I presume.
>
> There is nothing to 'define'. The geoid is irregularly shaped,
> and it doesn't have an obvious geometric centre. (unlike an ellipsoid)
> Otoh there is an obvious physical centre: the point at which the
> Newtonian potential is lowest.

That would be the center of mass.

The geoid is defined a set of points at the same potential?
All at the same distance from the center?

>> This question becomes pertinent when you talk about the effect
>> of latitude.
>
> Depends on what you want 'latitude' to mean.
> (geometrical or physical)
> But those tiny differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> are the next thing to worry about.

I don't know the difference.

--
Rich

On 11/26/23 2:49 PM, RichD wrote:
> On November 26, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> there is an obvious physical centre: the point at which the
>> Newtonian potential is lowest.
>
> That would be the center of mass.

Not quite. If the earth were a perfect ellipsoid with constant density,
then the center of mass would correspond to the geometric center. But it
obviously is not a perfect ellipsoid, and clearly does not have constant
density.

Note the center of mass of a collection of masses is not necessarily the
point with the lowest Newtonian gravitational potential.

> The geoid is defined a set of points at the same potential?

To a physicist, the geoid is the locus of all points on earth that have
the same metric (considering just the earth). For all practical purposes
this is the same as having the same Newtonian gravitational potential.

> All at the same distance from the center?

No. Because the earth is not a perfect ellipsoid, and does not have
constant density.

Tom Roberts

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On November 26, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> rate.
> >>> 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.
> >
> >>> 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.
> >>> 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.
> > >
> > > Is the center of the geoid defined at the center of mass of the
> >> planet, or at the geometric center? Center of mass, I presume.
> >
> > There is nothing to 'define'. The geoid is irregularly shaped,
> > and it doesn't have an obvious geometric centre. (unlike an ellipsoid)
> > Otoh there is an obvious physical centre: the point at which the
> > Newtonian potential is lowest.
>
> That would be the center of mass.

No, but close.

> The geoid is defined a set of points at the same potential?

Yes, in the Newtonian approximation.
(if the Newtonian approximation isn't valid
there is no such thing as a well-defined potential)

> All at the same distance from the center?

Certainy not. The geoid is almost an ellipsoid.
The polar radius is shorter than the equatorial radius.
(hence the choice of the metric founding fathers to measure a meridian)

> >> This question becomes pertinent when you talk about the effect
> >> of latitude.
> >
> > Depends on what you want 'latitude' to mean.
> > (geometrical or physical)
> > But those tiny differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> > are the next thing to worry about.
>
> I don't know the difference.

Latitude is conventional. It is a human construct.
To define it you can do two things.
1) Geometrical. Approximate the geoid by a 'best fitting' ellipsoid,
for example WGS84. (but there are dozens of other datums)
Find the lines of constant latitude by differentiating the ellipsoid.
2) Physical. Get a local level surface, from a water surface, or pool of
mercury. (or use a plumb line to find the vertical)
Get a telescope, and measure the elevation of the celestial pole
wrt to the local level, and call that the latitude.
The results would coincide if the Earth were a perfect ellipsoid.

Jan

--
"They are merely conventional signs!" (The Crew)

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 11/26/23 2:49 PM, RichD wrote:
>> All at the same distance from the center?
>
> No. Because the earth is not a perfect ellipsoid, and does not have
> constant density.

yes, it's obvious there is more land and continents northern hemisphere.
The south has however the Antarctic. It's like going back to an army which
openly wanted to kill you.

𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗭𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗶𝘀_𝗮_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗦𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗲!
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/7v9rLA0kHH6r

𝗨.𝗦._𝗔𝗿𝗺𝘆_𝗕𝗲𝗴𝘀_𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗩𝗮𝘅𝘅𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗥𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/xYtcyA3So3PI

On November 26, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> there is an obvious physical centre: the point at which the
>>> Newtonian potential is lowest.
>
>> That would be the center of mass.
>
> Note the center of mass of a collection of masses is not necessarily the
> point with the lowest Newtonian gravitational potential.

?
Isn't that a contradiction, if the center of mass doesn't coincide
with zero potential?

>> The geoid is defined a set of points at the same potential?
>
> To a physicist, the geoid is the locus of all points on earth that have
> the same metric (considering just the earth). For all practical purposes
> this is the same as having the same Newtonian gravitational potential.

How is the metric measured? How does one determine empirically if
two separated points share the same metric? That is, without measuring
any clock rate, which is the subject under discussion.

In Newtonian mechanics, one simply measures the gravitational gradient,
easy enough.

--
Rich

On 11/27/2023 2:50 PM, Darryle Batsman Bakshtanowsky wrote:

>
> 𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗭𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗶𝘀_𝗮_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗦𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗲!
> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/7v9rLA0kHH6r
>

Other than the bullshit that only suits a moron like you Hanson, her
accent, heavily suppressed to sound like American, still managed to take
me back four decades to one of our professors (from New Zealand).

I never forget that. "eaksityshan laya" (excitation layer!). Hehe :-)

Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 11/27/2023 2:50 PM, Darryle Batsman Bakshtanowsky wrote:
>> 𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗭𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗶𝘀_𝗮_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗦𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗲!
>> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/7v9rLA0kHH6r
>>
> Other than the bullshit that only suits a moron like you Hanson, her
> accent, heavily suppressed to sound like American, still managed to take
> me back four decades to one of our professors (from New Zealand).
> I never forget that. "eaksityshan laya" (excitation layer!). Hehe

you don't undrestand shit, fucking stupid. Nor PDE, matrices, groups and
tensors. How about now??

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗯𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗽_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗼_𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗩𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗼
https://rumble.com/v1w4jom-archbishop-carlo-maria-vigano.html

𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗶𝗻𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀._𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲_𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗶𝘀_𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗲_𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹._𝗪𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵_𝗮𝘁_𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗼𝘄𝗻_𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/f7dSmddUvLPN

kiss my ass.

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗯𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗽 𝗩𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗼: 𝗪𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗗’é𝘁𝗮𝘁 & 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗢𝗿
𝗟𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴

𝗪𝗘𝗙:_‘𝗔𝗹𝗹_𝗧𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗹_𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗦𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗕𝗲_𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝘆_𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗼𝗻_𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀’

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On November 26, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>> there is an obvious physical centre: the point at which the
> >>> Newtonian potential is lowest.
> >
> >> That would be the center of mass.
> >
> > Note the center of mass of a collection of masses is not necessarily the
> > point with the lowest Newtonian gravitational potential.
>
> ?
> Isn't that a contradiction, if the center of mass doesn't coincide
> with zero potential?

Eh, zero potential is out at infinity.

> >> The geoid is defined a set of points at the same potential?
> >
> > To a physicist, the geoid is the locus of all points on earth that have
> > the same metric (considering just the earth). For all practical purposes
> > this is the same as having the same Newtonian gravitational potential.
>
> How is the metric measured? How does one determine empirically if
> two separated points share the same metric? That is, without measuring
> any clock rate, which is the subject under discussion.
>
> In Newtonian mechanics, one simply measures the gravitational gradient,
> easy enough.

Yes, 'simple', 'easy enough'. Now go and do it, accurately.
(say to one cm, between BIPM and NIST)

We'll soon reach the point where the potential difference between
distant points can only be measured accurately by comparing clock rates.
At present acurate frequency transport (to 10^-18) is not possible yet,
over long distances, but that is actively being worked on.
Distances of many hundreds of kilometers have been reached already,

Jan

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 2:09:21 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On November 26, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >>> there is an obvious physical centre: the point at which the
> > >>> Newtonian potential is lowest.
> > >
> > >> That would be the center of mass.
> > >
> > > Note the center of mass of a collection of masses is not necessarily the
> > > point with the lowest Newtonian gravitational potential.
> >
> > ?
> > Isn't that a contradiction, if the center of mass doesn't coincide
> > with zero potential?
> Eh, zero potential is out at infinity.
> > >> The geoid is defined a set of points at the same potential?
> > >
> > > To a physicist, the geoid is the locus of all points on earth that have
> > > the same metric (considering just the earth). For all practical purposes
> > > this is the same as having the same Newtonian gravitational potential..
> >
> > How is the metric measured? How does one determine empirically if
> > two separated points share the same metric? That is, without measuring
> > any clock rate, which is the subject under discussion.
> >
> > In Newtonian mechanics, one simply measures the gravitational gradient,
> > easy enough.
> Yes, 'simple', 'easy enough'. Now go and do it, accurately.
> (say to one cm, between BIPM and NIST)
>
> We'll soon reach the point where the potential difference between
> distant points can only be measured accurately by comparing clock rates.
> At present acurate frequency transport (to 10^-18) is not possible yet,
> over long distances, but that is actively being worked on.
> Distances of many hundreds of kilometers have been reached already,
>
> Jan

Channels Maupertuis, ....

On Tuesday, 28 November 2023 at 23:09:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On November 26, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >>> there is an obvious physical centre: the point at which the
> > >>> Newtonian potential is lowest.
> > >
> > >> That would be the center of mass.
> > >
> > > Note the center of mass of a collection of masses is not necessarily the
> > > point with the lowest Newtonian gravitational potential.
> >
> > ?
> > Isn't that a contradiction, if the center of mass doesn't coincide
> > with zero potential?
> Eh, zero potential is out at infinity.
> > >> The geoid is defined a set of points at the same potential?
> > >
> > > To a physicist, the geoid is the locus of all points on earth that have
> > > the same metric (considering just the earth). For all practical purposes
> > > this is the same as having the same Newtonian gravitational potential.
> >
> > How is the metric measured? How does one determine empirically if
> > two separated points share the same metric? That is, without measuring
> > any clock rate, which is the subject under discussion.
> >
> > In Newtonian mechanics, one simply measures the gravitational gradient,
> > easy enough.
> Yes, 'simple', 'easy enough'. Now go and do it, accurately.
> (say to one cm, between BIPM and NIST)
>
> We'll soon reach the point where the potential difference between
> distant points can only be measured accurately by comparing clock rates.

Your fellow idiot Tom could explain you, that according
to your moronic religion clocks run always at the same rate.

On November 28, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >>> there is an obvious physical centre: the point at which the
>> >>> Newtonian potential is lowest.
>
>> >> That would be the center of mass.
>
>>> Note the center of mass of a collection of masses is not necessarily the
>>> point with the lowest Newtonian gravitational potential.
>
>> Isn't that a contradiction, if the center of mass doesn't coincide
>> with zero potential?
>
> Eh, zero potential is out at infinity.

That's an arbitrary number, no objective significance.
Potential refers to energy. Place a test mass at a point, release,
watch it fly.

The point where it remains motionless is the lowest
potential.

>> >> The geoid is defined a set of points at the same potential?
>
>>> To a physicist, the geoid is the locus of all points on earth that have
>>> the same metric (considering just the earth). For all practical purposes
>>> this is the same as having the same Newtonian gravitational potential.
>
>> How is the metric measured? How does one determine empirically if
>> two separated points share the same metric? That is, without measuring
>> any clock rate, which is the subject under discussion.
>
>> In Newtonian mechanics, one simply measures the gravitational gradient,
>> easy enough.
>
> Yes, 'simple', 'easy enough'. Now go and do it, accurately.
> (say to one cm, between BIPM and NIST)

Observe the test mass acceleration, and use the Lorentz
momentum formula. Calculate the g force, assuming Newton's
model. The Newtonian potential follows directly, if you know
the distribution of mass.

The claim is that in general relativity, clock rate depends only on
potential, not on local g. We want to verify this. How to measure
potential, locally, independently of g?

--
Rich