On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 12:36:04 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@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?

No, your spacetime is absolute. No surprise you don't
know; you know very little indeed.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:36:04 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@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?

Substituting the Bodkondian nomenclature, we rephrase the question thusly:

Is the gravitation [sic] in the vicinity of a massive body, such as the sun, dependent on the relative velocity of the observer measuring and/or experiencing that gravitation?

[ Where did you go, Aldo? Why have you quailed before the question that fearless & foolish Bodkin now essays to answer? ]
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:26:00 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan asked:

> Is the gravitation [sic] in the vicinity of a massive body, such as the sun, dependent on the relative velocity of the observer measuring and/or experiencing that gravitation?

Read and choke, disgusting piece of shit:

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gravitational_tensor#Definition

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:37:42 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:26:00 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan asked:
> > Is the gravitation [sic] in the vicinity of a massive body, such as the sun, dependent on the relative velocity of the observer measuring and/or experiencing that gravitation?
> Read and choke, disgusting piece of shit:
>
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gravitational_tensor#Definition

Dono, are you contending that the answer to the question under consideration is actually answered in this link? If so, where? Because after a thorough and rigorous read-through, I find no answer nor even a means to calculate the answer.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:44:32 AM UTC-7, pat dolan ate some more shit:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:37:42 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:26:00 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan asked:
> > > Is the gravitation [sic] in the vicinity of a massive body, such as the sun, dependent on the relative velocity of the observer measuring and/or experiencing that gravitation?
> > Read and choke, disgusting piece of shit:
> >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gravitational_tensor#Definition
> Dono, are you contending that the answer to the question under consideration is actually answered in this link? If so, where?

Yes. Continue to eat shit.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:59:31 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:48:33 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:44:32 AM UTC-7, pat dolan ate some more shit:
> > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:37:42 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:26:00 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan asked:
> > > > > Is the gravitation [sic] in the vicinity of a massive body, such as the sun, dependent on the relative velocity of the observer measuring and/or experiencing that gravitation?
> > > > Read and choke, disgusting piece of shit:
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gravitational_tensor#Definition
> > > Dono, are you contending that the answer to the question under consideration is actually answered in this link? If so, where?
> > Yes. Continue to eat shit.
> You failed to answer the other half of my question. You say the link provides the answer. Please cut and paste where it does so.

The answer is that you keep eating shit. You are too lazy to scroll down to the part where they show the dependency of the components of the tensor on speed. You are a lazy slug.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 10:18:28 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:59:31 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:48:33 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:44:32 AM UTC-7, pat dolan ate some more shit:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:37:42 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:26:00 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan asked:
> > > > > > > Is the gravitation [sic] in the vicinity of a massive body, such as the sun, dependent on the relative velocity of the observer measuring and/or experiencing that gravitation?
> > > > > > Read and choke, disgusting piece of shit:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gravitational_tensor#Definition
> > > > > Dono, are you contending that the answer to the question under consideration is actually answered in this link? If so, where?
> > > > Yes. Continue to eat shit.
> > > You failed to answer the other half of my question. You say the link provides the answer. Please cut and paste where it does so.
> > The answer is that you keep eating shit. You are too lazy to scroll down to the part where they show the dependency of the components of the tensor on speed. You are a lazy slug.
> There is no such "part" Dono. Prove me wrong. As I told you, I have thoroughly and rigorously studied your link.

You are a disgusting slug, Pattycackes. And a terrible liar. I knew that you were going to do that, the link was posted for the people willing to learn, not for the piece of shit called Pat Dolan.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 10:49:45 AM UTC-7, lazy cretin pat dolan gets to eat some more shit:
>
> Then I call on all those "people willing to learn" to cut and paste the section you claim is there in the link. I say that no one will do it.

Open wide. Swallow.

"Since the vectors of gravitational field strength and torsion field are the components of the gravitational field tensor, they are transformed not as vectors, but as the components of the tensor of the type (0,2). The law of transformation of these vectors in the transition from the reference frame K into the reference frame K', moving at the velocity V along the axis X, has the following form"

....see the Lorentz formulas

El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 19:43:16 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> 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?
Is that question for real? This only proves that you have never studied GR in your entire life, and that you are nothing more than a stupid crank. LMAO, this is described in for example, chapter 16 of MTW Gravitation.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:37:42 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:26:00 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan asked:
>>> Is the gravitation [sic] in the vicinity of a massive body, such as the
>>> sun, dependent on the relative velocity of the observer measuring
>>> and/or experiencing that gravitation?
>> Read and choke, disgusting piece of shit:
>>
>> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gravitational_tensor#Definition
>
> Dono, are you contending that the answer to the question under
> consideration is actually answered in this link? If so, where? Because
> after a thorough and rigorous read-through, I find no answer nor even a
> means to calculate the answer.
>

If you cannot parse the answer from the link, then you are woefully
unequipped to discuss the matter. These are not questions that can be
casually understood without studying the subject, any more than you’d
understand what a partition function in statistical mechanics means or why
the phase space distribution function along a trajectory is constant.

I remind you that you haven’t even learned how to handle the interval
between events properly yet, and that is chapter 1 material in special
relativity.

Don’t beg for shortcuts, there aren’t any.

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

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 19:43:16 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> > 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?
> Is that question for real? This only proves that you have never studied GR in your entire life, and that you are nothing more than a stupid crank. LMAO, this is described in for example, chapter 16 of MTW Gravitation.

Pattycakes will NEVER study, he can't and he won't. His sole intent is to discredit relativity without ever studying it, a fools' quest. Thus, like his buddy Dick Hertz, they will be a source of entertainment until they die.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 19:43:16 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> > 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?
> Is that question for real? This only proves that you have never studied GR in your entire life, and that you are nothing more than a stupid crank. LMAO, this is described in for example, chapter 16 of MTW Gravitation.

Aldo, is that answer for real? This only proves that you have studied a pretty much empty concept incapable of answering the most obvious questions.

I went out to the garage to retrieve my MTW where I was using it to level a work bench. Chap. 16 "Equivalence Principle and the Measurement of the Gravitational Field" is quite a short chapter which I am very familiar with. So much so, that I immediately suspected your response as fraudulent. I took a few minutes to re-acquaint myself with chap 16's contents and, as I suspected, there is no reference to the matter at hand. Prove me wrong. Cite the page where you believe the answer resides. I have the 1973 softcover edition...most expensive doorstop I own.

Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
>> El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 19:43:16 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
>>> 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?
>> Is that question for real? This only proves that you have never studied
>> GR in your entire life, and that you are nothing more than a stupid
>> crank. LMAO, this is described in for example, chapter 16 of MTW Gravitation.
>
> Pattycakes will NEVER study, he can't and he won't. His sole intent is to
> discredit relativity without ever studying it, a fools' quest. Thus, like
> his buddy Dick Hertz, they will be a source of entertainment until they die.
>

The standard MO is:
“I’m marginally interested in the subject, but not enough to actually
devote effort to studying it. I’d rather see if I can manipulate others for
fun into giving me cheap explanations that cost me no effort. Among the
tactics I used effectively in the third grade, I will employ dares, feigned
blindness, screeching to be hand-fed, casual boasts that it’s obviously
broken until proven otherwise, and deliberately making stupid statements so
that others will painstakingly correct them.”

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

El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 13:15:56 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> > El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 19:43:16 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> > > 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?
> > Is that question for real? This only proves that you have never studied GR in your entire life, and that you are nothing more than a stupid crank. LMAO, this is described in for example, chapter 16 of MTW Gravitation.
> Aldo, is that answer for real? This only proves that you have studied a pretty much empty concept incapable of answering the most obvious questions.
>
> I went out to the garage to retrieve my MTW where I was using it to level a work bench. Chap. 16 "Equivalence Principle and the Measurement of the Gravitational Field" is quite a short chapter which I am very familiar with. So much so, that I immediately suspected your response as fraudulent. I took a few minutes to re-acquaint myself with chap 16's contents and, as I suspected, there is no reference to the matter at hand. Prove me wrong. Cite the page where you believe the answer resides. I have the 1973 softcover edition...most expensive doorstop I own.
Page 394, "because the Earth's field is nearly Newtonian," and they explicitly give the metric ds²=-(1+2Φ)dt²+(1-2Φ)(dx²+dy²+dz²), so there's your answer. As simple as that, you freaking idiot.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:18:46 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan kept on lying:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 10:58:52 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 10:49:45 AM UTC-7, lazy cretin pat dolan gets to eat some more shit:
> > >
> > > Then I call on all those "people willing to learn" to cut and paste the section you claim is there in the link. I say that no one will do it.
> > Open wide. Swallow.
> >
> >
> > "Since the vectors of gravitational field strength and torsion field are the components of the gravitational field tensor, they are transformed not as vectors, but as the components of the tensor of the type (0,2). The law of transformation of these vectors in the transition from the reference frame K into the reference frame K', moving at the velocity V along the axis X, has the following form"
> >
> > ...see the Lorentz formulas
> Dono, this excerpt proves MY point. Namely, that curvature is constant for all observers.

Every time you (or Dick Hertz) open your mouth I get to fill it. With shit. Thanks for the entertainment.

El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 13:15:56 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> > El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 19:43:16 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> > > 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?
> > Is that question for real? This only proves that you have never studied GR in your entire life, and that you are nothing more than a stupid crank. LMAO, this is described in for example, chapter 16 of MTW Gravitation.
> Aldo, is that answer for real? This only proves that you have studied a pretty much empty concept incapable of answering the most obvious questions.
>
> I went out to the garage to retrieve my MTW where I was using it to level a work bench. Chap. 16 "Equivalence Principle and the Measurement of the Gravitational Field" is quite a short chapter which I am very familiar with. So much so, that I immediately suspected your response as fraudulent. I took a few minutes to re-acquaint myself with chap 16's contents and, as I suspected, there is no reference to the matter at hand. Prove me wrong. Cite the page where you believe the answer resides. I have the 1973 softcover edition...most expensive doorstop I own.
Page 394, "because the Earth's field is nearly Newtonian," and they explicitly give the metric ds²=-(1+2Φ)dt²+(1-2Φ)(dx²+dy²+dz²), so there's your answer. As simple as that, you fucking idiot.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 13:15:56 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> > > El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 19:43:16 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> > > > 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?
> > > Is that question for real? This only proves that you have never studied GR in your entire life, and that you are nothing more than a stupid crank. LMAO, this is described in for example, chapter 16 of MTW Gravitation.
> > Aldo, is that answer for real? This only proves that you have studied a pretty much empty concept incapable of answering the most obvious questions.
> >
> > I went out to the garage to retrieve my MTW where I was using it to level a work bench. Chap. 16 "Equivalence Principle and the Measurement of the Gravitational Field" is quite a short chapter which I am very familiar with. So much so, that I immediately suspected your response as fraudulent. I took a few minutes to re-acquaint myself with chap 16's contents and, as I suspected, there is no reference to the matter at hand. Prove me wrong. Cite the page where you believe the answer resides. I have the 1973 softcover edition...most expensive doorstop I own.
> Page 394, "because the Earth's field is nearly Newtonian," and they explicitly give the metric ds²=-(1+2Φ)dt²+(1-2Φ)(dx²+dy²+dz²), so there's your answer. As simple as that, you fucking idiot.

Paul already worked this equation for us and arrived at the same conclusion: nearly Newtonian. It says nothing about the spacetime curvature when observed from other frames. Just like Paul, I find no tau term to modify the ds for all observers in all frames. That, after all, is the question we are considering.

Commit yourself Aldo, instead of hiding behind MTW. Does the ds change with relative velocity or not?

Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> wrote:
> El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 13:15:56 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
>>> El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 19:43:16 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
>>>> 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?
>>> Is that question for real? This only proves that you have never studied
>>> GR in your entire life, and that you are nothing more than a stupid
>>> crank. LMAO, this is described in for example, chapter 16 of MTW Gravitation.
>> Aldo, is that answer for real? This only proves that you have studied a
>> pretty much empty concept incapable of answering the most obvious questions.
>>
>> I went out to the garage to retrieve my MTW where I was using it to
>> level a work bench. Chap. 16 "Equivalence Principle and the Measurement
>> of the Gravitational Field" is quite a short chapter which I am very
>> familiar with. So much so, that I immediately suspected your response as
>> fraudulent. I took a few minutes to re-acquaint myself with chap 16's
>> contents and, as I suspected, there is no reference to the matter at
>> hand. Prove me wrong. Cite the page where you believe the answer
>> resides. I have the 1973 softcover edition...most expensive doorstop I own.
> Page 394, "because the Earth's field is nearly Newtonian," and they
> explicitly give the metric ds²=-(1+2Φ)dt²+(1-2Φ)(dx²+dy²+dz²), so there's
> your answer. As simple as that, you fucking idiot.
>

So, Pat, I see a couple of possibilities here.

One is that you don’t actually have a copy of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler,
but you know how to look up a table of contents on Amazon, the people that
run your home town. In that case, what do you hope to get from a page
reference?

Another is that you did actually buy a copy and you can open it, but you
can’t make sense of any of it, and you are too lazy to try. In which case,
the question is, why did you buy it then?

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

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:26:09 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> >> El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 19:43:16 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> >>> 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?
> >> Is that question for real? This only proves that you have never studied
> >> GR in your entire life, and that you are nothing more than a stupid
> >> crank. LMAO, this is described in for example, chapter 16 of MTW Gravitation.
> >
> > Pattycakes will NEVER study, he can't and he won't. His sole intent is to
> > discredit relativity without ever studying it, a fools' quest. Thus, like
> > his buddy Dick Hertz, they will be a source of entertainment until they die.
> >
> The standard MO is:
> “I’m marginally interested in the subject, but not enough to actually
> devote effort to studying it. I’d rather see if I can manipulate others for
> fun into giving me cheap explanations that cost me no effort. Among the
> tactics I used effectively in the third grade, I will employ dares, feigned
> blindness, screeching to be hand-fed, casual boasts that it’s obviously
> broken until proven otherwise, and deliberately making stupid statements so
> that others will painstakingly correct them.”

What are you typing about Bodkin??? I have demonstrated and proven beyond doubt with examples worked with actual empirical qualities that the solar system cannot operate under the rules of special relativity. Your rejoinder: study stuff I can't explain to prove yourself wrong---Pat Dolan, argue against your self because Bodkin is too lazy to do it.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:49:42 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Aldo <aldo.may...@cap.edu.mx> wrote:
> > El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 13:15:56 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> >> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> >>> El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 19:43:16 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> >>>> 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?
> >>> Is that question for real? This only proves that you have never studied
> >>> GR in your entire life, and that you are nothing more than a stupid
> >>> crank. LMAO, this is described in for example, chapter 16 of MTW Gravitation.
> >> Aldo, is that answer for real? This only proves that you have studied a
> >> pretty much empty concept incapable of answering the most obvious questions.
> >>
> >> I went out to the garage to retrieve my MTW where I was using it to
> >> level a work bench. Chap. 16 "Equivalence Principle and the Measurement
> >> of the Gravitational Field" is quite a short chapter which I am very
> >> familiar with. So much so, that I immediately suspected your response as
> >> fraudulent. I took a few minutes to re-acquaint myself with chap 16's
> >> contents and, as I suspected, there is no reference to the matter at
> >> hand. Prove me wrong. Cite the page where you believe the answer
> >> resides. I have the 1973 softcover edition...most expensive doorstop I own.
> > Page 394, "because the Earth's field is nearly Newtonian," and they
> > explicitly give the metric ds²=-(1+2Φ)dt²+(1-2Φ)(dx²+dy²+dz²), so there's
> > your answer. As simple as that, you fucking idiot.
> >
> So, Pat, I see a couple of possibilities here.
>
> One is that you don’t actually have a copy of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler,
> but you know how to look up a table of contents on Amazon, the people that
> run your home town. In that case, what do you hope to get from a page
> reference?
>
> Another is that you did actually buy a copy and you can open it, but you
> can’t make sense of any of it, and you are too lazy to try. In which case,
> the question is, why did you buy it then?

Why did you leave you the third possibility, Bodkin? Is this your standard MO? And what is that third possibility? The third, suppressed by Bodkin, possibility is that I studied the tome from front to back and that is why I am able to argue so effectively against relativity.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:50:31 AM UTC-7, lying piece of shit pat dolan wrote:
> I have demonstrated and proven beyond doubt with examples worked with actual empirical qualities that the solar system cannot operate under the rules of special relativity.

Lying piece of shit,

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 because , for the Sun, r_s=2.9km , so:

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

The above is the SR solution.

Eat shit, bon appetit.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:26:09 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
>>>> El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 19:43:16 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
>>>>> 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?
>>>> Is that question for real? This only proves that you have never studied
>>>> GR in your entire life, and that you are nothing more than a stupid
>>>> crank. LMAO, this is described in for example, chapter 16 of MTW Gravitation.
>>>
>>> Pattycakes will NEVER study, he can't and he won't. His sole intent is to
>>> discredit relativity without ever studying it, a fools' quest. Thus, like
>>> his buddy Dick Hertz, they will be a source of entertainment until they die.
>>>
>> The standard MO is:
>> “I’m marginally interested in the subject, but not enough to actually
>> devote effort to studying it. I’d rather see if I can manipulate others for
>> fun into giving me cheap explanations that cost me no effort. Among the
>> tactics I used effectively in the third grade, I will employ dares, feigned
>> blindness, screeching to be hand-fed, casual boasts that it’s obviously
>> broken until proven otherwise, and deliberately making stupid statements so
>> that others will painstakingly correct them.”
>
> What are you typing about Bodkin??? I have demonstrated and proven
> beyond doubt with examples worked with actual empirical qualities that
> the solar system cannot operate under the rules of special relativity.
> Your rejoinder: study stuff I can't explain to prove yourself wrong---Pat
> Dolan, argue against your self because Bodkin is too lazy to do it.

The only person without doubt about your demonstrations is the casual you.
Nice bluster, though.

You are a walking example, though not an artful one, of Cunningham’s Law of
the Internet.

You don’t want to study. You want to make others save you the effort of
studying. And you seriously think that’s a game you’re good at.

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

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:49:42 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Aldo <aldo.may...@cap.edu.mx> wrote:
>>> El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 13:15:56 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
>>>>> El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 19:43:16 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>> Is that question for real? This only proves that you have never studied
>>>>> GR in your entire life, and that you are nothing more than a stupid
>>>>> crank. LMAO, this is described in for example, chapter 16 of MTW Gravitation.
>>>> Aldo, is that answer for real? This only proves that you have studied a
>>>> pretty much empty concept incapable of answering the most obvious questions.
>>>>
>>>> I went out to the garage to retrieve my MTW where I was using it to
>>>> level a work bench. Chap. 16 "Equivalence Principle and the Measurement
>>>> of the Gravitational Field" is quite a short chapter which I am very
>>>> familiar with. So much so, that I immediately suspected your response as
>>>> fraudulent. I took a few minutes to re-acquaint myself with chap 16's
>>>> contents and, as I suspected, there is no reference to the matter at
>>>> hand. Prove me wrong. Cite the page where you believe the answer
>>>> resides. I have the 1973 softcover edition...most expensive doorstop I own.
>>> Page 394, "because the Earth's field is nearly Newtonian," and they
>>> explicitly give the metric ds²=-(1+2Φ)dt²+(1-2Φ)(dx²+dy²+dz²), so there's
>>> your answer. As simple as that, you fucking idiot.
>>>
>> So, Pat, I see a couple of possibilities here.
>>
>> One is that you don’t actually have a copy of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler,
>> but you know how to look up a table of contents on Amazon, the people that
>> run your home town. In that case, what do you hope to get from a page
>> reference?
>>
>> Another is that you did actually buy a copy and you can open it, but you
>> can’t make sense of any of it, and you are too lazy to try. In which case,
>> the question is, why did you buy it then?
>
> Why did you leave you the third possibility, Bodkin? Is this your
> standard MO? And what is that third possibility? The third, suppressed
> by Bodkin, possibility is that I studied the tome from front to back and
> that is why I am able to argue so effectively against relativity.

You can calculate the probability of a Buick quantum tunneling from one
side of a closed garage door to the other. It’s a very small number, but
it’s possible. That number is many orders of magnitude higher than the
third possibility you mentioned.

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

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

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:03:48 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:50:31 AM UTC-7, lying piece of shit pat dolan wrote:
> > I have demonstrated and proven beyond doubt with examples worked with actual empirical qualities that the solar system cannot operate under the rules of special relativity.
> Lying piece of shit,
>
> 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 because , for the Sun, r_s=2.9km , so:
>
> d\tau^2/dt^2=1-v^2/c^2
>
> The above is the SR solution.
>
> Eat shit, bon appetit.
Well Dono, I don't agree. But for the sake of argument lets assume you, Bodkin and Dono-wannabe Aldo are right. Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increases or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:12:56 PM UTC-7, lying piece of shit pat dolan keeps eating it:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:03:48 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:50:31 AM UTC-7, lying piece of shit pat dolan wrote:
> > > I have demonstrated and proven beyond doubt with examples worked with actual empirical qualities that the solar system cannot operate under the rules of special relativity.
> > Lying piece of shit,
> >
> > 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 because , for the Sun, r_s=2.9km , so:
> >
> > d\tau^2/dt^2=1-v^2/c^2
> >
> > The above is the SR solution.
> >
> > Eat shit, bon appetit.
> Well Dono, I don't agree.

Prove me wrong. Until you do, continue to eat shit, Pattycakes.