On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 17:10:04 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 2:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 11:04:57 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/19/2022 1:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>
> >>> For all intents and purposes of my demonstration, you and Sylvia will be horrified to learn the earth orbits through what is essentially flat spacetime.
> >> If the earth is orbiting, spacetime can't exactly be flat, now can it.
> >> If spacetime were flat, earth would be moving in a straight line.
> > That is a weakness of Paul's paper, to be sure. From which we might conclude that it is a weakness of Relativity too.
> >
> > Stick with my work, Moroney. Paul kind of proves my point in yet another way. Relativity is a mishmash of thought. Most 26 year olds do have mishmash for thoughts.
> It doesn't change the fact that flat spacetime would have no orbits,
> just planets moving along a straight line.

It was always quite obvious, stupid Mike, that under
your moronic liturgy you believe some absolute movement...
Most of ralativistic morons do.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:10:04 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 2:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 11:04:57 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/19/2022 1:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>
> >>> For all intents and purposes of my demonstration, you and Sylvia will be horrified to learn the earth orbits through what is essentially flat spacetime.
> >> If the earth is orbiting, spacetime can't exactly be flat, now can it.
> >> If spacetime were flat, earth would be moving in a straight line.
> > That is a weakness of Paul's paper, to be sure. From which we might conclude that it is a weakness of Relativity too.
> >
> > Stick with my work, Moroney. Paul kind of proves my point in yet another way. Relativity is a mishmash of thought. Most 26 year olds do have mishmash for thoughts.
> It doesn't change the fact that flat spacetime would have no orbits,
> just planets moving along a straight line. Your "essentially flat
> spacetime" statement is clearly false. This is a GR problem.

I agree with you Moroney. Your team has to find a way to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity. Otherwise all Relativity, special & general, is lost.

[ Has anyone seen Bodkin this morning? And where the hell is Townes??? They are the closest your side has to thought leaders. Hoooooly sh!#, is your side in trouble. ]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:09:46 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan is eating shit for breakfast:

<snip cretinisms>

Pattycakes,

You have been reduced to eating shit, exactly like your boyfriend, Dick Hertz

It is easy to disprove your claim. Start with the Schwarzschild solution for the reduced case (d\theta=s\phi=0):

c^2 d\tau^2=(1-r_s/r)c^2dt^2-dr^2/(1-r_s/r)

Divide both sides by c^2dt^2:

d\tau^2/dt^2=(1-r_s/r)-v^2/(c^2(1-r_s/r))

Far away from the Sun r_s<<r so:

d\tau^2/dt^2=1-v^2/c^2

The above is the SR solution.

Closer to the Sun, the contribution of r_s/r (the contribution of the gravitational potential the Sun) cannot be ignored.

The above will go right over your bald spot, it is not written for you since you are a natural imbecile who will never learn. You were born an imbecile and you are dying one.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:08:22 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:09:46 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan is eating shit for breakfast:
>
> <snip cretinisms>
>
>
> Pattycakes,
>
> You have been reduced to eating shit, exactly like your boyfriend, Dick Hertz
>
>
> It is easy to disprove your claim. Start with the Schwarzschild solution for the reduced case (d\theta=s\phi=0):
>
> c^2 d\tau^2=(1-r_s/r)c^2dt^2-dr^2/(1-r_s/r)
>
> Divide both sides by c^2dt^2:
>
> d\tau^2/dt^2=(1-r_s/r)-v^2/(c^2(1-r_s/r))
>
> Far away from the Sun r_s<<r so:
>
> d\tau^2/dt^2=1-v^2/c^2
>
> The above is the SR solution.
>
>
> Closer to the Sun, the contribution of r_s/r (the contribution of the gravitational potential the Sun) cannot be ignored.
>
> The above will go right over your bald spot, it is not written for you since you are a natural imbecile who will never learn. You were born an imbecile and you are dying one.

Dono, no doubt your effort [ at disinformation ] has brought hope to many readers of this thread. Young Aldo has probably just now dried his tears from a sleepless night. Pity, now that I shall cause the floodgates of his tears to open wide once again. You seem to have merely written out the conditions of my problem in its algebraic schema with no derivation of a solution. Are you well?

Here's a response that won't go over your head. Your scribblings are like the field equations themselves: completely unusable bluffs devoid of numerical value, whose meanings must be derived from the feelings the beholder has for them rather than actual numbers. Don't believe me? Then prove it to yourself by trying to plug into your equations the numerical values 1 AU, ..867c, and any other numbers you need, which result in actual *numbers* representing a stable trajectory around the sun. Let me tell this forum in advance that neither you, no anyone else, nor Einstein hizself, could or will ever be able to do this.

In short Dono, I take your post as the white flag of surrender because you have not used numbers(!) as I have used them. Hard numbers are what the ironclad proofs of physics ultimately boil down to. Oh, and your representation of the Schwchd solution is wrong.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:53:45 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan ate some more shit:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:08:22 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:09:46 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan is eating shit for breakfast:
> >
> > <snip cretinisms>
> >
> >
> > Pattycakes,
> >
> > You have been reduced to eating shit, exactly like your boyfriend, Dick Hertz
> >
> >
> > It is easy to disprove your claim. Start with the Schwarzschild solution for the reduced case (d\theta=s\phi=0):
> >
> > c^2 d\tau^2=(1-r_s/r)c^2dt^2-dr^2/(1-r_s/r)
> >
> > Divide both sides by c^2dt^2:
> >
> > d\tau^2/dt^2=(1-r_s/r)-v^2/(c^2(1-r_s/r))
> >
> > Far away from the Sun r_s<<r so:
> >
> > d\tau^2/dt^2=1-v^2/c^2
> >
> > The above is the SR solution.
> >
> >
> > Closer to the Sun, the contribution of r_s/r (the contribution of the gravitational potential the Sun) cannot be ignored.
> >
> > The above will go right over your bald spot, it is not written for you since you are a natural imbecile who will never learn. You were born an imbecile and you are dying one.
> snip further imbecilities<

Told you that the explanation will fly over your bald spot. Your only consolation is that you will die the way you were born: a natural imbecile.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:58:40 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:53:45 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan ate some more shit:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:08:22 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:09:46 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan is eating shit for breakfast:
> > >
> > > <snip cretinisms>
> > >
> > >
> > > Pattycakes,
> > >
> > > You have been reduced to eating shit, exactly like your boyfriend, Dick Hertz
> > >
> > >
> > > It is easy to disprove your claim. Start with the Schwarzschild solution for the reduced case (d\theta=s\phi=0):
> > >
> > > c^2 d\tau^2=(1-r_s/r)c^2dt^2-dr^2/(1-r_s/r)
> > >
> > > Divide both sides by c^2dt^2:
> > >
> > > d\tau^2/dt^2=(1-r_s/r)-v^2/(c^2(1-r_s/r))
> > >
> > > Far away from the Sun r_s<<r so:
> > >
> > > d\tau^2/dt^2=1-v^2/c^2
> > >
> > > The above is the SR solution.
> > >
> > >
> > > Closer to the Sun, the contribution of r_s/r (the contribution of the gravitational potential the Sun) cannot be ignored.
> > >
> > > The above will go right over your bald spot, it is not written for you since you are a natural imbecile who will never learn. You were born an imbecile and you are dying one.
> > snip further imbecilities<
>
> Told you that the explanation will fly over your bald spot. Your only consolation is that you will die the way you were born: a natural imbecile.

Let me make it easier on you Dono. We have Paul's analysis of the effects of the sun on time dilation of the earth's orbit for both the SR-alone case and when the sun's gravitational potential/curvature is taken into account.. Show for us numerically, as Paul did, that the earth's geodesic remains a stable and constant distance from the sun.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:07:48 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan kept eating shit:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:58:40 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:53:45 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan ate some more shit:
> > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:08:22 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:09:46 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan is eating shit for breakfast:
> > > >
> > > > <snip cretinisms>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pattycakes,
> > > >
> > > > You have been reduced to eating shit, exactly like your boyfriend, Dick Hertz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is easy to disprove your claim. Start with the Schwarzschild solution for the reduced case (d\theta=s\phi=0):
> > > >
> > > > c^2 d\tau^2=(1-r_s/r)c^2dt^2-dr^2/(1-r_s/r)
> > > >
> > > > Divide both sides by c^2dt^2:
> > > >
> > > > d\tau^2/dt^2=(1-r_s/r)-v^2/(c^2(1-r_s/r))
> > > >
> > > > Far away from the Sun r_s<<r so:
> > > >
> > > > d\tau^2/dt^2=1-v^2/c^2
> > > >
> > > > The above is the SR solution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Closer to the Sun, the contribution of r_s/r (the contribution of the gravitational potential the Sun) cannot be ignored.
> > > >
> > > > The above will go right over your bald spot, it is not written for you since you are a natural imbecile who will never learn. You were born an imbecile and you are dying one.
> > > snip further imbecilities<
> >
> > Told you that the explanation will fly over your bald spot. Your only consolation is that you will die the way you were born: a natural imbecile.
> Let me make it easier on you Dono. We have Paul's analysis of the effects of the sun on time dilation of the earth's orbit for both the SR-alone case and when the sun's gravitational potential/curvature is taken into account. Show for us numerically, as Paul did, that the earth's geodesic remains a stable and constant distance from the sun.

Dumbestfuck,

d\tau^2/dt^2=1-v^2/c^2

With v/c=0.867

one gets:

d\tau=0.5*dt

You never tire being shown to be the natural imbecile you were born. Take another spoonful of shit. Open wide. Now swallow. Good boy.

On 4/19/2022 12:09 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:10:04 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/19/2022 2:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 11:04:57 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2022 1:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For all intents and purposes of my demonstration, you and Sylvia will be horrified to learn the earth orbits through what is essentially flat spacetime.
>>>> If the earth is orbiting, spacetime can't exactly be flat, now can it.
>>>> If spacetime were flat, earth would be moving in a straight line.
>>> That is a weakness of Paul's paper, to be sure. From which we might conclude that it is a weakness of Relativity too.
>>>
>>> Stick with my work, Moroney. Paul kind of proves my point in yet another way. Relativity is a mishmash of thought. Most 26 year olds do have mishmash for thoughts.
>> It doesn't change the fact that flat spacetime would have no orbits,
>> just planets moving along a straight line. Your "essentially flat
>> spacetime" statement is clearly false. This is a GR problem.
>
> I agree with you Moroney. Your team

What team?

> has to find a way

And why does this mystery team have an obligation?

> to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity.

Word salad.

> Otherwise all Relativity, special & general, is lost.

Oh no! We're doomed!!
>
> [ Has anyone seen Bodkin this morning? And where the hell is Townes??? They are the closest your side has to thought leaders.

What's a thought leader?

> Hoooooly sh!#, is your side in trouble. ]

The only "sides" are science on one side and a bunch of cranks on the
other. It is the cranks who get into trouble, individually or together.
But I don't side with cranks, let them get into trouble themselves.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:29:04 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:07:48 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan kept eating shit:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:58:40 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:53:45 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan ate some more shit:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:08:22 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:09:46 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan is eating shit for breakfast:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip cretinisms>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Pattycakes,
> > > > >
> > > > > You have been reduced to eating shit, exactly like your boyfriend, Dick Hertz
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It is easy to disprove your claim. Start with the Schwarzschild solution for the reduced case (d\theta=s\phi=0):
> > > > >
> > > > > c^2 d\tau^2=(1-r_s/r)c^2dt^2-dr^2/(1-r_s/r)
> > > > >
> > > > > Divide both sides by c^2dt^2:
> > > > >
> > > > > d\tau^2/dt^2=(1-r_s/r)-v^2/(c^2(1-r_s/r))
> > > > >
> > > > > Far away from the Sun r_s<<r so:
> > > > >
> > > > > d\tau^2/dt^2=1-v^2/c^2
> > > > >
> > > > > The above is the SR solution.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Closer to the Sun, the contribution of r_s/r (the contribution of the gravitational potential the Sun) cannot be ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > The above will go right over your bald spot, it is not written for you since you are a natural imbecile who will never learn. You were born an imbecile and you are dying one.
> > > > snip further imbecilities<
> > >
> > > Told you that the explanation will fly over your bald spot. Your only consolation is that you will die the way you were born: a natural imbecile..
> > Let me make it easier on you Dono. We have Paul's analysis of the effects of the sun on time dilation of the earth's orbit for both the SR-alone case and when the sun's gravitational potential/curvature is taken into account. Show for us numerically, as Paul did, that the earth's geodesic remains a stable and constant distance from the sun.
> Dumbestfuck,
>
> d\tau^2/dt^2=1-v^2/c^2
>
> With v/c=0.867
>
> one gets:
>
> d\tau=0.5*dt
>
>
> You never tire being shown to be the natural imbecile you were born. Take another spoonful of shit. Open wide. Now swallow. Good boy.

Dono, what the hell is this???? You calculate out the fact that when v = .867c gamma = 2. And then you claim this calculation is a answer/response to my problem?????? This is not an answer; it is my initial assumption!!!

[ Come, let us leave this madman ]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 12:09 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:10:04 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/19/2022 2:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 11:04:57 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/19/2022 1:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> For all intents and purposes of my demonstration, you and Sylvia will be horrified to learn the earth orbits through what is essentially flat spacetime.
> >>>> If the earth is orbiting, spacetime can't exactly be flat, now can it.
> >>>> If spacetime were flat, earth would be moving in a straight line.
> >>> That is a weakness of Paul's paper, to be sure. From which we might conclude that it is a weakness of Relativity too.
> >>>
> >>> Stick with my work, Moroney. Paul kind of proves my point in yet another way. Relativity is a mishmash of thought. Most 26 year olds do have mishmash for thoughts.
> >> It doesn't change the fact that flat spacetime would have no orbits,
> >> just planets moving along a straight line. Your "essentially flat
> >> spacetime" statement is clearly false. This is a GR problem.
> >
> > I agree with you Moroney. Your team
> What team?
> > has to find a way
> And why does this mystery team have an obligation?
> > to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity.
> Word salad.
I agree. But this salad was picked by Einstein, chopped by Minkowski, while Lorentz provided the dressing. It's your salad, dude. Now eat every bite of it. And wipe your damned chin!
> > Otherwise all Relativity, special & general, is lost.
> Oh no! We're doomed!!
> >
> > [ Has anyone seen Bodkin this morning? And where the hell is Townes??? They are the closest your side has to thought leaders.
> What's a thought leader?
> > Hoooooly sh!#, is your side in trouble. ]
> The only "sides" are science on one side and a bunch of cranks on the
> other. It is the cranks who get into trouble, individually or together.
> But I don't side with cranks, let them get into trouble themselves.

patdolan wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> > to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity.
>> Word salad.
> I agree. But this salad was picked by Einstein, chopped by Minkowski,
> while Lorentz provided the dressing. It's your salad, dude. Now eat
> every bite of it. And wipe your damned chin!

consider it done.

On 4/19/2022 4:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/19/2022 12:09 PM, patdolan wrote:

>>> to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity.

>> Word salad.

> I agree. But this salad was picked by Einstein, chopped by Minkowski, while Lorentz provided the dressing. It's your salad, dude. Now eat every bite of it. And wipe your damned chin!

No, neither Einstein, Minkowski nor Lorentz babbled that nonsense. It's
your word salad, you eat it.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:46:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 4:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/19/2022 12:09 PM, patdolan wrote:
>
> >>> to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity.
>
> >> Word salad.
>
> > I agree. But this salad was picked by Einstein, chopped by Minkowski, while Lorentz provided the dressing. It's your salad, dude. Now eat every bite of it. And wipe your damned chin!
> No, neither Einstein, Minkowski nor Lorentz babbled that nonsense. It's
> your word salad, you eat it.

I'm a Newton, meat and potatoes man. Until something better comes along.

patdolan wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:46:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> Word salad.
>>
>> > I agree. But this salad was picked by Einstein, chopped by Minkowski,
>> > while Lorentz provided the dressing. It's your salad, dude. Now eat
>> > every bite of it. And wipe your damned chin!
>> No, neither Einstein, Minkowski nor Lorentz babbled that nonsense. It's
>> your word salad, you eat it.
>
> I'm a Newton, meat and potatoes man. Until something better comes
> along.

Wonderful, you both are smart like a monkey. Newtona worked with a force
of gravity which was not there.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:37:04 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan dug himself deeper:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:29:04 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:07:48 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan kept eating shit:
> > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:58:40 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:53:45 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan ate some more shit:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:08:22 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:09:46 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan is eating shit for breakfast:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip cretinisms>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pattycakes,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have been reduced to eating shit, exactly like your boyfriend, Dick Hertz
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is easy to disprove your claim. Start with the Schwarzschild solution for the reduced case (d\theta=s\phi=0):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > c^2 d\tau^2=(1-r_s/r)c^2dt^2-dr^2/(1-r_s/r)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Divide both sides by c^2dt^2:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > d\tau^2/dt^2=(1-r_s/r)-v^2/(c^2(1-r_s/r))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Far away from the Sun r_s<<r so:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > d\tau^2/dt^2=1-v^2/c^2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The above is the SR solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Closer to the Sun, the contribution of r_s/r (the contribution of the gravitational potential the Sun) cannot be ignored.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The above will go right over your bald spot, it is not written for you since you are a natural imbecile who will never learn. You were born an imbecile and you are dying one.
> > > > > snip further imbecilities<
> > > >
> > > > Told you that the explanation will fly over your bald spot. Your only consolation is that you will die the way you were born: a natural imbecile.
> > > Let me make it easier on you Dono. We have Paul's analysis of the effects of the sun on time dilation of the earth's orbit for both the SR-alone case and when the sun's gravitational potential/curvature is taken into account. Show for us numerically, as Paul did, that the earth's geodesic remains a stable and constant distance from the sun.
> > Dumbestfuck,
> >
> > d\tau^2/dt^2=1-v^2/c^2
> >
> > With v/c=0.867
> >
> > one gets:
> >
> > d\tau=0.5*dt
> >
> >
> > You never tire being shown to be the natural imbecile you were born. Take another spoonful of shit. Open wide. Now swallow. Good boy.
> Dono, what the hell is this???? You calculate out the fact that when v = .867c gamma = 2. And then you claim this calculation is a answer/response to my problem?????? This is not an answer; it is my initial assumption!!!

Told ya: you are a natural. A natural imbecile, that is. Don't worry, your condition is not fixable.

JanPB wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:16:25 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 8:54:13 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > patdolan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 7:40:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > > > > On 19-Apr-22 12:05 pm, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > General Relativity and Solar System--
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Special Relativity and the Solar System--
> > > > > > > Now we acquire a velocity of .867c relative to the solar system, directed along the line that is collinear with the sun’s axis of rotation. From our new viewing situation we see that the earth’s path through the solar system’s curves spacetime remains identical to the previous case because the earth’s path remains undistorted by Lorentz contraction. But due to Lorentz time dilation the earth now takes 730.5 days to complete the identical path through the identically curved sp
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To summarize, we observe the earth’s velocity has been halved by Special Relativity while traveling through identically curved spacetime due to General Relativity. According to General Relativity, this state of affairs is no longer stable. The solar system’s spacetime will rapidly suck the earth down to fiery doom. The Christoffels do not lie. So either the mere act of someone in a different FoR observing the solar system will doom it, or Relativity is necessarily a many-worlds t
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [This should make them ponder things for quite some time, Richard(s). Sure, that windy birds Bodkin will type something about trees and sports cars tout de sweet. But his words will be his typical obfuscations for his utter inability to respond in an effective manner. Tom, Dirk and Sylvia won’t even dare to touch this. I might be interested in what Townes Olson has to type, however.]
> > > > > > Special Relativity does not generally apply in the presence of gravity,
> > > > > > so the above is nothing new.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sylvia.
> > > > > I'm shocked Sylvia, shocked! Bodkin will tell you there is no such thing as gravity. So will Albert. There is only spacetime and curved spacetime. I'm interested if you disagree.
> > > > Spacetime is just a con.
> > > >
> > > > A made up word that has no real meaning or reality.
> > >
> > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > "Not even wrong. Gobbledygook." Those words used to mean something, but now it means ...nothing.
>
> It just means that what you wrote was a word salad. It cannot be even termed
> "wrong" because to be so labelled, the post would have to have a content.
> You are confusing science with philosophy.

But, but..it is YOU who is confusing science with philosophy when you use words like..."word salad"!.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 4/19/2022 4:47 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:46:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/19/2022 4:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2022 12:09 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>
>>>>> to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity.
>>
>>>> Word salad.
>>
>>> I agree. But this salad was picked by Einstein, chopped by Minkowski, while Lorentz provided the dressing. It's your salad, dude. Now eat every bite of it. And wipe your damned chin!
>> No, neither Einstein, Minkowski nor Lorentz babbled that nonsense. It's
>> your word salad, you eat it.
>
> I'm a Newton, meat and potatoes man. Until something better comes along.

So why did you spew forth that word salad?

El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 15:47:37 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:46:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 4/19/2022 4:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 4/19/2022 12:09 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >
> > >>> to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity.
> >
> > >> Word salad.
> >
> > > I agree. But this salad was picked by Einstein, chopped by Minkowski, while Lorentz provided the dressing. It's your salad, dude. Now eat every bite of it. And wipe your damned chin!
> > No, neither Einstein, Minkowski nor Lorentz babbled that nonsense. It's
> > your word salad, you eat it.
> I'm a Newton, meat and potatoes man. Until something better comes along.
No, you are nothing more than a poor idiot that posts in this newsgroup because has no life to live.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:42:38 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 4:47 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:46:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/19/2022 4:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/19/2022 12:09 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity.
> >>
> >>>> Word salad.
> >>
> >>> I agree. But this salad was picked by Einstein, chopped by Minkowski, while Lorentz provided the dressing. It's your salad, dude. Now eat every bite of it. And wipe your damned chin!
> >> No, neither Einstein, Minkowski nor Lorentz babbled that nonsense. It's
> >> your word salad, you eat it.
> >
> > I'm a Newton, meat and potatoes man. Until something better comes along.
> So why did you spew forth that word salad?

Moroney, do you mind if I get you on the record regarding a couple things?

First) Is there only Newtonian gravity, or is their only Einsteinian curved spacetime, or is there a combination of both?

Second) Is time dilation real or is time dilation a sort of illusion?

El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 18:48:13 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:42:38 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 4/19/2022 4:47 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:46:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 4/19/2022 4:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >>>> On 4/19/2022 12:09 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>> to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity.
> > >>
> > >>>> Word salad.
> > >>
> > >>> I agree. But this salad was picked by Einstein, chopped by Minkowski, while Lorentz provided the dressing. It's your salad, dude. Now eat every bite of it. And wipe your damned chin!
> > >> No, neither Einstein, Minkowski nor Lorentz babbled that nonsense. It's
> > >> your word salad, you eat it.
> > >
> > > I'm a Newton, meat and potatoes man. Until something better comes along.
> > So why did you spew forth that word salad?
> Moroney, do you mind if I get you on the record regarding a couple things?
>
> First) Is there only Newtonian gravity, or is their only Einsteinian curved spacetime, or is there a combination of both?
>
> Second) Is time dilation real or is time dilation a sort of illusion?
1) There is only Einsteinian curved spacetime, of which Newtonian gravity is derived as a weak gravity approximation. Please, open any textbook in which the solution of the perihelion precession of Mercuty is derived, and see how Newtonian gravity (written as the equations ∇²φ=4πGρ and d²r/dt²=-∇φ) is obtained as a limit from a perturbation to the metric.
2) It is real.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 5:20:55 PM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 18:48:13 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:42:38 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 4/19/2022 4:47 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:46:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >> On 4/19/2022 4:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > >>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >>>> On 4/19/2022 12:09 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity.
> > > >>
> > > >>>> Word salad.
> > > >>
> > > >>> I agree. But this salad was picked by Einstein, chopped by Minkowski, while Lorentz provided the dressing. It's your salad, dude. Now eat every bite of it. And wipe your damned chin!
> > > >> No, neither Einstein, Minkowski nor Lorentz babbled that nonsense. It's
> > > >> your word salad, you eat it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm a Newton, meat and potatoes man. Until something better comes along.
> > > So why did you spew forth that word salad?
> > Moroney, do you mind if I get you on the record regarding a couple things?
> >
> > First) Is there only Newtonian gravity, or is their only Einsteinian curved spacetime, or is there a combination of both?
> >
> > Second) Is time dilation real or is time dilation a sort of illusion?
> 1) There is only Einsteinian curved spacetime, of which Newtonian gravity is derived as a weak gravity approximation. Please, open any textbook in which the solution of the perihelion precession of Mercuty is derived, and see how Newtonian gravity (written as the equations ∇²φ=4πGρ and d²r/dt²=-∇φ) is obtained as a limit from a perturbation to the metric.
> 2) It is real.
Wonderful, Aldo. Now tell this forum about the curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of a massive body, such as the sun. Is that spacetime curvature dependent on relative velocity of the observer who approaches it?

Le 20/04/2022 à 01:48, patdolan a écrit :

> Second) Is time dilation real or is time dilation a sort of illusion?

Time dilation, even if I find the term improper, and prefer that of
elasticity (because it can contract and expand) is a real phenomenon.

For example, a man who would leave the earth at a speed of two hundred and
forty thousand kilometers per second for nine years of his own time, would
then come back when the earth would have really aged fifteen years.

This phenomenon is especially strange because of the reciprocal dilation
of the chronotropy which is continuous.
That is to say that during the nine years of the traveler, the other watch
actually turns
faster, and that during the fifteen of the terrestrial observer the other
watch also turns faster.
This may seem an absurdity and an intellectual impossibility.
We simply forget that there is a second phenomenon which plays on time
(and not only reciprocal chronotropy) and which is called (if you
understand me correctly): spatial anisochrony.

This spatial anosichrony always prevails by its effect on chronotropy.

We then arrive at the following result.

If the bodies move away, time passes reciprocally more quickly than in the
other.

If the bodies approach each other, the times reciprocally pass more slowly
than on the observed watch.

We will say: but the problem remains intact!

No, we forget that the anisochrony is such that the instant of the turn is
not identical for the two twins.

Whoever turns knows instantly that he is turning.

For the twin who remained on earth, this event does not exist in his
present.

He will not exist until much later, when the other twin has since reversed
his equation for a long time.

It is this phenomenon that explains why the two twins are not the same
age.

N.B. If you don't understand what I just wrote, don't take offense. It
does not matter. Only a billionth of the human population can rise to my
level of understanding.

LOL.

R.H.

On 4/19/2022 7:48 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:42:38 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/19/2022 4:47 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:46:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2022 4:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/2022 12:09 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity.
>>>>
>>>>>> Word salad.
>>>>
>>>>> I agree. But this salad was picked by Einstein, chopped by Minkowski, while Lorentz provided the dressing. It's your salad, dude. Now eat every bite of it. And wipe your damned chin!
>>>> No, neither Einstein, Minkowski nor Lorentz babbled that nonsense. It's
>>>> your word salad, you eat it.
>>>
>>> I'm a Newton, meat and potatoes man. Until something better comes along.
>> So why did you spew forth that word salad?
>
> Moroney, do you mind if I get you on the record regarding a couple things?

Why are you avoiding the question as to why the word salad?
>
> First) Is there only Newtonian gravity, or is their only Einsteinian curved spacetime, or is there a combination of both?

Remember, both are models. Anyway, curved spacetime is a better model.
Newtonian gravity is an approximation good at low speeds, plus in that
model gravity is a force. Do the math for GR/curved spacetime at low
speeds (and weak gravity) and you'll get a result very, very, very close
to what Newtonian gravity would predict.
>
> Second) Is time dilation real or is time dilation a sort of illusion?

It is real, but remember it's how an observer observes something else,
the clock aboard the observed object continues to tick at 1 second per
second. The observed is not affected by being observed.

Now why the word salad spew?

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 05:44:28 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 7:48 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:42:38 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/19/2022 4:47 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:46:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/19/2022 4:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/19/2022 12:09 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> to "un-curve" spacetime with increasing relative velocity.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Word salad.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I agree. But this salad was picked by Einstein, chopped by Minkowski, while Lorentz provided the dressing. It's your salad, dude. Now eat every bite of it. And wipe your damned chin!
> >>>> No, neither Einstein, Minkowski nor Lorentz babbled that nonsense. It's
> >>>> your word salad, you eat it.
> >>>
> >>> I'm a Newton, meat and potatoes man. Until something better comes along.
> >> So why did you spew forth that word salad?
> >
> > Moroney, do you mind if I get you on the record regarding a couple things?
> Why are you avoiding the question as to why the word salad?
> >
> > First) Is there only Newtonian gravity, or is their only Einsteinian curved spacetime, or is there a combination of both?
> Remember, both are models. Anyway, curved spacetime is a better model.

Even your idioit gurus, however, are not stupid enough
to really apply it; that's why they always say about
gravitational light bending while your model say
that light paths are straight/geodesic ones.

> It is real, but remember it's how an observer observes something else,
> the clock aboard the observed object continues to tick at 1 second per
> second.

Sure, stupid Mike; on Earth it's 9 192 631 770 Cs periods
and on a GPS satellite ~9 192 631 774.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

> Wonderful, Aldo. Now tell this forum about the curvature of spacetime in
> the vicinity of a massive body, such as the sun. Is that spacetime
> curvature dependent on relative velocity of the observer who approaches it?
>

The gravitation (what you call the curvature, a term that has specific
meaning in this context) does indeed have a different accounting for two
relatively moving observers. Why would you think it cannot?

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