El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 13:53:41 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> 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
So you are now admitting that you are nothing more than a poor anti-relativity crank, a troll and an incel that has no life, so he posts here. Get a life!

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:16:34 PM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 13:53:41 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> > 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
> So you are now admitting that you are nothing more than a poor anti-relativity crank, a troll and an incel that has no life, so he posts here. Get a life!

Aldo, I reiterate my question to Dono. It's binary. But I'll change it to trinitarian in your case. Still an easy answer for the brave. Unanswerable for cowards. Here it is:

Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increases, is unchanged or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:41 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:16:34 PM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> > El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 13:53:41 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> > > 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
> > So you are now admitting that you are nothing more than a poor anti-relativity crank, a troll and an incel that has no life, so he posts here. Get a life!
> Aldo, I reiterate my question to Dono. It's binary. But I'll change it to trinitarian in your case. Still an easy answer for the brave. Unanswerable for cowards. Here it is:
>
> Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increases, is unchanged or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?

This question is for you too, Bodkin. It appears that I have you in a submission hold. Are you going to tap out or continue to wrestle?

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 21:09:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> You can calculate the probability of a Buick quantum tunneling from one
> side of a closed garage door to the other.

No, Bod, he can't. Neither you could. You're just mumbling
like an idiot you are.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:41 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:16:34 PM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
>>> El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 13:53:41 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
>>>> 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
>>> So you are now admitting that you are nothing more than a poor
>>> anti-relativity crank, a troll and an incel that has no life, so he
>>> posts here. Get a life!
>> Aldo, I reiterate my question to Dono. It's binary. But I'll change it
>> to trinitarian in your case. Still an easy answer for the brave.
>> Unanswerable for cowards. Here it is:
>>
>> Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the
>> sun increases, is unchanged or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?
>
> This question is for you too, Bodkin. It appears that I have you in a
> submission hold. Are you going to tap out or continue to wrestle?
>

I see you consider this a wrestling match.

I was wondering what you were doing, writhing around on the rug by yourself
making grunting noises.

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

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:41 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan keeps eating shit:

> Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increases, is unchanged or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?

Depends on "V", cretinoid. Here, eat some more:
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gravitational_tensor#Definition

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:41 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan keeps eating shit:
> > Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increases, is unchanged or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?
> Depends on "V", cretinoid. Here, eat some more:
Dono, to clarify your answer, you are stating to this forum and to posterity that the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun does in fact change as a function of v--defined as the relative velocity between the observer and the sun. But you don't specify if that change is an increase or a decrease in spacetime curvature. Please clarify.

I wonder what the hell has happened to Don QuixAldo? Aldo, have you joined ranks with Bodkin in refusing to answer my question? If so, why?

WHY THE HELL CAN'T I GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER!!!!! Does the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increase, decrease or remain unchanged as a function of the relative velocity between the observer and the sun?????

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

Le 19/04/2022 à 04:40, Sylvia Else a écrit :

> Special Relativity does not generally apply in the presence of gravity

+1

> Sylvia.

R.H.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:46:34 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:41 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan keeps eating shit:
> > > Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increases, is unchanged or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?
> > Depends on "V", cretinoid. Here, eat some more:
> Dono, to clarify your answer, you are stating to this forum and to posterity that the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun does in fact change as a function of v--defined as the relative velocity between the observer and the sun. But you don't specify if that change is an increase or a decrease in spacetime curvature. Please clarify.
>

You need to be able to do a little calculus, the first derivative gives the answer. Given that you are an imbecile, I will not be doing it for you.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:34:16 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:46:34 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:41 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan keeps eating shit:
> > > > Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increases, is unchanged or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?
> > > Depends on "V", cretinoid. Here, eat some more:
> > Dono, to clarify your answer, you are stating to this forum and to posterity that the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun does in fact change as a function of v--defined as the relative velocity between the observer and the sun. But you don't specify if that change is an increase or a decrease in spacetime curvature. Please clarify.
> >
> You need to be able to do a little calculus, the first derivative gives the answer. Given that you are an imbecile, I will not be doing it for you.

Fair enough Dono. Give me the equation. I'll take it's first derivative. Tell me with respect to which variables?

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:20:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/04/2022 à 04:40, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>
> > Special Relativity does not generally apply in the presence of gravity
>
> +1
>
> > Sylvia.
>
> R.H.
Richard Hachel, then Sylvia is a fool. All of SR's most famous "validations" occur within a gravitational field. The Frisch-Smith muons' time dilation flights are measured in the earth's gravitational field. So are the Fermi lab muons measured in the Earth's gravitational field. Sylvia does not think deeply.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:42:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:34:16 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:46:34 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:41 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan keeps eating shit:
> > > > > Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increases, is unchanged or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?
> > > > Depends on "V", cretinoid. Here, eat some more:
> > > Dono, to clarify your answer, you are stating to this forum and to posterity that the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun does in fact change as a function of v--defined as the relative velocity between the observer and the sun. But you don't specify if that change is an increase or a decrease in spacetime curvature. Please clarify.
> > >
> > You need to be able to do a little calculus, the first derivative gives the answer. Given that you are an imbecile, I will not be doing it for you..
> Fair enough Dono. Give me the equation.

I already did. Twice, imbecile.

I'll take it's first derivative. Tell me with respect to which variables?

"V" , imbecile.

Le 21/04/2022 à 01:47, patdolan a écrit :
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:20:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 19/04/2022 à 04:40, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>>
>> > Special Relativity does not generally apply in the presence of gravity
>>
>> +1
>>
>> > Sylvia.
>>
>> R.H.
> Richard Hachel, then Sylvia is a fool. All of SR's most famous "validations"
> occur within a gravitational field. The Frisch-Smith muons' time dilation flights
> are measured in the earth's gravitational field. So are the Fermi lab muons
> measured in the Earth's gravitational field. Sylvia does not think deeply.

No, no, I think Sylvia thinks very well. It's rare for a woman to be able
to answer relativistic questions.

In addition, it is not important that the experiments of SR are made or
not in gravitational medium.

I know I'm going to be hated by saying that, but I prefer to be honest
with those who read me: as much as I'm sure there is something like the
special theory of relativity of which I found about fifty equations (some
unpublished) and whose beginnings and paradoxes I have explained like no
one before me (see Langevin's traveler in Hachel's description), as much
as I believe they misunderstand SR and as much as I believe that GR is a
pure abstract invention.

The question I ask myself being: "If they are unable to understand already
clearly the SR which is true, how can they understand the GR which is a
pure mathematical abstraction without any real existence?"

R.H.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:20:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 19/04/2022 à 04:40, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>>
>>> Special Relativity does not generally apply in the presence of gravity
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> R.H.
> Richard Hachel, then Sylvia is a fool. All of SR's most famous
> "validations" occur within a gravitational field.

So?

> The Frisch-Smith muons' time dilation flights are measured in the earth's
> gravitational field. So are the Fermi lab muons measured in the Earth's
> gravitational field. Sylvia does not think deeply.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 19/04/2022 à 04:40, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>
>> Special Relativity does not generally apply in the presence of gravity
>
> +1
>
>> Sylvia.

It’s not correct. Free fall frames are ones for example where SR applies
beautifully.

>
> R.H.
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 21/04/2022 à 02:50, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> It’s not correct. Free fall frames are ones for example where SR applies
> beautifully.

I don't believe that's what Sylvia said.

She said that if the physicist studied relativity by introducing the
deformation of space by masses, one entered GR.

And that it was no longer SR.

Personally, I don't do RG, and I don't believe in it for a moment.

On the other hand, the equations that I have given on the accelerated
relativistic reference frames, are valid equations, and must be fully
studied as SR.

My position is this:
Uniform Galilean repositories ---> SR
Accelerated repositories ---> SR
Deformations of space by the masses ---> Nothing at all (totally abstract
and useless).

R.H.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:04:45 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:42:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:34:16 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:46:34 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:41 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan keeps eating shit:
> > > > > > Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increases, is unchanged or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?
> > > > > Depends on "V", cretinoid. Here, eat some more:
> > > > Dono, to clarify your answer, you are stating to this forum and to posterity that the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun does in fact change as a function of v--defined as the relative velocity between the observer and the sun. But you don't specify if that change is an increase or a decrease in spacetime curvature. Please clarify.
> > > >
> > > You need to be able to do a little calculus, the first derivative gives the answer. Given that you are an imbecile, I will not be doing it for you.
> > Fair enough Dono. Give me the equation.
> I already did. Twice, imbecile.
> I'll take it's first derivative. Tell me with respect to which variables?
> "V" , imbecile.
Dono, you fool, have you read this section of your link:

"Therefore, the contraction of the gravitational tensor and the Ricci tensor must be zero:
R
μ
α
Φ
μ
α
0 {\displaystyle ~R_{\mu \alpha }\Phi ^{\mu \alpha }=0}. In Minkowski space the Ricci tensor
R
μ
α
{\displaystyle ~R_{\mu \alpha }} equal to zero,"

This directly contradicts what you have reported to this forum, to wit, curvature is entirely independent of relative velocity. Do you accept this, now that I have found it in your link?

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 6:14:06 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan got to eat shit once again:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:04:45 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:42:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:34:16 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:46:34 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:41 PM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan keeps eating shit:
> > > > > > > Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increases, is unchanged or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?
> > > > > > Depends on "V", cretinoid. Here, eat some more:
> > > > > Dono, to clarify your answer, you are stating to this forum and to posterity that the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun does in fact change as a function of v--defined as the relative velocity between the observer and the sun. But you don't specify if that change is an increase or a decrease in spacetime curvature. Please clarify.
> > > > >
> > > > You need to be able to do a little calculus, the first derivative gives the answer. Given that you are an imbecile, I will not be doing it for you.
> > > Fair enough Dono. Give me the equation.
> > I already did. Twice, imbecile.
> > I'll take it's first derivative. Tell me with respect to which variables?
> > "V" , imbecile.
> Dono, you fool, have you read this section of your link:
>
> "Therefore, the contraction of the gravitational tensor and the Ricci tensor must be zero:
>

Old fart imbecile,

You have no idea what you are reading. One can always count of you to get things ass backwards. I was sure that you are incapable of calculating the derivatives and that you will resort to some other dirty trick. You get to eat shit once again.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 1:32:02 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> I see you consider this a wrestling match.
>
> I was wondering what you were doing, writhing around on the rug by yourself
> making grunting noises.

Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:40:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:

> No, no, I think Sylvia thinks very well. It's rare for a woman to be able
> to answer relativistic questions.

So now you are proven to be a misogynistic asshole, for sure... in addition to being a common crank...

On 4/20/2022 10:28 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 1:32:02 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I see you consider this a wrestling match.
>>
>> I was wondering what you were doing, writhing around on the rug by yourself
>> making grunting noises.
>
> Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It

That's why Odd left Pat alone. He saw Pat enjoying himself getting dirty.

El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 14:22:41 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:16:34 PM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> > El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 13:53:41 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> > > 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
> > So you are now admitting that you are nothing more than a poor anti-relativity crank, a troll and an incel that has no life, so he posts here. Get a life!
> Aldo, I reiterate my question to Dono. It's binary. But I'll change it to trinitarian in your case. Still an easy answer for the brave. Unanswerable for cowards. Here it is:
>
> Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increases, is unchanged or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?
Idiot, the answer to your question is found in all textbooks on GR. Obviously you have no clue of what you're talking about.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:52:38 PM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 14:22:41 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:16:34 PM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> > > El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2022 a las 13:53:41 UTC-5, patdolan escribió:
> > > > 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
> > > So you are now admitting that you are nothing more than a poor anti-relativity crank, a troll and an incel that has no life, so he posts here. Get a life!
> > Aldo, I reiterate my question to Dono. It's binary. But I'll change it to trinitarian in your case. Still an easy answer for the brave. Unanswerable for cowards. Here it is:
> >
> > Declare to this forum if the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun increases, is unchanged or decreases with increasing relativity velocity to the sun?
> Idiot, the answer to your question is found in all textbooks on GR. Obviously you have no clue of what you're talking about.

Aldo, you must at least admit that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to recognizing scientific cowardice. You and Bodkin refuse to answer the simplest question in all of relativity. Exactly as I predicted. Tom Roberts, Paul Andersen, Dirk, Sylvia, Python, Prokary, JJ, JanPB, Townes, etc.. will never answer this question either.

You and they are cowards to be sure. But at least you and they are not fools to the same extent as Dono. You and they understand that ANY statement you make having to do with general relativity will eventually bite you in the ass. That is a sure sign of a pseudo-science.

"General Relativity is phrenology for the universe." -- Patrick Dolan, 21 April Anno Domini 2022

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 7:31:58 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:40:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > No, no, I think Sylvia thinks very well. It's rare for a woman to be able
> > to answer relativistic questions.
> So now you are proven to be a misogynistic asshole, for sure... in addition to being a common crank...

Sanctimonious Paul Alsing, I'd like to be at the bedchamber door when you and Richard Hachel spend your first nights with Sylvia.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> Aldo, you must at least admit that I know what I'm talking about when it
> comes to recognizing scientific cowardice. You and Bodkin refuse to
> answer the simplest question in all of relativity. Exactly as I
> predicted. Tom Roberts, Paul Andersen, Dirk, Sylvia, Python, Prokary,
> JJ, JanPB, Townes, etc. will never answer this question either.

Don’t confuse cowardice with refusal to indulge either laziness or third
grade schoolyard dares.

I believe you’ve been given references to good sources. So your remaining
questions are due to what? Illiteracy? Fear? Laziness?

>
> You and they are cowards to be sure. But at least you and they are not
> fools to the same extent as Dono. You and they understand that ANY
> statement you make having to do with general relativity will eventually
> bite you in the ass. That is a sure sign of a pseudo-science.
>
> "General Relativity is phrenology for the universe." -- Patrick Dolan,
> 21 April Anno Domini 2022
>

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