On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
> GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting
> on a tabletop!

You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.

That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.

What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting
> > on a tabletop!
> You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
>
> That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
>
> What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
> trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
> the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.
>
> Tom Roberts
Then show it to us Roberts! I say here and now that you won't. That's why you reacted to my post with anger. Because you know I speak truth. Now show US!!!!!

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:06:51 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:

> > GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting on a tabletop!

> You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
>
> That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
>
> What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
> trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
> the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.

Roberts, as a "top dog" in relativity matters at this site, for the time being, maybe you
might enlighten "stupid people" here how does it go when applying GR at its fullest
power to RECALCULATE the positioning of the Lagrangian zone at which Webb telescope
is hovering right now.

I'm sure the GR based calculations were 100 times more accurate than newtonian celestial mechanics
using gravitational FORCES.

If not possible, try to explain us how did it go with the classic 3-Body problem, solved by classic physics
more than 200 years ago, but this time using your SUPREME General Relativity.

If not possible, try to explain how to use GR to explain ocean tides at both sides of Earth, simultaneously.

Thanks very much in advance.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting
> > on a tabletop!
> You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
>
> That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
>
> What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
> trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
> the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.
>
> Tom Roberts
Then show us the common homework problem's solutions, Roberts! I say here and now that you won't. Why do you think you reacted angrily to my last post. It's because you know I speak the truth and you speak with a forked tongue. Now show us!!!

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:59 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:06:51 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> > On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
>
> > > GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting on a tabletop!
>
>
> > You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
> >
> > That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
> >
> > What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
> > trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
> > the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.
> Roberts, as a "top dog" in relativity matters at this site, for the time being, maybe you
> might enlighten "stupid people" here how does it go when applying GR at its fullest
> power to RECALCULATE the positioning of the Lagrangian zone at which Webb telescope
> is hovering right now.
>
> I'm sure the GR based calculations were 100 times more accurate than newtonian celestial mechanics
> using gravitational FORCES.
>
> If not possible, try to explain us how did it go with the classic 3-Body problem, solved by classic physics
> more than 200 years ago, but this time using your SUPREME General Relativity.
>
> If not possible, try to explain how to use GR to explain ocean tides at both sides of Earth, simultaneously.
>
> Thanks very much in advance.

Richard, I was not aware that the three body problem in 3D has been solved. I have heard rumors that the it has been solved in 2D. I would fain look at the solutions.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:53:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting
> > > on a tabletop!
> > You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
> >
> > That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
> >
> > What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
> > trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
> > the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Then show us the common homework problem's solutions, Roberts! I say here and now that you won't. Why do you think you reacted angrily to my last post. It's because you know I speak the truth and you speak with a forked tongue. Now show us!!!

I'll make it even easier for you, Tom Roberts. Simply link us to the answer to the "common homework problem". Again I testify to this forum THAT YOU WON'T EVEN DO THIS.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:36:15 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:53:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting
> > > > on a tabletop!
> > > You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
> > >
> > > That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
> > >
> > > What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
> > > trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
> > > the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > Then show us the common homework problem's solutions, Roberts! I say here and now that you won't. Why do you think you reacted angrily to my last post. It's because you know I speak the truth and you speak with a forked tongue. Now show us!!!
> I'll make it even easier for you, Tom Roberts. Simply link us to the answer to the "common homework problem". Again I testify to this forum THAT YOU WON'T EVEN DO THIS.

You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.

If Tom Roberts will lie to protect relativity then why wouldn't Paparios's Tokyo Tower atomic clock group lie too? I can imagine Bodkin's protest "What's the motive to lie?" The motives are the same three motives in all fraud: money, fame, sex. As Starmaker will tell you, there is a ton of grant money at stake for the successful relativity fraudster. The potential fame and bragging rights are self explanatory. The Lawrence Krauss case demonstrates that there is an ample supply of PhD candidate and postdoc casual sex on tap for those researchers willing to publish splashy, phony results..

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/11/22 6:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> What kind of clocks were on these probes? Were they built to be
>>>> sensitive to gravitational time dilation?
>>>
>>> No clock is "sensitive to gravitational time dilation", or any other
>>> type of "time dilation". But SIGNALS from clocks are subject to the way
>>> the time interval between them is measured, which is the source of all
>>> types of "time dilation" -- that is inescapable.
>>
>> Well yes. So said differently, were the clock timing signals of sufficient
>> precision on Voyager1/2 to allow for the detection of time dilation?
>
> No. They carry quartz clocks.

That’s what I thought, thanks.

> A next generation of spacecraft might carry atomic clocks,
> for yet an order of magnitude increase in solar system accuracy,
>
> Jan
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting
>>> on a tabletop!
>> You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
>>
>> That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
>>
>> What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
>> trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
>> the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> Then show it to us Roberts! I say here and now that you won't.

You’re goin ‘ to be occupied with Spacetime Physics for a while. Happy to
suggest a good GR book after that.

> That's why you reacted to my post with anger. Because you know I speak
> truth. Now show US!!!!!
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:42:16 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:

> You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.

Classic pattern of the self-rationalizing crank:
"If they don't respond to me, then this is implicit agreement, and this
proves that I am right. If they do respond to me, then this means my
views are worth paying attention to, and this proves that I am right."
- Paul Draper

On 4/11/2022 10:42 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:36:15 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:53:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting
>>>>> on a tabletop!
>>>> You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
>>>>
>>>> That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
>>>>
>>>> What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
>>>> trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
>>>> the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>> Then show us the common homework problem's solutions, Roberts! I say here and now that you won't. Why do you think you reacted angrily to my last post. It's because you know I speak the truth and you speak with a forked tongue. Now show us!!!
>> I'll make it even easier for you, Tom Roberts. Simply link us to the answer to the "common homework problem". Again I testify to this forum THAT YOU WON'T EVEN DO THIS.

If it is a "common homework problem", why are YOU unable to solve it?

> You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.

Or perhaps Tom has better things to do at this time than argue with
Usenet cranks.

[snip conspiracy theories]

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:10:57 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 10:42 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:36:15 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:53:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>> On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting
> >>>>> on a tabletop!
> >>>> You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
> >>>>
> >>>> That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
> >>>>
> >>>> What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
> >>>> trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
> >>>> the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom Roberts
> >>> Then show us the common homework problem's solutions, Roberts! I say here and now that you won't. Why do you think you reacted angrily to my last post. It's because you know I speak the truth and you speak with a forked tongue. Now show us!!!
> >> I'll make it even easier for you, Tom Roberts. Simply link us to the answer to the "common homework problem". Again I testify to this forum THAT YOU WON'T EVEN DO THIS.
> If it is a "common homework problem", why are YOU unable to solve it?
> > You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.
> Or perhaps Tom has better things to do at this time than argue with
> Usenet cranks.

Or perhaps he's lying.

What about you Moroney. You obviously have nothing better to do with your time. Perform Roberts' common homework problem. Or tell this forum why you won't.

I freely admit that I can't do it now, nor could I do it if I won the top student in GR from Stanford. I further state to this forum that NO ONE can do Tom Roberts' common homework problem and no one ever will.

Prove me wrong!
>
> [snip conspiracy theories]

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:58:59 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:42:16 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>
> > You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.
> Classic pattern of the self-rationalizing crank:
> "If they don't respond to me, then this is implicit agreement, and this
> proves that I am right. If they do respond to me, then this means my
> views are worth paying attention to, and this proves that I am right."
> - Paul Draper

"It was Roberts that picked the fight with me."
-Pat Dolan

On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 04:58:59 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:42:16 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>
> > You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.
> Classic pattern of the self-rationalizing crank:

"The scientific method, logic and rationalism requires
me to discuss, but I won't waste my time discussing
obvious cranks not believing obviously right Shit of
my idiot guru."

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:28:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:58:59 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:42:16 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >
> > > You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.

> > Classic pattern of the self-rationalizing crank:
> > "If they don't respond to me, then this is implicit agreement, and this
> > proves that I am right. If they do respond to me, then this means my
> > views are worth paying attention to, and this proves that I am right."
> > - Paul Draper

> "It was Roberts that picked the fight with me."
> -Pat Dolan

There is zero chance that you are correct about that. You are certainly not worth the effort... it is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man....

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 10:34:25 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:28:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:58:59 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:42:16 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > >
> > > > You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.
>
> > > Classic pattern of the self-rationalizing crank:
> > > "If they don't respond to me, then this is implicit agreement, and this
> > > proves that I am right. If they do respond to me, then this means my
> > > views are worth paying attention to, and this proves that I am right."
> > > - Paul Draper
>
> > "It was Roberts that picked the fight with me."
> > -Pat Dolan
> There is zero chance that you are correct about that. You are certainly not worth the effort... it is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man...
Paul Alsing, ask yourself this question: "Why can't I, Paul Alsing, use the mathematical machinery of general relativity to calculate the force exerted on a table top by a one kilogram weight at the surface of the earth?"

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> On 4/11/22 6:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> What kind of clocks were on these probes? Were they built to be
> >>>> sensitive to gravitational time dilation?
> >>>
> >>> No clock is "sensitive to gravitational time dilation", or any other
> >>> type of "time dilation". But SIGNALS from clocks are subject to the way
> >>> the time interval between them is measured, which is the source of all
> >>> types of "time dilation" -- that is inescapable.
> >>
> >> Well yes. So said differently, were the clock timing signals of sufficient
> >> precision on Voyager1/2 to allow for the detection of time dilation?
> >
> > No. They carry quartz clocks.
>
> That's what I thought, thanks.

The GAIA astrometric satellite is an example of an 'ordinary' sat
that uses an atomic clock for accurate positioning.
(and for all of the timing)
IIRC actually two of them, so the mission won't be compromised
by a single clock failure.

Jan

On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 12:43:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>> On 4/11/22 6:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>>> What kind of clocks were on these probes? Were they built to be
> > >>>> sensitive to gravitational time dilation?
> > >>>
> > >>> No clock is "sensitive to gravitational time dilation", or any other
> > >>> type of "time dilation". But SIGNALS from clocks are subject to the way
> > >>> the time interval between them is measured, which is the source of all
> > >>> types of "time dilation" -- that is inescapable.
> > >>
> > >> Well yes. So said differently, were the clock timing signals of sufficient
> > >> precision on Voyager1/2 to allow for the detection of time dilation?
> > >
> > > No. They carry quartz clocks.
> >
> > That's what I thought, thanks.
> The GAIA astrometric satellite is an example of an 'ordinary' sat
> that uses an atomic clock for accurate positioning.
> (and for all of the timing)
> IIRC actually two of them, so the mission won't be compromised
> by a single clock failure.

Don't they know that relatively moving clocks can't
cooperate, because some insane crazies have found it
improper?

Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:42:16 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>
>> You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the
>> "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no
>> answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom
>> Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.
>
> Classic pattern of the self-rationalizing crank:
> "If they don't respond to me, then this is implicit agreement, and this
> proves that I am right. If they do respond to me, then this means my
> views are worth paying attention to, and this proves that I am right."
> - Paul Draper
>

Ah, the fabled Draper.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:10:57 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 10:42 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:36:15 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:53:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>> GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting
>>>>>>> on a tabletop!
>>>>>> You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
>>>>>> trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
>>>>>> the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>>> Then show us the common homework problem's solutions, Roberts! I say
>>>>> here and now that you won't. Why do you think you reacted angrily to
>>>>> my last post. It's because you know I speak the truth and you speak
>>>>> with a forked tongue. Now show us!!!
>>>> I'll make it even easier for you, Tom Roberts. Simply link us to the
>>>> answer to the "common homework problem". Again I testify to this forum
>>>> THAT YOU WON'T EVEN DO THIS.
>> If it is a "common homework problem", why are YOU unable to solve it?
>>> You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the
>>> "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no
>>> answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom
>>> Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.
>> Or perhaps Tom has better things to do at this time than argue with
>> Usenet cranks.
>
> Or perhaps he's lying.
>
> What about you Moroney. You obviously have nothing better to do with
> your time. Perform Roberts' common homework problem. Or tell this forum why you won't.
>
> I freely admit that I can't do it now, nor could I do it if I won the top
> student in GR from Stanford. I further state to this forum that NO ONE
> can do Tom Roberts' common homework problem and no one ever will.
>
> Prove me wrong!
>>
>> [snip conspiracy theories]
>

Because it’s easier to throw out arbitrary crap and bellow “Prove me wrong”
than to do any work.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 04:58:59 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:42:16 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>
>>> You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the
>>> "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no
>>> answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom
>>> Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.
>> Classic pattern of the self-rationalizing crank:
>
> "The scientific method, logic and rationalism requires
> me to discuss,

Kids, don’t do drugs.

> but I won't waste my time discussing
> obvious cranks not believing obviously right Shit of
> my idiot guru."
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 13:34:35 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:10:57 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/11/2022 10:42 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:36:15 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:53:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>> GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting
> >>>>>>> on a tabletop!
> >>>>>> You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
> >>>>>> trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
> >>>>>> the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tom Roberts
> >>>>> Then show us the common homework problem's solutions, Roberts! I say
> >>>>> here and now that you won't. Why do you think you reacted angrily to
> >>>>> my last post. It's because you know I speak the truth and you speak
> >>>>> with a forked tongue. Now show us!!!
> >>>> I'll make it even easier for you, Tom Roberts. Simply link us to the
> >>>> answer to the "common homework problem". Again I testify to this forum
> >>>> THAT YOU WON'T EVEN DO THIS.
> >> If it is a "common homework problem", why are YOU unable to solve it?
> >>> You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the
> >>> "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no
> >>> answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom
> >>> Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.
> >> Or perhaps Tom has better things to do at this time than argue with
> >> Usenet cranks.
> >
> > Or perhaps he's lying.
> >
> > What about you Moroney. You obviously have nothing better to do with
> > your time. Perform Roberts' common homework problem. Or tell this forum why you won't.
> >
> > I freely admit that I can't do it now, nor could I do it if I won the top
> > student in GR from Stanford. I further state to this forum that NO ONE
> > can do Tom Roberts' common homework problem and no one ever will.
> >
> > Prove me wrong!
> >>
> >> [snip conspiracy theories]
> >
> Because it’s easier to throw out arbitrary crap and bellow “Prove me wrong”
> than to do any work.

Who could how easy it is better than a relativistic idiot.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>
>> Because it’s easier to throw out arbitrary crap and bellow “Prove me wrong”
>> than to do any work.
>
> Who could how easy it is better than a relativistic idiot.
>

Kids, don’t do lobotomies.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 13:58:06 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>
> >> Because it’s easier to throw out arbitrary crap and bellow “Prove me wrong”
> >> than to do any work.
> >
> > Who could how easy it is better than a relativistic idiot.
> >
> Kids, don’t do lobotomies.

It's reserved for woodworkers.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:52:59 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:06:51 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> > On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
>
> > > GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting on a tabletop!
>
>
> > You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
> >
> > That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
> >
> > What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
> > trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
> > the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.
> Roberts, as a "top dog" in relativity matters at this site, for the time being, maybe you
> might enlighten "stupid people" here how does it go when applying GR at its fullest
> power to RECALCULATE the positioning of the Lagrangian zone at which Webb telescope
> is hovering right now.
>
> I'm sure the GR based calculations were 100 times more accurate than newtonian celestial mechanics
> using gravitational FORCES.
>
> If not possible, try to explain us how did it go with the classic 3-Body problem, solved by classic physics
> more than 200 years ago, but this time using your SUPREME General Relativity.
>
> If not possible, try to explain how to use GR to explain ocean tides at both sides of Earth, simultaneously.
>
> Thanks very much in advance.

Well, no answer, don't care.

I think that this is another moment "WE ARE FORCED TO" that's the landmark of Robert's relativity understanding.

QUOTE: "No clock is "sensitive to gravitational time dilation", or any other type of "time dilation". But SIGNALS from clocks are
subject to the way the time interval between them is measured, which is the source of all types of "time dilation" -- that is inescapable."

PRICELESS!

Only "virtue signaling" is missing, as such expression is trendy in these "ukranian" days of life.