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.
>
>> 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.

Is there an Einstein gravitational potential, is that well defined?

--
Rich

On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 3:14:04 PM UTC-8, RichD 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.
> >
> >> 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.
> Is there an Einstein gravitational potential, is that well defined?
>
>
> --
> Rich

Well it is, not really much to say except objects follow their worldlines in the geodesy,
which is gradient descent or steepest descent, principle of least action and such.

The objects in the geodesy "instantaneously" update the geodesy, it's nowhere said
different, by Einstein, at least in "Out of My Later Years" or his final theory, Einstein's
own theory has a "the time" of all the inertial-systems.

I.e., it can be said, Einstein says "the classical and potential, either real, are real".

Then for usual "theories of sum potentials" is for something like space contraction,
with a sort of fall gravity.

A well it is, ..., it's a continuum dynamics.

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:51:43 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:08:57 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:08:45?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Lou <noeltu...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > Lou 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,
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you tried reading my posts you wouldn't be pretending I said the
> > > > > force of gravity is 9.863-9.798 m/s2.
> > > > Too bad if you didn't say it, for those are the measured values.
> > > > > That's r^2 and it's called acceleration. You don't seem to know that m/s^2
> > > > > is acceleration!!! Since when does Force=acceleration?
> > > > > In all my posts I state very clearly that in a classical model the
> > > > > force of gravity is modelled with GM/r.
> > > > > And I already responded to your point on geoids that yes if you want
> > > > > to split hairs the geoid surface varies from r by up to 200 meters.
> > > > > Which is why very accurate measurements of clock rates will show
> > > > > constant rates at the surface of the geoid only. And not to r. But
> > > > > that's still consistent with a classical model as much as with GR..
> > > > So you have nothing to say,
> > > > beyond agreeing that general relativity gives the right answer,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > "... a right answer".
> > There is only one,
> >
> > Jan
> There's only one metric? How about when there are three?
> What about when normed-spaces aren't metric spaces and vice-versa?
>
> If boost addition is part of GR, then it has to be setup to be
> that the geodesy is always instantaneously evaluated everywhere.
>
> That "really, force is always virtual", or, "there are no truly inelastic
> collisions", that, "force is a dimensionless quantity just as a matter
> of projection a linear, impulse, classical quantity, in a fixed vector field",
> these are some of the things Einstein considers in his attack on Newton's laws,
> as what follows from "Out of my later years", Einstein's opinion about
> not just relativity, but also Newton's "classical".
>
> Reading this Bradley's on the theory of force, it's pretty good.

On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:22:57 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 3:14:04 PM UTC-8, RichD 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.
> > >
> > >> 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..
> > Is there an Einstein gravitational potential, is that well defined?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> Well it is, not really much to say except objects follow their worldlines in the geodesy,
> which is gradient descent or steepest descent, principle of least action and such.
>
> The objects in the geodesy "instantaneously" update the geodesy, it's nowhere said
> different, by Einstein, at least in "Out of My Later Years" or his final theory, Einstein's
> own theory has a "the time" of all the inertial-systems.
>
> I.e., it can be said, Einstein says "the classical and potential, either real, are real".
>
> Then for usual "theories of sum potentials" is for something like space contraction,
> with a sort of fall gravity.
>
> A well it is, ..., it's a continuum dynamics.

Of course, a lot of people got incomplete, fumbled, fawning, slanted,
or otherwise poor descriptions of Einstein's theories, that without a
cohesiveness and coherency of the surrounds, results extrapolations
of the improper, to where the ivory tower, has a lean to it.

Yet, for Einstein, it's still straight up and down. This though follows
pretty much as he set it out in "Out of My Later Years".

This is largely remedied by the concept of particle/wave duality, after
the mathematics of the continuous and discrete, where it's as so similar
that particle or wave theory alone neither suffices.

The "electron physics", though, must quite altogether be seen as a sort
of conceit in terms of measure and quantity, and about the the superfluidity
of flux, is sublime, that though the ultraviolet catastrophe what saw ushered
a simple model of photons as the rate of exchange, was so wall-papered,
that the opto-electronic effect and the discreteness with respect to the
stochiometric are profound, there is for Einstein then Planck, that there
is to be understood that the trans-Planckian isn't digital, as rather for
superstring theory, and following for what result "running constants"
as for dynamism and dynamics, that mathematics can support a theory
of continuum mechanics, here that these days there's wave/resonance
theory and doubling-spaces and doubling-measures as of the real mathematics
of the discretization, why normalization, may be fully normalizable, what
for Ramset theory and the quasi-invariant, in the flowering of function
theory in topologies, that a sort of post-Cantorian post-Cartesian formalism,
is so extra-Cantorian then extra-Cartesian, makes for that mathematics
both _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of "infinity", but of
course also is, more and better.

Then, for Einstein's leveraging his success in the milieu of electron physics
and atomic physics, and because statistical mechanics and the statistical
ensemble are the numerical methods standing up derivations, it's pretty great
that Einstein later carefully wrapped Relativity into its detachment, in his
reasoned deliberations on a total field theory, a "differential-system",
a continuum mechanics, and an accommodation of a theory of potentials,
for a more Mach-ian overall accoutrement, like FitzGerald for Lorentz,
and, like superstrings and quantum spin foam for Fatio and LeSage.

Because, ..., where Maupertuis for example elucidates least action in what's
otherwise for a theory of dissipation or "entropy and its anti-definition,
anti-entropy: entropy", then it really starts becoming simple that
space contraction is real and a fall gravity is the way of things.

Rest exchange momentum and Nessie's hump: it's a continuum mechanics.

RichD 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.
>>> 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.
>
> Is there an Einstein gravitational potential, is that well defined?

no there isn't. Einstine knew no mechanics, electronics. Not an electronic
engineer. However, this 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻 here is saying 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗲𝗻 is a
member of 𝘁𝗵𝗲_{𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲}. Any other around here, member of the {𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲}??

𝗖𝗢𝗣28_𝗔𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝘀_𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲_𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵_𝗥𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/RcRoSyvhFIBg/

On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 9:32:26 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:22:57 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 3:14:04 PM UTC-8, RichD 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.
> > > >
> > > >> 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.
> > > Is there an Einstein gravitational potential, is that well defined?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich
> > Well it is, not really much to say except objects follow their worldlines in the geodesy,
> > which is gradient descent or steepest descent, principle of least action and such.
> >
> > The objects in the geodesy "instantaneously" update the geodesy, it's nowhere said
> > different, by Einstein, at least in "Out of My Later Years" or his final theory, Einstein's
> > own theory has a "the time" of all the inertial-systems.
> >
> > I.e., it can be said, Einstein says "the classical and potential, either real, are real".
> >
> > Then for usual "theories of sum potentials" is for something like space contraction,
> > with a sort of fall gravity.
> >
> > A well it is, ..., it's a continuum dynamics.
> Of course, a lot of people got incomplete, fumbled, fawning, slanted,
> or otherwise poor descriptions of Einstein's theories, that without a
> cohesiveness and coherency of the surrounds, results extrapolations
> of the improper, to where the ivory tower, has a lean to it.
>
> Yet, for Einstein, it's still straight up and down. This though follows
> pretty much as he set it out in "Out of My Later Years".
>
> This is largely remedied by the concept of particle/wave duality, after
> the mathematics of the continuous and discrete, where it's as so similar
> that particle or wave theory alone neither suffices.
>
> The "electron physics", though, must quite altogether be seen as a sort
> of conceit in terms of measure and quantity, and about the the superfluidity
> of flux, is sublime, that though the ultraviolet catastrophe what saw ushered
> a simple model of photons as the rate of exchange, was so wall-papered,
> that the opto-electronic effect and the discreteness with respect to the
> stochiometric are profound, there is for Einstein then Planck, that there
> is to be understood that the trans-Planckian isn't digital, as rather for
> superstring theory, and following for what result "running constants"
> as for dynamism and dynamics, that mathematics can support a theory
> of continuum mechanics, here that these days there's wave/resonance
> theory and doubling-spaces and doubling-measures as of the real mathematics
> of the discretization, why normalization, may be fully normalizable, what
> for Ramset theory and the quasi-invariant, in the flowering of function
> theory in topologies, that a sort of post-Cantorian post-Cartesian formalism,
> is so extra-Cantorian then extra-Cartesian, makes for that mathematics
> both _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of "infinity", but of
> course also is, more and better.
>
> Then, for Einstein's leveraging his success in the milieu of electron physics
> and atomic physics, and because statistical mechanics and the statistical
> ensemble are the numerical methods standing up derivations, it's pretty great
> that Einstein later carefully wrapped Relativity into its detachment, in his
> reasoned deliberations on a total field theory, a "differential-system",
> a continuum mechanics, and an accommodation of a theory of potentials,
> for a more Mach-ian overall accoutrement, like FitzGerald for Lorentz,
> and, like superstrings and quantum spin foam for Fatio and LeSage.
>
> Because, ..., where Maupertuis for example elucidates least action in what's
> otherwise for a theory of dissipation or "entropy and its anti-definition,
> anti-entropy: entropy", then it really starts becoming simple that
> space contraction is real and a fall gravity is the way of things.
>
> Rest exchange momentum and Nessie's hump: it's a continuum mechanics.

Of course, a lot of people got incomplete, fumbled, fawning, slanted,
or otherwise poor descriptions of particle/wave duality, ....

On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 5:10:44 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
> On November 28, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> >>> 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.

(sigh)
Leaving aside for the moment your continued confusion
about gravitational potential:

Consider two unequal point masses. Call the lighter one A
and the more massive one B.
1) How do you compute the center of mass of this system?
2) Place a test particle at the computed center of mass.
Is the test particle closer to A or to B?
3) Will this test particle remain motionless?

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.

That is not the claim.
It is that relative rates of clocks at different points
depend on the potential difference between those points.

> 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?

Easily verified, on the geoid clocks run at the same rate,
while the local g on the geoid varies a lot,

Jan

On 12/1/23 5:14 PM, RichD wrote:
> Is there an Einstein gravitational potential, is that well defined?

Not really.

Remember that the Newtonian gravitational force is minus the gradient of
the Newtonian gravitational potential. The quantities closest to that in
GR are the geometrical connection acting as "gravitational force" -- it
is related to the metric components by derivatives, so one can consider
the metric components as the analog to the Newtonian gravitational
potential. Note that the analogy is not very close, and this is
explicitly coordinate dependent, which is counter to the fundamentals of GR.

In a region wit weak fields and velocities << c, GR reduces
approximately to Newtonian gravitation, with the approximation being
exceedingly good.

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 12/1/23 5:14 PM, RichD wrote:
> > Is there an Einstein gravitational potential, is that well defined?
>
> Not really.
>
> Remember that the Newtonian gravitational force is minus the gradient of
> the Newtonian gravitational potential. The quantities closest to that in
> GR are the geometrical connection acting as "gravitational force" -- it
> is related to the metric components by derivatives, so one can consider
> the metric components as the analog to the Newtonian gravitational
> potential. Note that the analogy is not very close, and this is
> explicitly coordinate dependent, which is counter to the fundamentals of GR.
>
> In a region wit weak fields and velocities << c, GR reduces
> approximately to Newtonian gravitation, with the approximation being
> exceedingly good.

Indeed. In particular:
\Phi ~= - 6 10^7 m^2/s^2 (Kiddies: note that ist is negative)
\Delta \Phi ~= 10^4 m^2/s^2 (NIST to BIPM for example, less negative)
c^2 ~~ 10^17 m^2/s^2
\Delta \nu / \nu ~= 10^-13 (NIST faster than BIPM)

Small, but easily observable with today's cesium fountain clocks,
even more so when you average ~ 500 of them to obtain TAI,

Jan

On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 7:12:01 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/1/23 5:14 PM, RichD wrote:
> > Is there an Einstein gravitational potential, is that well defined?
> Not really.
>
> Remember that the Newtonian gravitational force is minus the gradient of
> the Newtonian gravitational potential. The quantities closest to that in
> GR are the geometrical connection acting as "gravitational force" -- it
> is related to the metric components by derivatives, so one can consider
> the metric components as the analog to the Newtonian gravitational
> potential. Note that the analogy is not very close, and this is
> explicitly coordinate dependent, which is counter to the fundamentals of GR.
>
> In a region wit weak fields and velocities << c, GR reduces
> approximately to Newtonian gravitation, with the approximation being
> exceedingly good.
>
> Tom Roberts

Nobody's quite sure how gravity works as it would involve assuming a
perpetuum mobile by the usual theories, so there's lots going into why
"quantum gravity" is really some "total field gravity" which arrives must
be some "fall gavity".

It's a field theory, it's a gauge theory, it's causal, it's least-action,
it seems it's a fall gravity, it's a continuum mechanics, ....

Physics has kind of got ahead of itself, the mathematics dawdling.

So, unifying for the strong nuclear force including asymptotic freedom
as via a fall gravity, is making for the forces in the fields that it's a
sort of theory of sum potentials (sigma potentials) or that changes
are integrating the sum of histories, at least in so few words lays
out the entirety.

On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 1:27:44 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 7:12:01 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 12/1/23 5:14 PM, RichD wrote:
> > > Is there an Einstein gravitational potential, is that well defined?
> > Not really.
> >
> > Remember that the Newtonian gravitational force is minus the gradient of
> > the Newtonian gravitational potential. The quantities closest to that in
> > GR are the geometrical connection acting as "gravitational force" -- it
> > is related to the metric components by derivatives, so one can consider
> > the metric components as the analog to the Newtonian gravitational
> > potential. Note that the analogy is not very close, and this is
> > explicitly coordinate dependent, which is counter to the fundamentals of GR.
> >
> > In a region wit weak fields and velocities << c, GR reduces
> > approximately to Newtonian gravitation, with the approximation being
> > exceedingly good.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Nobody's quite sure how gravity works as it would involve assuming a
> perpetuum mobile by the usual theories, so there's lots going into why
> "quantum gravity" is really some "total field gravity" which arrives must
> be some "fall gavity".
>
> It's a field theory, it's a gauge theory, it's causal, it's least-action,
> it seems it's a fall gravity, it's a continuum mechanics, ....
>
> Physics has kind of got ahead of itself, the mathematics dawdling.
>
> So, unifying for the strong nuclear force including asymptotic freedom
> as via a fall gravity, is making for the forces in the fields that it's a
> sort of theory of sum potentials (sigma potentials) or that changes
> are integrating the sum of histories, at least in so few words lays
> out the entirety.

So you're saying that "TAI" is due to entering the Earth's rotating frame,
same all around?

As if it were dragged? Into the frame?

On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 6:20:32 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 1:27:44 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 7:12:01 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 12/1/23 5:14 PM, RichD wrote:
> > > > Is there an Einstein gravitational potential, is that well defined?
> > > Not really.
> > >
> > > Remember that the Newtonian gravitational force is minus the gradient of
> > > the Newtonian gravitational potential. The quantities closest to that in
> > > GR are the geometrical connection acting as "gravitational force" -- it
> > > is related to the metric components by derivatives, so one can consider
> > > the metric components as the analog to the Newtonian gravitational
> > > potential. Note that the analogy is not very close, and this is
> > > explicitly coordinate dependent, which is counter to the fundamentals of GR.
> > >
> > > In a region wit weak fields and velocities << c, GR reduces
> > > approximately to Newtonian gravitation, with the approximation being
> > > exceedingly good.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > Nobody's quite sure how gravity works as it would involve assuming a
> > perpetuum mobile by the usual theories, so there's lots going into why
> > "quantum gravity" is really some "total field gravity" which arrives must
> > be some "fall gavity".
> >
> > It's a field theory, it's a gauge theory, it's causal, it's least-action,
> > it seems it's a fall gravity, it's a continuum mechanics, ....
> >
> > Physics has kind of got ahead of itself, the mathematics dawdling.
> >
> > So, unifying for the strong nuclear force including asymptotic freedom
> > as via a fall gravity, is making for the forces in the fields that it's a
> > sort of theory of sum potentials (sigma potentials) or that changes
> > are integrating the sum of histories, at least in so few words lays
> > out the entirety.
> So you're saying that "TAI" is due to entering the Earth's rotating frame,
> same all around?
>
> As if it were dragged? Into the frame?

I.e. it's rather that GR governs SR not the other way around,
and "Relativity of Simultaneity RoS is extra-local if non-classical".

Ross Finlayson wrote:

>> In a region wit weak fields and velocities << c, GR reduces
>> approximately to Newtonian gravitation, with the approximation being
>> exceedingly good. Tom Roberts
>
> Nobody's quite sure how gravity works as it would involve assuming a
> perpetuum mobile by the usual theories, so there's lots going into why
> "quantum gravity" is really some "total field gravity" which arrives
> must be some "fall gavity".

none of which. There is no "fall gravity", but merely my
"𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹". Good point. One more to
add to the stream.

On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 8:23:42 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 6:20:32 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 1:27:44 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 7:12:01 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > On 12/1/23 5:14 PM, RichD wrote:
> > > > > Is there an Einstein gravitational potential, is that well defined?
> > > > Not really.
> > > >
> > > > Remember that the Newtonian gravitational force is minus the gradient of
> > > > the Newtonian gravitational potential. The quantities closest to that in
> > > > GR are the geometrical connection acting as "gravitational force" -- it
> > > > is related to the metric components by derivatives, so one can consider
> > > > the metric components as the analog to the Newtonian gravitational
> > > > potential. Note that the analogy is not very close, and this is
> > > > explicitly coordinate dependent, which is counter to the fundamentals of GR.
> > > >
> > > > In a region wit weak fields and velocities << c, GR reduces
> > > > approximately to Newtonian gravitation, with the approximation being
> > > > exceedingly good.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Roberts
> > > Nobody's quite sure how gravity works as it would involve assuming a
> > > perpetuum mobile by the usual theories, so there's lots going into why
> > > "quantum gravity" is really some "total field gravity" which arrives must
> > > be some "fall gavity".
> > >
> > > It's a field theory, it's a gauge theory, it's causal, it's least-action,
> > > it seems it's a fall gravity, it's a continuum mechanics, ....
> > >
> > > Physics has kind of got ahead of itself, the mathematics dawdling.
> > >
> > > So, unifying for the strong nuclear force including asymptotic freedom
> > > as via a fall gravity, is making for the forces in the fields that it's a
> > > sort of theory of sum potentials (sigma potentials) or that changes
> > > are integrating the sum of histories, at least in so few words lays
> > > out the entirety.
> > So you're saying that "TAI" is due to entering the Earth's rotating frame,
> > same all around?
> >
> > As if it were dragged? Into the frame?
> I.e. it's rather that GR governs SR not the other way around,
> and "Relativity of Simultaneity RoS is extra-local if non-classical".

So, hopefully you understand that the same experiments,
and same data, have this different sort interpretation,
with as much or more explanatory power, from less, and, that
it helps reconcile GR and SR, and, other relevant
theories, like QM, with a gravity, which is missing from them,
and the gravific and fall gravity, and for a continuum mechanics.

That it harkens ballistic theory and otherwise re-lights many
of the old off-shoots of developments in physics, writ large,
should be a great encouragement, instead of it just being
broken and contemporary influencers making a bigger mess of it.

So, anybody who ever tells you "well, just nobody will ever get it",
well they can descence avernis, and you can find more and better
lower and deeper mathematics, for continuum analysis,
that brings it right along.

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> So, hopefully you understand that the same experiments,
> and same data, have this different sort interpretation,
> with as much or more explanatory power, from less, and, that it helps
> reconcile GR and SR, and, other relevant theories, like QM, with a

yes sure. The 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮 are sick in their fucking head.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗨𝗦_'𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿-𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲'_𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆_–_𝗪𝗮𝗣𝗼
Washington reportedly wanted a single focused advance sooner, but Kiev
disagreed
https://r%74.com/russia/588498-ukraine-offensive-postmortem-wapo/

General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time,
advised the Ukrainians to also send sabotage groups into the Russian rear,
saying there “should be no Russian who goes to sleep 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗳
𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆’𝗿𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗹𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁,” according to one
official.

clearly 𝗮_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁_𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆. A 𝘄𝗮𝗿_𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲. How these wankers walk
unpunished on the face of the earth, I have no idea.

Mark Milley is a damn disgrace, but a disgrace in a good way for the
Russians. He's a useful idiot in terms of Ukraines defeat. But all
together hes a stupid sob.

Kiev is supported by 50+ NATO and western friendly military allies ,yet
failed miserably to win a total war against Mother Russia. Ukranazi
commanders should do the honour of committing harakiri to appease their
dead soldiers in this futile war.

A series of eight tabletop wargames at the US base in Wiesbaden.'' ... Why
didn't the yanks ask Hollywood how yankraine could win??

USA and British in their deluded minds think they will go scores free with
all 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱. Setting 𝗻𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗯𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁
𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 for their own selfish and hateful ends. Their own judgments will
be horrible and their so called enemies will pity them.

Have ANY of these "Western" military "leaders" ever WON a war? I am
American citizen in my 80s, there has been not "WINS" since WWll. That's
when we nuked Japan. I really don't think the U.S. and all its Europe
friends would have defeated Germany it it wasn't for Russia beating the
hell out of the Germans who were stupid enough to attack Russia. Russia
paid a major price but defeated powerful German forces and we Americans
never even thanked them. No America don't win wars they simply just kill
and be killed while getting other countries to do the same, but, where are
the winners?

On 12/5/2023 11:32 AM, Stanely Turbin Bazarov wrote:
> Mark Milley is a damn disgrace, but a disgrace in a good way for the
> Russians. He's a useful idiot in terms of Ukraines defeat. But all
> together hes a stupid sob.

Hanson, you dumb ass, he is one of the better ones in the military.
Russians better enjoy them while they last. The likes of him are getting
fewer and fewer.

Straightly submissive and docile ones are replacing them. The full 100%
dictatorship is fast on its way.

Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 12/5/2023 11:32 AM, Stanely Turbin Bazarov wrote:
>> Mark Milley is a damn disgrace, but a disgrace in a good way for the
>> Russians. He's a useful idiot in terms of Ukraines defeat. But all
>> together hes a stupid sob.
>
> Hanson, you dumb ass, he is one of the better ones in the military.

lol, if not mistaken, he was threatening 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽𝗳, if elected president "𝘄𝗲
𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗺", hence you have 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁, on TV.
How is that better, you fucking 𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘂𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗼𝘁. It looks like you are the
stupidest 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 {𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲} in this forum. 𝗡𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴_2 are waiting for
you dirty wankers. 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝘄𝗮𝗿_𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀, genocide, 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻
𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 etc.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲'𝘀_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗖𝗔𝗨𝗚𝗛𝗧_𝗕𝘂𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴_$75_𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝘂𝘅𝘂𝗿𝘆_𝗬𝗮𝗰𝗵𝘁_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗨.𝗦._𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/EwMFbIVgb95n

𝗔𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗵_-_𝗪𝗲_𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝘂𝗽...𝘄𝗲_𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲_𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗵𝗶𝘁_𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/wyHKAREypONV

𝗔𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗵_𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮_𝗰𝗮𝗻'𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹_𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/rPty8Zlajin7

𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗖𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚_𝗙𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲_𝗢𝗳_𝗚𝗮𝘇𝗮_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼n
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/0Oayk1od9co

95_𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗢𝗳_𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱'𝘀_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀_𝗔𝗿𝗲_𝗣𝗿𝗼-𝗣𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧_𝗼𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗱_𝗣𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗲
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/kcfdfPFG7EnY

𝗕𝗨𝗥𝗬𝗜𝗡𝗚_𝗕𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗢𝗻_𝗢𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿_7𝘁𝗵
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/28gYkMFWAyUl

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 3:00:54 PM UTC-5, 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,
>
> Jan
The rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolution motion.
The observer assumes that he is in a state of zero absolute motion .Therefore
his clock will accumulate clock second at a fastest rate in a gravity environment.
Therefore the observed clock will accumulate clock second at a slower rate.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 3:00:54?PM UTC-5, 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,
> >
> > Jan
> The rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolution motion.

Absolute motion with respect to what?

> The observer assumes that he is in a state of zero absolute motion.
> Therefore his clock will accumulate clock second at a fastest rate in a
> gravity environment.
> Therefore the observed clock will accumulate clock second at a slower rate.

Do you take the high road or the low road?

Jan

On Thursday 7 December 2023 at 15:37:16 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> > The rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolution motion.
> Absolute motion with respect to what?

Answer it yourself, poor halfbrain - when you (and your
fellow idiots) correct Cs clocks?

Ken Seto wrote:

> .T̶h̶e̶r̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ h̶i̶s̶ c̶l̶o̶c̶k̶ w̶i̶l̶l̶ a̶c̶c̶u̶m̶u̶l̶a̶t̶e̶ c̶l̶o̶c̶k̶ s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶ a̶t̶ a̶ f̶a̶s̶t̶e̶s̶t̶ r̶a̶t̶e̶ i̶n̶ a̶
> g̶r̶a̶v̶i̶t̶y̶ e̶n̶v̶i̶r̶o̶n̶m̶e̶n̶t̶.

you don't even know what 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙪𝙢𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚 stands for, you fucking liar and thief.
It must be your country and culture of thieves of america.

𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮_𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗘𝗨_𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸_𝘁𝗼_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮
Beijing tried to warn Brussels that sanctions and military aid would not
work against Moscow, diplomat Wu Hongbo has said
https://r%74.com/news/588681-china-eu-ukraine-talks/

rofl, they tried doing a soviet union 2.0 against russia, at same time
tried to do a 'gaddafi' on Putin using ukraine cannon fodders.
ahahahhaahaha lmao, it all FAILED. world leaders non-westerners sided with
russia instead. ahahahhahaa

They EU fool Ukraine bite Russia then they press China to press Russia to
surrender … How? It’s extremely stinking fuckery bullshit.

EU painted themselves into a corner. They only have themselves to blame.
They are liars and thieves.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Absolute motion with respect to what?
>
> A̶b̶s̶o̶l̶u̶t̶e̶ m̶o̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ i̶s̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶ r̶e̶s̶p̶e̶c̶t̶ t̶o̶ s̶p̶a̶c̶e̶ jan.
> Immaterial space is unmarked.

space alone is immaterial, my friend. You can't put a reference frame on
space alone. You must chose a point, which succincts the
material. 𝗟𝗼𝗹, 𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗹, 𝗹𝗺𝗮𝗼, 𝗮𝗮𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗮𝗮!!

𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_–_𝗲𝘅_𝗣𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻_𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳
Without the US to hold it up, the bloc would “collapse,” Mark Esper has
told MSNBC
https://r%74.com/news/588687-trump-withdraw-nato-esper/

After the successful completion of Russia's SMO in Ukraine, NATO as the
military bully of the Yankees is finished. The EU is also finished.

NATO has been on thin ice since Russia 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝘆𝗿𝗶𝗮 on the request of
Bashar al-Assad , back in September the 30th 2015 . Lol, rofl, lmao,
𝗯𝘄𝗮𝗮𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗮𝗮𝗮𝗮. That was a dire warning for the US led NATO coalition.

I agree with that. Get the US out of NATO and let NATO collaps. NOW - we
need to get rid of Israel. Israel is one more millstone round our neck,
one more parasite. We need to cut the cord now! Our subservience to Israel
has contributed to the hatred against American around the world. It's time
to restore American independence! AMERICA FIRST!

He's just another pro-war jerk on TV. It doesn't look like Congress will
provide any more money for Ukraine. And Ukraine isn't part of NATO so I
don't follow his logic at a NATO collapse.

America may be looking towards a few years of peace -- what a horrible
scenario for Washington! Not happening - peace is not on the Zionist
agenda.

On 12/7/2023 11:23 AM, Coke Bir wrote:
> EU painted themselves into a corner. They only have themselves to blame.
> They are liars and thieves.

Europeans are stupid as sin. And yet Russians fall for them left and
right. What does that tell the world about Russians?

On December 2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>> >>> 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.
>
> Leaving aside for the moment your continued confusion
> about gravitational potential:

You put your reading disability on display.  Again.

Potential is defined on a field, as the energy difference between
a point and a reference point. Place a test mass at a point,
observe the kinetic energy gain as it flies to the reference.

Normally, at the reference, we see no acceleration, no
energy gain.  The fixed point theorem guarantees the existence
of such a point. By definition, that's the lowest potential.

You're welcome.

Now a chance to display your thinking (dis)ability.  You dig a shaft
straight through the center of the earth, 10 meters diameter.  
You aim a camera, with an arc lamp powerful enough to light the entire shaft.

Standing on the rim, you drop a ball over the lip, such that it rolls down
the wall.   Ignore rolling and air resistance.  (thought experiments are
always frictionless)

You observe: the ball slowly follows a counterclockwise trajectory as
it rolls down, a spiral pattern.  Eventually it makes a 1/4 turn, then falls
straight through.

Explain.

--
Rich