Relativity's most irrational claim.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

It denies relative motion for light.

A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.

Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.

If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.

THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)

Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u

5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!

ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!

SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

[Paul Alsing]

Sciencevstruth.org is a flat-out crank site. From the owner of that site...

"I am a general surgeon turned truth seeker and philosopher"

Do you think that this fellow is the correct way to learn relativity? I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I am interested in selling cheap... are you interested?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 21:03:38 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:

> "I am a general surgeon turned truth seeker and philosopher"
>
> Do you think that this fellow is the correct way to learn relativity?

Al, why to learn self inconsistent mumble of
some brainwashed morons, denying common
sense and basic math?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

"if you are standing downwind from a sound source, that sound will reach you more quickly than if you were standing the same distance upwind - because the pressure disturbance travels with the bulk of the medium." Just as sound speed in this case is S + V, so is light speed C + V in the above-mentioned instance.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

Just as sound shares the velocity of the medium, by the same token, light should as well making it C + V relative to the Sun.

[Paul Alsing]

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:02:07 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Just as sound shares the velocity of the medium, by the same token, light should as well making it C + V relative to the Sun.

What evidence do you have to offer that "... light should as well making it C + V relative to the Sun"? I do believe that you are just making this up as you go along!

There is evidence to the contrary and you can easily find it in a textbook!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

u= v + u' ; passenger velocity= train + passenger in train
then 100mph + 5= 105 mph
The formula in this example negate the velocity of the passenger within the train and negates the velocity the train adds to the light.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

"What is the relative speed of A with respect B, if both are moving opposite to each other at 60% velocity of light constant c each?

Relative to a “stationary” frame
Va=0.6c
Vb=−0.6c
Using the relativistic velocity addition formula
Va/b=Va−Vb1−VaVbc2
we get
Va/b=0.6c+0.6c1+0.6×0.6
Va/b=0.88c.
Yet, the velocity addition formula yielding the above answer is based on the Special Relativity time and space transformation equations proved to be unviable in this book:
Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity: Second Edition: MS Radwan M. Kassir: 9781544691374: Amazon.com: Books' - Radwan Kassir Quora.

[Paul Alsing]

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:45:01 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Yet, the velocity addition formula yielding the above answer is based on the Special Relativity time and space transformation equations proved to be unviable in this book:
> Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity: Second Edition: MS Radwan M. Kassir: 9781544691374: Amazon.com: Books' - Radwan Kassir Quora.

Radwan Kassir is a mechanical engineer. He has no credentials whatsoever in relativity. He may be a terrific mechanical engineer but he is lousy at relativity. Why would you seek evidence from a mechanical engineer when there are umpteen actual physicists who claim differently? These actual physicists have written tons of textbooks and written tons of actual research papers. Why don't you read what the experts have written?

Obviously, you don't know $hit about relativity and are apparently quite proud of the fact that your huge brain can figure all of this out without *ever* having read even a single textbook! Amazing! Also, doubly amazing is that you have many clones here who think the exact same way as you do! You guys should form a club and have a meeting where you can all rant and rave at mainstream physics! I'm pretty sure that Woz would be glad to host an event in his basement!

[Ross Finlayson]

Omnidirectional light or a ball of light expands at 2c spherically, i.e. the
diameter increases at 2c as the radius increases at c, of course,
because light's speed is constant.

An image from a relativistic approach exists insofar as "behind the wavefront",
then as passing the last look and the look back, as that the look back,
is "reverse angle", so the rear-view would only see if proceeding on the
track the image came from, or as what image arrives in space otherwise
as that it would go out of perspective, which would appear as having shrunk,
but shrinking while it's observed, vanishing when it's not.

I.e., something approaching directly and also meeting directly, is visible
coming and going, while not directly, it's only visible where it was,
as when the image arrives as when it was emitted.

Loosely, ....

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:12:42 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 5:29:07 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:45:01 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > > Yet, the velocity addition formula yielding the above answer is based on the Special Relativity time and space transformation equations proved to be unviable in this book:
> > > Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity: Second Edition: MS Radwan M. Kassir: 9781544691374: Amazon.com: Books' - Radwan Kassir Quora.

> Omnidirectional light or a ball of light expands at 2c spherically, i.e. the
> diameter increases at 2c as the radius increases at c, of course,
> because light's speed is constant.
>

HEARSAY!

[Paul Alsing]

Do you actually mean "heresy"? One can only wonder...

[Sylvia Else]

On 17-Sept-23 4:37 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> It denies relative motion for light.
>
> A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
> A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.

I take it you mean 20mph relative to the ship.

> The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
> The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
>

No, it isn't. It's pretty close, but it's not exactly 120mph; it's ever
so slightly less.

Sylvia.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> It denies relative motion for light.
>
> A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
> A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
> The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
> The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
>
> Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
> The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
> Relativity denies this.

You are wasting your time.

--
Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

When watching, it's motion and in motion.


First, when talking about an irrational claim, is to make the case,
that "irrational", is about the "rational". Here, "rational" is two
things: it's both the completion of the reasoning, and, the completion
of never being irrational, the rational. So, "relativity's most irrational",
claim, would have to be so minimally irrational or directly rational,
as what's never exercised irrational, is "irrational roots in relativity,
are space and time units, their roots and rational roots and irrational roots".

This is that "linear keeps in rational roots, irrational roots are also called non-linearities".

Then, insofar as an irrational claim, then is for "what claim of Relativity actually
is reasonably or reasonatingly irrational, claim that if irrational at all goes with it,
other claims".

I.e., relativity has an "ideal" "claim of irrationality", a guarantee of the
guarantee's of its reasonings, that "if irrational at all falls down all roots",
changing "confusion about everything to do with science, or here relativity,
where I can't axiomatize integrable my integrand, that I do, what the
guarantees of non-confusion, mean in the applied, and finally to the direct
action, usually relativity's first effect, effects in light.

Then "look" is to effect perspective, and "watch" is to effect perspective,
that image is reflectively being present in the perspective, that "motion"
and "motion in real-time", is that at any instant, the light diffuses, including shine.

Clearly it's galilean as a "to light speed impulse", explaining for example chrome effects,
reflections and that in effect mirrors, where the light is reflected, participate with
the other observable incident rays at that location, going out, as reflections of sources
make for that "under the eclipse the leaves of the tree have fringes in their shadow",
that that moment of the focus, is that "look" is an effect of focus, that each location
has only one "look" at a time, and is watching what it's looking at, or looking.

I.e. "it's galilean to an infinite speed impulse, including a light speed impulse",
making "thus effectively there are no mirrors between any two points in space".

Then under "irrational roots" there finding either side "overcomplete" that not
having that, property of mutual completion, it's called "Dirichlet" and "irrational roots"
where "Dirichlet is rationals 1 irrationals 0" that "a Dirichlet function is about any
function that density properties in completion are the same everywhere, but it's
exactly two complementary domains only denseness properties and one 1 the other 0".

Or, "relativity's most irrational claim" is then "for Einstein either SR or GR, here it
is that special relativity's most irrational claim, is that light that went one meter,
did not also go less than one meter with any object in the same 1 meter or it
over 1 second".

Then, "restoring relativity's most irrational claim to a contrivance of overcompleteness,
a usual property guaranteeing what we have adds up, that light's speed is a constant
and invariant, that then it's glow and shine, the optical and geometric".

Light is always incident from all angles.

The scale of the resolution of an image, here is what it means science has achieved "20 orders
of magnitude resolution" and all the way to atomic scale "25 orders of magnitude resolution",
the entire body of observability, in the micro is micro-optical and micro-geometric, and in
the macro is macro-optical and macro-geometric, and in the meso- is optical and geometric.

So, here I have even put the needle in "I won't even hear nonsense about relativity at all",
"it's harder to actually of course validate special relativity experimentally", i.e. that point
being that of course as far as I can tell, every experience I've ever had is explained quite
well, my interpretation of having "researched special relativity" and "resolved relativity
in foundations, physics", the point being that by being academic and making an apologetics
first, then as it goes along I just point to the entire apologetics, mathematical foundations,
coming up to physical foundations, of bringing that along and bringing one along, an
entire canon and an apologetics that for "Relativity: the entire discussion and Einstein's
theories thereon, with all respects to theories real physics", that making arguments in
relativity always explaining "the light wasn't there", it's that special relativity is given
the terms in the units, and dimensionless, about why "according to SI's units its these
necessary formalisms in the Special Relativity all what may apply", is that then for
example "wherever it falls out or even loosens in contraction, SR has no irrational
claim in it, only any mistaken derivations after SR and other units, then also and
especially: that SR's reflection and imaging optical and geometric the light-like,
is built as continuity laws when not invariances, any invariance that is undercomplete".

Then this is that "any conservation law is two conservation laws, one of it".

And they have one continuity law, which least action in theory is time, t.

"Relativity's most irrational claim: SR's, that things don't move, under roots
building image, as so for each bundle of roots, that parallel transport is
the entire picture, what under optical and gometric terms is only one point
image, also only one-sided".


Think of perspective as looking from infinitely far away, it's called 2-D perspective.

This way mentally you reconstruct what you're seeing besides what's in front of the eyes -
also it's the model construct in space terms which are of course equivalent:
one mental drawing.

The point is being that for Einstein and "SR or GR themselves or both",
is that GR changes in the future, while SR is from the past, so having SR
in front, is corresponding to the contents, which in imaging are free".

So, one must separate "SR and GR" or "GR, then SR", and these days enough
it's "why yes my units are classical but SR will relativize them, SR is then say
STR and then GTR" and as Einstein's "SR, then GR, called STR then GTR".
There's though that STR-arians say as GR then "GTR...", but it is though,
"ah but now, my old GR is already Einstein's new old GR and already old SR's
GTR to SR", so in this manner it's still SR and GR to "according to the units",
that into STR are "these are our units..." then as "then it's one of Einstein's
'either SR, _or_ GR_", simply gently factoring Einstein's "SR" and "GR" among
the other resulting constructs, as of course they go together in usual boost
addition, what are frames the entire frame.

It's not irrational, though, both Special Relativity and General Relativity of course
have a no-nonsense theory, which are quite true and absolutely so in all respects.

So, any "irrational claim" about relativity must have some "how irrational is it"
and "how is it irrational", then there's "that's obviously irrational", or,
"our knowledge of the theory really ends here, picking one or the other of
the SR or GR because I don't have both, is that SR at least is computed always
as constant velocity, because everything else in the universe is moving.

"Light never moves: only glows and goes away."

Light Speed Rest Frame theory <-> Glow Speed Rest Frame theory

Then, rays over time, helps establish it's a continuous theory.

[JanPB]

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:53:09 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
> here is the details of an example with light:
> What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
> v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
> u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
> u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
> u= Relativity= c
> REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
> c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
> 1.5c/ 1 + 0.5/ 9^10
> 9^10= 3,486,784,401
> 0.5/ 3,486,784,401 =0.00000000014339859953
> 1 + 0.00000000014339859953= 1.00000000014339859953
> 450,000/ 1.00000000014339859953= 449,999.99993547063022075342
> ERGO: IT AMOUNTS TO ONE/ONE= 1C REGARDLESS OF RELATIVE MOTION.
> IT IS LYING WITH MATHEMATICS.
> IT IS RELATIVITY.

You don't understand what's going on here. Instead of wasting time posting
nonsense, study physics. There is no other way.

--
Jan

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
> here is the details of an example with light:
> What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
> v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
> u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
> u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
> u= Relativity= c
> REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
> c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2

That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)

Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
is even worse.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

CORRECTION:

Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
here is the details of an example with light:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:

u' + v
u= -------------
1 + (u'v/c^2)

u'= c
v= .5c

u' +v= 1.5c

u'v= .5c

c^2= = 1

.5c/1= 0.5c

1.5c/1.5c

ERGO: IT AMOUNTS TO 1C REGARDLESS OF RELATIVE MOTION.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Trying to understand the actual intent would have yielded you my corrected post above.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

If you were honest you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made an error in working it out. You would have said I was honest and made an error. Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does not represent the physics.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does, as in the example of the MMX given above.

[Sylvia Else]

So when observer u measures the speed of that light, he gets c.

Now all you have to do is show, by real experiment (not thought
experiment) that that is wrong, and you'll get the Nobel prize.

Sylvia.

[Maciej Wozniak]

No, lady - Your gurus will simply assert that the measurement
was "improper". Just like they're doing now.

[JanPB]

Your posts are nonsense.

--
Jan

[Richard Hachel]

Le 18/09/2023 à 06:02, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> So when observer u measures the speed of that light, he gets c.
>
> Now all you have to do is show, by real experiment (not thought
> experiment) that that is wrong, and you'll get the Nobel prize.
>
> Sylvia.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=9zAnqjTXWGRmKenIUVIE4mtdBE0@jntp>


It has already been done, my dear Sylvia, and the person has already won
the Nobel Prize (1907) for it thanks to a device of his creation called an
"interferometer".
It was Albert Michelson.
Henri Poincaré in France gave the complete explanation (June 1905) with
transformations called "Lorentz transformations".
Today the question no longer arises (except among anti-relativist cranks)
As for the general additions of all speeds, therefore including the speed
of light, and from all angles, we can use Doctor'Hachel's equation, either
in natural form or in vector form.
In natural form, this gives:

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9zAnqjTXWGRmKenIUVIE4mtdBE0@jntp/Data.Media:1>

in vector form, this gives:

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9zAnqjTXWGRmKenIUVIE4mtdBE0@jntp/Data.Media:2>

The Hague court (Netherlands) and the Nobel Prize committee, after forty
years of heated debate, today authorize physicists to copy these equations
in their books, and even, admirably, students to use them in their exam
papers. Which was unthinkable just a few months ago...

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 18/09/2023 à 14:56, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 18/09/2023 à 06:02, Sylvia Else a écrit :

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=X120e7xmbF84Z2vYSxNUqoBNoqA@jntp>

> in vector form, this gives:
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9zAnqjTXWGRmKenIUVIE4mtdBE0@jntp/Data.Media:2>

En notation positive :

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?X120e7xmbF84Z2vYSxNUqoBNoqA@jntp/Data.Media:1>

> R.H.

R.H.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:22:07 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
> > > here is the details of an example with light:
> > > What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
> > > v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
> > > u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
> > > u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
> > > u= Relativity= c
> > > REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
> > > c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
> >
> > That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
> >
> > Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
> > is even worse.
>
> If you were honest

Which I am

> you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
> an error in working it out.

Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.

> You would have said I was honest and made an error.

But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.

> Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
> not represent the physics.

Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.

> The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect the
> relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,

Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector, so your
assertion is wrong.

> as in the example of the MMX given above.

The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).

[sci.physics.relativity]

On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 15:40:19 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
> about reality

We know your "rea;ity", you have honestly deleted GPS
clocks from it, as they didn't fit your moronic mumble.

[Volney]

On 9/16/2023 5:02 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>> SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

The mere name of that site just screams "kꙩꙩksite".

> Just as sound shares the velocity of the medium, by the same token, light should as well making it C + V relative to the Sun.

Since light has no medium, how can light have a velocity relative to its
medium?

And what the heck, are you claiming the sun is the medium for light?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> It denies relative motion for light.
>

How can you tell the difference?
Light has its own motion but so does the atom.
The atom can compete with light.
At a motion BH the atom moves ahead of light
near light speed leaving light behind.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Thomas Heger]

Am 16.09.2023 um 21:03 schrieb Paul Alsing:
...

>> ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
>>

>> SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
>
>

> Sciencevstruth.org is a flat-out crank site. From the owner of that site...
>
> "I am a general surgeon turned truth seeker and philosopher"

It is generally irrelvant, what the profession of a person is, who made
a certain statement.

If you want to reject a statement, than you need to reject the statement
itself, not its proponent.

It is in all cases illegal to adress the proponent himself on the basis
of his/her profession, religion, political opinions, belonging to
certain ethnic groups or similar.

Just stick to the topic and disprove the statement itself!

TH


>
> Do you think that this fellow is the correct way to learn relativity? I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I am interested in selling cheap... are you interested?
>

[JanPB]

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> It denies relative motion for light.
>

> A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
> A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
> The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
> The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.

In relativity you need to describe this more precisely.

> Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
> The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
> Relativity denies this.

Again, you are omitting the basic assumptions of the theory.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

> If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
> Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.

> Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.

And now you've changedc the context.

> THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
> NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
> u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
>
> Example:
> train= 100 mph= v
> passenger= 5mph= u'
> relative velocity= u
>
> 5 +100= 105
> 5x100= 500
> 100^2= 10,000
> SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
> 105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
>

> ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
>
> SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

You don't understand the theory.

--
Jan

[Myron Bestuzhev-Lada]

JanPB wrote:

> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark

>> Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
>> The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
>> Relativity denies this.
>
> Again, you are omitting the basic assumptions of the theory.
> "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

absolutely. Listen to this, it makes things clearer in Physics for us. You
fucking idiot. They are ready to kill again your people, with the weapons
you generously donated to them.

𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗦𝗲𝗲_𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘆_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/yyuFRn4ZLxbe

[JanPB]

Putin didn't invade Ukraine because of any NATO expansion. Of course he
uses it as a propaganda tool. But his real motivation is the restoration of
the Russian empire. Without NATO expansion he would have invaded Ukraine
exactly the same and at the same time(*), he'd only have used a different
excuse (typically they use "the oppression of the ethnic Russians" card").

(*) The timing had everything to do with Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan, or
rather the *manner* of this withdrawal (incompetent, indicating weak
leadership) and with West's tepid response to Chechnya and to the
Crimean Anschluss. (History does rhyme.)

--
Jan

[Dono.]

Putin didn't dare to do the invasion while Trump was potus, he waited until we got the Bidum weakling.

[George Dani Markushevich]

JanPB wrote:

>> absolutely. Listen to this, it makes things clearer in Physics for us.
>> You fucking idiot. They are ready to kill again your people, with the
>> weapons you generously donated to them.
>>
>>𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗦𝗲𝗲_𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘆_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
>> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/yyuFRn4ZLxbe
>
> Putin didn't invade Ukraine because of any NATO expansion. Of course he

read the fucking paper, before making a fool of yourself. See what they
did 𝗶𝗻_𝗰𝗮𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗮, the khazar goys of ukraine are 𝗶𝗻𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱_𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀, historically,
stealing a country of about 86% Christians. They already killed two
polakers, in polakia, without blinking an eye. Amazing the stupid you are.

[JanPB]

Putin's problem is that now he knows he walked into the same trap Brezhnev did
in 1980. Now he would really like to leave Ukraine but he knows he cannot do it
without a face-saving solution (he'd be killed if he just left without preconditions).
So the war today continues only because Washington wants it to continue. The next
US president can stop it in 48 hours if that's what he wants. The current administration
OTOH is completely wedded to the naive idea that this Afghanistan 2.0 can work the
same way Afghanistan 1.0 did with Brezhnev.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

There is no doubt you're a true idiot. But, well, it
was well known before.

[Lou]

On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 14:40:19 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:22:07 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
> > > > here is the details of an example with light:
> > > > What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
> > > > v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
> > > > u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
> > > > u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
> > > > u= Relativity= c
> > > > REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
> > > > c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
> > >
> > > That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
> > >
> > > Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
> > > is even worse.
> >
> > If you were honest
> Which I am

No you aren’t. And you even admit it below. You admit Laurence made a mistake.
But as usual for a dishonest relativist you came with your pre conceived BS notions
and then dishonestly called a mistake...a lie.

> > you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
> > an error in working it out.
> Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
> > You would have said I was honest and made an error.
> But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
> about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.

You just looked in the mirror Gary. And saw the sick beast and did not like it.

> > Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
> > not represent the physics.
> Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.

But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.

> > The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect the
> > relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
> Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector, so your
> assertion is wrong.
> > as in the example of the MMX given above.
> The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
> velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
> which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
> by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).

Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
any observer.

[Physfitfreak]

On 10/4/2023 3:52 AM, George Dani Markushevich wrote:
> the khazar goys of ukraine

Hanson I thought you were trying to hide your previous nickname. Don't
use phrases that only Hanson used so often :)

Is Vulva your vulva? You must be feminist too then.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-10-04 09:49:56 +0000, JanPB said:

>
> [ … ]

> Putin's problem is that now he knows he walked into the same trap Brezhnev did
>
> in 1980. Now he would really like to leave Ukraine but he knows he cannot do it
>
> without a face-saving solution (he'd be killed if he just left without
> preconditions).
>
> So the war today continues only because Washington wants it to
> continue. The next
>
> US president can stop it in 48 hours if that's what he wants.

You must be American to believe anything so simple-minded (a belief you
share with ex-President Trump). The President of the USA just needs to
wave his magic wand and any problem will disappear.

> The current administration
>
> OTOH is completely wedded to the naive idea that this Afghanistan 2.0
> can work the
>
> same way Afghanistan 1.0 did with Brezhnev.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jan

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 09:41:15 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-10-04 09:49:56 +0000, JanPB said:
>
> >
> > [ … ]
> > Putin's problem is that now he knows he walked into the same trap Brezhnev did
> >
> > in 1980. Now he would really like to leave Ukraine but he knows he cannot do it
> >
> > without a face-saving solution (he'd be killed if he just left without
> > preconditions).
> >
> > So the war today continues only because Washington wants it to
> > continue. The next
> >
> > US president can stop it in 48 hours if that's what he wants.
> You must be American to

A mistake, as usual. And, well, it's actually a part of Russian
rhetorics: their wild aggression is really a struggle against
evil west trying hardly to destabilize poor Russia. And: Ukraine
is just a puppet of America, having really nothing to say about
the future peace treaty.

Anyway, all the Shit's believers are idiots, this or that way.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 14:40:19 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:22:07 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
> > > > > here is the details of an example with light:
> > > > > What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
> > > > > v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
> > > > > u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
> > > > > u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
> > > > > u= Relativity= c
> > > > > REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
> > > > > c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
> > > >
> > > > That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
> > > >
> > > > Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
> > > > is even worse.
> > >
> > > If you were honest
> >
> > Which I am
>
> No you aren’t.

Says the congenital liar :-))

> And you even admit it below. You admit Laurence made a mistake.

Apparently, you can't parse sentences correctly, either.

> But as usual for a dishonest relativist you came with your pre conceived
> BS notions and then dishonestly called a mistake...a lie.

Doing it once is forgivable: it MAY be a mistake. Doing it over and over
again is not a mistake. You and Larry are really strung out. Relax.

> > > you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
> > > an error in working it out.
> >
> > Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
> >
> > > You would have said I was honest and made an error.
> >
> > But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
> > about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.
>
> You just looked in the mirror Gary. And saw the sick beast and did not like it.

Says the guy who hides his head in the sand whenever confronted with
experimental results :-))

> > > Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
> > > not represent the physics.
> >
> > Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.
>
> But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.

So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors
in the application. You're as bad as Wozzie-boy.

> > > The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not
> > > affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
> >
> > Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector,
> > so your assertion is wrong.
> >
> > > as in the example of the MMX given above.
> >
> > The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
> > velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
> > which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
> > by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
>
> Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
> any observer.

The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant. You've stuck your
head in the sand again. Emission theory is refuted.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 14:35:53 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
> is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors
> in the application.

No, anyone can check GPS - it's oppositely, you may
only pretend your idiocies are true where the
difference between them and GT has no significance.

> The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
> other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant.

No, they haven't, and even your idiot guru was
forced to withdraw from this absurd in his
GR shit,

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:24:41 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:

>
> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 13:35:53 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > No you aren’t.
> >
> > Says the congenital liar :-))

> I cited your quotes as evidence to prove you were lying...

It didn't look like that to me.

> So far you haven’t supplied any of my quotes as evidence
> to prove that I lied.

:-) Are you so demented that you can't remember them?

> > > And you even admit it below. You admit Laurence made a mistake.
> >
> > Apparently, you can't parse sentences correctly, either.
>

> Yes I understand your problem Gary. Seeing as you inadvertantly
> admitted Laurence didnt lie when you falsely claimed he did.

He's a liar, just like you are.

> Your only option is....is to change the subject.

You'd better change it quickly then.

> > > But as usual for a dishonest relativist you came with your
> > > pre conceived BS notions and then dishonestly called a mistake
> > > ...a lie.
> > Doing it once is forgivable: it MAY be a mistake. Doing it over and
> > over again is not a mistake. You and Larry are really strung out. Relax.
>

> In that case...why do you continually insist on telling lies?
> Oh I know...you are VERY strung out having been caught telling
> porkies about Laurence.

Look at you! Infantile "oh so are you nyah nyah" stuff. Grow up!

> > > > > you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
> > > > > an error in working it out.
> > > >
> > > > Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
> > > >
> > > > > You would have said I was honest and made an error.
> > > >
> > > > But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
> > > > about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.
> > >
> > > You just looked in the mirror Gary. And saw the sick beast and did not like it.
> >
> > Says the guy who hides his head in the sand whenever confronted with
> > experimental results :-))
>

> Ahh! So you do admit that empirical data from MMX shows that light does travel
> at constant speeds isotropically ?

As I said and now you proved it: you can't parse a sentence correctly. Reread it
again. Are you stupid or are you a liar?

> I thought you and your dishonest low IQ relativist friends had decided the earth
> doesn’t rotate on its axis?

Apparently, you don't think at all. May we call you "Rock"?

> > > > > Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
> > > > > not represent the physics.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.
> > >
> > > But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.
> >
> > So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
> > is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors
> > in the application. You're as bad as Wozzie-boy.
>

> In other words you can’t deny u=v+u’ agrees with what you called “ reality”

Again you can't parse a sentence correctly, or you're dishonest, or both.

> 😂 Good one. Oh well. You can always go back to reciting passages from
> your hero Adolf Einsteins “Special Maybe it can maybe it
> can’t Theory of relativity” for spiritual guidance.

“Your mind is a garden,
Your thoughts are the seeds.
You can grow flowers
Or you can grow weeds.”
-- Anonymous

> > > > > The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not
> > > > > affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
> > > >
> > > > Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector,
> > > > so your assertion is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > > as in the example of the MMX given above.
> > > >
> > > > The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
> > > > velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
> > > > which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
> > > > by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
> > >
> > > Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
> > > any observer.
> >
> > The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
> > other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant. You've stuck your
> > head in the sand again. Emission theory is refuted.
>

> I’m glad to see you admit that both source , detector and mirrors are in the same
> non inertial frame. It’s about time you admitted you have zero evidence from
> MMX that can prove that light doesn’t travel at constant speeds isotropically
> in non inertial frames.

I never said it did. People incapable of parsing sentences correctly come up with
such stupid things. Or they're just stupid.

> Oh! But you pretended that there are other experiments that prove c is invariant.
> Id like to hear what sort of BS you can pull out of your backside to prove this
> false claim. Although I do understand that faced with having to admit MMX
> does confirm light travels at constant speeds in non inertial frames..
> its a good tactic for you to change the subject to another experiment.
> (Even though it’s inevitable that this new experiment will also confirm
> emission theory. Like IvesStillwell or Sagnac for instance. But it will buy
> you a bit more time to figure out what the next change of subject for you
> could be)

You must be French:

“The last time the French asked for ‘more proof’ it came marching
Into Paris under a German flag.” – David Letterman

[Lou]

Zero evidence. Just evasive subject changing. Not that I expected anything else.

> > I thought you and your dishonest low IQ relativist friends had decided the earth
> > doesn’t rotate on its axis?
> Apparently, you don't think at all. May we call you "Rock"?
> > > > > > Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
> > > > > > not represent the physics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.
> > > >
> > > > But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.
> > >
> > > So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
> > > is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors
> > > in the application. You're as bad as Wozzie-boy.
> >
> > In other words you can’t deny u=v+u’ agrees with what you called “ reality”
> Again you can't parse a sentence correctly, or you're dishonest, or both.
> > 😂 Good one. Oh well. You can always go back to reciting passages from
> > your hero Adolf Einsteins “Special Maybe it can maybe it
> > can’t Theory of relativity” for spiritual guidance.
> “Your mind is a garden,
> Your thoughts are the seeds.
> You can grow flowers
> Or you can grow weeds.”
> -- Anonymous

If I wrote that nonsense, I would remain anonymous too,
It’s you chemically obsessed bio fascists who think that native
flora are just weeds to stamp their Jack boots on.
No wonder we have global warming with you lot in charge.

> > > > > > The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not
> > > > > > affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
> > > > >
> > > > > Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector,
> > > > > so your assertion is wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > > as in the example of the MMX given above.
> > > > >
> > > > > The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
> > > > > velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
> > > > > which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
> > > > > by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
> > > >
> > > > Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
> > > > any observer.
> > >
> > > The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
> > > other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant. You've stuck your
> > > head in the sand again. Emission theory is refuted.
> >
> > I’m glad to see you admit that both source , detector and mirrors are in the same
> > non inertial frame. It’s about time you admitted you have zero evidence from
> > MMX that can prove that light doesn’t travel at constant speeds isotropically
> > in non inertial frames.
> I never said it did. People incapable of parsing sentences correctly come up with
> such stupid things. Or they're just stupid.

You never said it did! Finally. A relativist admits they haven’t any evidence to
prove that the null result isn’t consistent with light travelling at constant

speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.

All you need to do now is admit that the sun doesnt rotate around the earth
and we can cure you of your delusion that the lab, and the MMX experiment
are not rotating around the earth in their imaginary inertial frame.

> > Oh! But you pretended that there are other experiments that prove c is invariant.
> > Id like to hear what sort of BS you can pull out of your backside to prove this
> > false claim. Although I do understand that faced with having to admit MMX
> > does confirm light travels at constant speeds in non inertial frames..
> > its a good tactic for you to change the subject to another experiment.
> > (Even though it’s inevitable that this new experiment will also confirm
> > emission theory. Like IvesStillwell or Sagnac for instance. But it will buy
> > you a bit more time to figure out what the next change of subject for you
> > could be)
> You must be French:
>

Not only do you suffer from a divine belief that you and
your relativist friends are members of a master race, you have
just shown us that you are definitely a bigot.

> “The last time the French asked for ‘more proof’ it came marching
> Into Paris under a German flag.” – David Letterman

The last time a scientist asked a relativist for ‘any proof’, it never
ever arrived at all. And by the looks of it from your replies the only
thing we can expect in Paris, or anywhere, from a relativist will be a
dense fog of spiritualist miasma.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:32:57 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 16:26:55 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:24:41 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > I cited your quotes as evidence to prove you were lying...
> >
> > It didn't look like that to me.

No comment. I win this round.

> > > So far you haven’t supplied any of my quotes as evidence
> > > to prove that I lied.
> >
> > :-) Are you so demented that you can't remember them?

Apparently so.

> > > Yes I understand your problem Gary. Seeing as you inadvertantly
> > > admitted Laurence didnt lie when you falsely claimed he did.
> >
> > He's a liar, just like you are.

Silence implies consent. I win this round, too.

> > > In that case...why do you continually insist on telling lies?
> > > Oh I know...you are VERY strung out having been caught telling
> > > porkies about Laurence.
> >
> > Look at you! Infantile "oh so are you nyah nyah" stuff. Grow up!

Childish nonsense from Lou.

> > > Ahh! So you do admit that empirical data from MMX shows that light does travel
> > > at constant speeds isotropically ?
> >
> > As I said and now you proved it: you can't parse a sentence correctly. Reread it
> > again. Are you stupid or are you a liar?
>
> Zero evidence. Just evasive subject changing. Not that I expected anything else.

Your past behavior colors your present behavior. You've been shown the evidence
time after time, but you prefer to believe fables. You, sir, are nothing but a troll.

> > > I thought you and your dishonest low IQ relativist friends had decided the earth
> > > doesn’t rotate on its axis?
> >
> > Apparently, you don't think at all. May we call you "Rock"?

Silence implies consent. Okay, Rock.

> > > In other words you can’t deny u=v+u’ agrees with what you called “ reality”
> >
> > Again you can't parse a sentence correctly, or you're dishonest, or both.

Silence implies consent. Right dishonest rock?

> > > 😂 Good one. Oh well. You can always go back to reciting passages from
> > > your hero Adolf Einsteins “Special Maybe it can maybe it
> > > can’t Theory of relativity” for spiritual guidance.
> >
> > “Your mind is a garden,
> > Your thoughts are the seeds.
> > You can grow flowers
> > Or you can grow weeds.”
> > -- Anonymous
>
> If I wrote that nonsense, I would remain anonymous too,
> It’s you chemically obsessed bio fascists who think that native
> flora are just weeds to stamp their Jack boots on.

Wow! Where did THAT bool poop come from?
Ah, right. A troll under a rock.

> No wonder we have global warming with you lot in charge.

Only an idiot would think physicists were in charge.

> > > I’m glad to see you admit that both source , detector and mirrors are in the same
> > > non inertial frame. It’s about time you admitted you have zero evidence from
> > > MMX that can prove that light doesn’t travel at constant speeds isotropically
> > > in non inertial frames.
> >
> > I never said it did. People incapable of parsing sentences correctly come up with
> > such stupid things. Or they're just stupid.
>
> You never said it did! Finally. A relativist admits they haven’t any evidence to
> prove that the null result isn’t consistent with light travelling at constant
> speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.

Troll-Under-the-Rock still can't parse sentences correctly.

> All you need to do now is admit that the sun doesnt rotate around the earth
> and we can cure you of your delusion that the lab, and the MMX experiment
> are not rotating around the earth in their imaginary inertial frame.

Non compos mentos nonsense.

> > > Oh! But you pretended that there are other experiments that prove c is invariant.
> > > Id like to hear what sort of BS you can pull out of your backside to prove this
> > > false claim. Although I do understand that faced with having to admit MMX
> > > does confirm light travels at constant speeds in non inertial frames..
> > > its a good tactic for you to change the subject to another experiment.
> > > (Even though it’s inevitable that this new experiment will also confirm
> > > emission theory. Like IvesStillwell or Sagnac for instance. But it will buy
> > > you a bit more time to figure out what the next change of subject for you
> > > could be)
> >
> > You must be French:
> >
> Not only do you suffer from a divine belief that you and
> your relativist friends are members of a master race, you have
> just shown us that you are definitely a bigot.
>
> > “The last time the French asked for ‘more proof’ it came marching
> > Into Paris under a German flag.” – David Letterman
>
> The last time a scientist asked a relativist for ‘any proof’, it never
> ever arrived at all.

You've seen more proof than even the French saw when the Nazi thugs
were flexing their muscle.

> And by the looks of it from your replies the only
> thing we can expect in Paris, or anywhere, from a relativist will be a
> dense fog of spiritualist miasma.

The Troll-Under-the-Rock says, "Arf, arf" ... "Oink, oink"

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Matthew 7:6

[Kevin Aylward]

"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
news:b0075633-162c-4734...@googlegroups.com...

Well..its not quite so simple.

Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks.
Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed to
tick invariantly by the POR.

Its an:

A1) All that is red is a plant
A2) Grass is red
C0) Thus grass is a plant

effect. False axioms can result in a true conclusion.

Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of
observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the
axioms of SR.

Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to their
circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the LT.

Indeed, one consistent alternative is the Lorenzt Ether Theory. However, it
is strongly noted that an ether of Lorenz's understanding isn't a
requirement or claimed, any Lorentz Invariant background field will do.
Lorentz clearly wasn't aware of modern massless quantum fields.

So, The POR states that the rate of clock ticks must be independent of
inertial frame. However, directly, measuring clocks ticks of inertial
frames shows they, apparently do change.

SR resolves this apparent conflict by claiming that this is an illusion,
such that clocks are actually experiencing more time (different path in
"space-time"). That is, time is covereved at a different rate, say 100s/s.

The alternative is simply that clocks do indeed tick slow when moving
through a background field, such that the same Lorentz invariance of a
velocity unobservable, but actually existing background field.

Why does this matter?

Well... it eliminates the nonsensical block universe consequence of SR

Lee Smolin:

"...And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously
for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of
special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made
time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there
waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a
logical and metaphysical dead end…”

That is, SR states that the future is deterministic, Quantum Mechanics says
it isn't.

It also eliminates magic. The SR worldview states that a true empty universe
has physical characteristics. This is also nonsensical. X, T and c are
clearly meaningless in such a universe. There are no clocks and rulers in
such a universe to verify such a metaphysical claim.

Its clear that this universe is no where empty, thus attributing an
invariant SOL to an emergent property of Quantum Fields eliminates this
magic.

..and where it is also noted from...

Professor (UK head of department) of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong (Adams
prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg


0:31 - "...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building
blocks of nature...?"

19:30 - "... so there is spread something throughout this room, something
we call the electron field..its like a fluid that fills ..the entire
universe..and the ripples of this electron fluid..the waves of this fluid
get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum
mechanics..and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle the
electron....and the same is true for every kind of particle in the
universe..."

Pretty much an ether in denial.... we are made of the stuff...it always
moves with us :-)


-- https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:10:20 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> >

> > Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be
> > c+v for any observer.
> >
> >The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest
> >wrt each other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant.
>
> Well..its not quite so simple.
>
> Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks.
> Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed to
> tick invariantly by the POR.

Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.

> Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of
> observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the
> axioms of SR.

Of course it doesn't. The LT is a description of reality, not a caise of it.

> Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to their
> circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the LT.

They are not circular, and they can be confirmed experimentally.

The ether you're talking about is the zero point field. What Tong is talking
about reminds me of string theory, which I prefer over his udea.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 9 October 2023 at 04:34:46 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.

Enchanting the reality won't save your Shit.
Anyone can check GPS, 2xno. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru.

[Kevin Aylward]

"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message

news:4da19488-6f30-4204...@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:10:20 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> >
> > Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot
> > be
> > c+v for any observer.
> >
> >The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest
> >wrt each other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is
> >invariant.
>
> Well..its not quite so simple.
>
>> Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks.
>> Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed
>> to
>> tick invariantly by the POR.

>Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.

Sure they are. Its fundamental to the axioms of SR. According to SR, clocks
tick at the same rate irrespective of inertial velocity, that is, clock
ticks are invariant with respect to inertial velocity.

Clock tick *rates*, never change, according to the POR, thus clock tick
rates are invariant. That's what "invariant" means.

>> Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of
>> observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the
>> axioms of SR.

>Of course it doesn't. The LT is a description of reality, not a caise of
>it.

That's not the point, the statement isn't a claim that the LT is a cause of
SR, it is a statement that the axioms of SR may be wrong yet the LT still
remains valid.

A cause of the LT might well be a background field.

>> Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to
>> their
>> circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the LT.

>They are not circular, and they can be confirmed experimentally.

Nope, the two axioms cannot be confirmed independently of each other.

The two postulates of SR are clearly circular. This is obvious.
Unfortunately, its also clear from the literature, that many have missed
this.

The POR states that the laws of physics are independent of inertial frame.
This means that clock tick rates must be independent of inertial frame.

The POR requires a definition of time to know that clocks satisfy it. Time
is defined by clock tick rates.

The SOL also requires a definition of time, that is it relies on clock tick
rates being *assumed* to be independent of inertial frame.

That is, all measurements to confirm the invariance of the SOL, must use
clocks. However, its impossible to independently measure the tick rates of
clocks, without referring back to the SOL. Thus the SOL and clock tick rates
are inherently interlocked. They can both change together, and still achieve
the same results.

Its well known that SOL, Length and Time are locked together by
*definition*. Because they are interdependent, one can arbitrarily co vary
any of them and not change the results.

Indeed its now well accepted that The Lorentz Ether Theory is an alternative
approach to the LT. Indeed, it was discovered prior to SR. It is entirely
consistent. There is no experimentally way, within a specific domain, to
distinguish them.

This is not a claim that the LET is correct, however, it *proves* that
axioms contradictory the the SR axioms still result in the same LT
description of observations.

The reason *WHY* this is possible, is precisely *BECAUSE* the axioms are
"DEPENDANT" on each other. LET and SR both work because their axioms,
whilst consistent, depend on each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory.

SR claims that there is this entity "space-time", that is "time" that exists
*independent* of clocks, such that clocks can travel through this "time" at
different rates, say 100 secs/sec, thus accounting for clock reading
different on "different paths in space-time".

However, its quite impossible to determine that this "time" can be travelled
through at different rates, without having a method, other than clocks, to
determine just what this magical thing "time" is.

Its the elephant in the room that most ignore in complete ignorance of the
problem. In SR "time" and "clocks" cannot be the same, yet its impossible to
define one without the other, thus time and clocks form a circular
definition.

Unless time can be defined independently of clocks, its impossible to know
that the apparent measured slow clock tick rates of inertial clocks are not
because the clocks are indeed physically slowing down in a background,
rather than travelling through time "space-time" at a faster rate as
demanded by SR.

Clocks read different on inertial trips. To explain this *requires*
independent definitions of time and clocks.

Unfortunately, many just haven't cottoned on to the slight of hand of time
being defined by clocks and clocks defining time....

However, feel free to describe an experiment that *simultaneously* shows the
invariance of the SOL AND the invariance of clocks ticks with inertial
frames.

The reality is, if there is invariance for both, SR results, if not, among
others, LET results.

The problem with the SR *model*, is that it assigns physical characteristics
to truly empty space. This is magic, as noted here:

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html

Indeed, the major issues with Relativity's concept of time is noted here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

...as noted in the Lee Smolin quote

"...And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously
for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of
special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made
time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there
waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a

logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

Today, its trivially obvious, that Einstein's two axioms formed a stop gap,
blind "as if" behavioural model. Time and space cannot be the result of a
physically empty geometric construct, that is the magic of the emperors new
clothes

Space:

Space is the concept that is used to account for the fact that real
physical, measurable objects do not all merge into one object. It expresses
the fact that there are discrete, separate objects that can be identified
from other objects. Without individual physical objects, space does not
exist. That is, “space” is how separation of physical objects is accounted
for.

Time:

Time is the concept that is used to account for the fact that real physical,
separate measurable objects change their state such as position and
momentum. If no individual mass-energy objects changes their state,
including the quantum vacuum, time does not exist. That is, “time” is how
change of a physical object’s state is accounted for.

Time and Space cannot exist in a physically empty universe, thus the claim
that the SOL in vacuum, exists is nonsensical. Of course, there is no where
in the universe that is empty.

The properties of space and time must be an emergent phenomena of real
physical objects, such as quantum fields. I have no idea of the details, but
I don't hold to magic.

Kevin Aylward

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:39:18 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> news:4da19488-6f30-4204...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:10:20 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >
> > "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> > >
> > > Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot
> > > be c+v for any observer.
> > >
> > > The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest
> > > wrt each other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is
> > > invariant.
> >
> > Well..its not quite so simple.
> >
> > Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks.
> > Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed
> > to tick invariantly by the POR.
>
> > Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.
>
> Sure they are. Its fundamental to the axioms of SR. According to SR, clocks
> tick at the same rate irrespective of inertial velocity, that is, clock
> ticks are invariant with respect to inertial velocity.

You're conflating "invariance" with "proper."

> Clock tick *rates*, never change, according to the POR, thus clock tick
> rates are invariant. That's what "invariant" means.

Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.

> > > Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of
> > > observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the
> > > axioms of SR.
>
> > Of course it doesn't. The LT is a description of reality, not a caise of
> > it.
>
> That's not the point, the statement isn't a claim that the LT is a cause of
> SR, it is a statement that the axioms of SR may be wrong yet the LT still
> remains valid.
>
> A cause of the LT might well be a background field.

That is irrelevant. As Mermin said, "Shut up and calculate."

> > > Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to
> > > their
> > > circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the LT.
> >
> >They are not circular, and they can be confirmed experimentally.
>
> Nope, the two axioms cannot be confirmed independently of each other.
>
> The two postulates of SR are clearly circular. This is obvious.
> Unfortunately, its also clear from the literature, that many have missed
> this.
>
> The POR states that the laws of physics are independent of inertial frame.
> This means that clock tick rates must be independent of inertial frame.

And that's where you go flying off into wrongland.

> The POR requires a definition of time to know that clocks satisfy it. Time
> is defined by clock tick rates.
>
> The SOL also requires a definition of time, that is it relies on clock tick
> rates being *assumed* to be independent of inertial frame.

YOU are the only one assuming that :-))

> That is, all measurements to confirm the invariance of the SOL, must use
> clocks. However, its impossible to independently measure the tick rates of
> clocks, without referring back to the SOL. Thus the SOL and clock tick rates
> are inherently interlocked. They can both change together, and still achieve
> the same results.

This violates the historical record. You must be a historian.

"God is omnipotent, but even He cannot change the past. That is why He
created historians." -- Anonymous

> [Remainder of message deleted because of a basic misunderstanding
of time in SR]

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 03:28:02 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.

Not in the world we inhabit, only in your
gedanken delusions.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:37:20 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:

>
> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 03:28:02 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> > Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
>
> Not in the world we inhabit,

What do you mean "we", denial-breath?

> only in your gedanken delusions.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/02/jila-atomic-clocks-measure-einsteins-general-relativity-millimeter-scale

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04349-7

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:11:23 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:37:20 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
> >
> > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 03:28:02 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
> >
> > Not in the world we inhabit,
> What do you mean "we", denial-breath?

Me, you, Pat Dolan, Tom Roberts. The
real world. The one with the real GPS
clocks. I know, the're not real for you,
denial-breath. Well, I don't care.

> > only in your gedanken delusions.
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
>
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/02/jila-atomic-clocks-measure-einsteins-general-relativity-millimeter-scale
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04349-7

And in the meantime in the real world, forbiden
by your insane bunch, "improper" GPS and TAI
clocks keep measuring real time.

[Lou]

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 13:11:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:37:20 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
> >
> > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 03:28:02 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
> >
> > Not in the world we inhabit,
> What do you mean "we", denial-breath?

As usual a relativist fantasist in denial of the facts.
Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
No need for delusional BS from relativists.

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

> Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
> of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
> have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
> weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
> As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.

Dumbotron,

Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.

[Lou]

Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂

[Dono.]

They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.

[Lou]

Prove it.
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
resonate at different frequencies will be..that the caesium atoms don’t
tick at different speeds at different altitudes.

[Dono.]

This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.

[Lou]

You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
Where’s your evidence they don’t ?

[Dono.]

Basic QM. Something that you are clearly ignorant of based on the imbecilities you have been posting, LuLu.

[Lou]

Basic QM? Since when is a theoretical assumption by QM ...an observation?

[Dono.]

Dumbotron

The functionality of atomic clocks confirms QM. It is refreshing to see that you are as crank about QM as you are about relativity. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/10/23 8:28 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.

[I presume that by "invariant" you intend the usual
meaning in physics: invariant under change of
coordinates.]

Your claim here is far too imprecise to be either true or false; it
depends on what you mean by "time":

If you mean the value displayed by a specific clock at a specific event
(point) in spacetime, that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates
(because it is completely independent of coordinates).

If you mean the time coordinate of a given coordinate system, that _IS_
invariant under change of coordinates (a coordinate system is a
diffeomorphism from a region of the manifold to a region of R^4 --
using other coordinates does not affect the mapping of the given
coordinate system).

If you mean the elapsed proper time along the path of a specific clock,
that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates (because it is
completely independent of coordinates).

If you mean how coordinate systems each map their time coordinate to the
time displayed on a given clock, that is not invariant under change of
coordinates. This is where "time dilation" occurs (and is the only place
it occurs).

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 21:17:42 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/10/23 8:28 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
> [I presume that by "invariant" you intend the usual
> meaning in physics: invariant under change of
> coordinates.]
>
> Your claim here is far too imprecise to be either true or false; it
> depends on what you mean by "time":
>
> If you mean the value displayed by a specific clock at a specific event
> (point) in spacetime, that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates
> (because it is completely independent of coordinates).
>
> If you mean the time coordinate of a given coordinate system, that _IS_
> invariant under change of coordinates (a coordinate system is a
> diffeomorphism from a region of the manifold to a region of R^4 --
> using other coordinates does not affect the mapping of the given
> coordinate system).
>
> If you mean the elapsed proper time along the path of a specific clock,

Nobady cares about your delusional elapsed proper time.
Even you're not THAT stupid, and your clock/s are
indicating one of zone times.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:17:42 PM UTC-6, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> On 10/10/23 8:28 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
>
> [I presume that by "invariant" you intend the usual
> meaning in physics: invariant under change of
> coordinates.]
>
> Your claim here is far too imprecise to be either true or false; it
> depends on what you mean by "time":
>
> If you mean the value displayed by a specific clock at a specific event
> (point) in spacetime, that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates
> (because it is completely independent of coordinates).

In this scenario, an observer in S' reads a clock in S as he passes, yes?
Of course, he reads what and observer in S reads.

> If you mean the time coordinate of a given coordinate system, that _IS_
> invariant under change of coordinates (a coordinate system is a
> diffeomorphism from a region of the manifold to a region of R^4 --
> using other coordinates does not affect the mapping of the given
> coordinate system).

That seems very similar to the one above. They are basically not
very interesting results. Sort of like tautologies.

> If you mean the elapsed proper time along the path of a specific clock,
> that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates (because it is
> completely independent of coordinates).

So one of two observers in S' read the clock in S at t1 and t2, so of course
he gets the proper time, t2 - t1; however, they must be read at times t1' and
t2' which are different from t1 and t2 and different from t2' - t1', introducing
your next option:

> If you mean how coordinate systems each map their time coordinate to the
> time displayed on a given clock, that is not invariant under change of
> coordinates. This is where "time dilation" occurs (and is the only place
> it occurs).
>
> Tom Roberts

Yes, of course, this is the interesting one. Aylward referred to this, which you
have dubbed a possible definition of invariant:

> Clock tick *rates*, never change, according to the POR, thus clock tick
> rates are invariant. That's what "invariant" means.

But he conflates the definition of the passage proper time in S with the
passage of time in S', perspective from the moving system and vice versa:

> > Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks.
> > Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed
> > to tick invariantly by the POR.

He appears to be badly confused and I doubt if your input was particularly
helpful to him. Heck, it took me a while to figure out how to respond,
correctly, I hope :-)

BTW, have you been following the "discussion" about Weber equation on a
different thread?

Gary

[Volney]

Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on
mass/gravitational force?

[Maciej Wozniak]

And where is YOUR evidence that setting to 9 192 631 774 is
setting to 9 192 631 770, stupid Mike?

[Lou]

I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the
caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte. It’s all
theoretical conjecture for any theory. But my “evidence” is reference on:
Force, gravity, gravitational potential etc for theory
And reference on Nuclear magnetic resonance, descriptions
of how caesium clocks operate, spectral lines of elements, PMT’s,
etc . And of course information on harmonic oscillators and everyday
observations of resonating systems in nature or technology including spring
based harmonic oscillators, vibrating structures and engines etc.
I doubt you could ever supply any observational evidence of your wristwatch
speeding up as you take the elevator up to your penthouse.

[Volney]

On 10/12/2023 5:24 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.

>>>>>>> Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂

>>>>>> They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.

>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>> Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
>>>>> resonate at different frequencies will be..

>>>> This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
>>>
>>> You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
>>> Where’s your evidence they don’t ?

>> Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on
>> mass/gravitational force?
>
> I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the
> caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.

So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.
Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r
squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).

NEXT!

[Lou]

On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 03:08:53 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/12/2023 5:24 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>> Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
>
> >>>>>>> Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
>
> >>>>>> They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
>
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>> Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
> >>>>> resonate at different frequencies will be..
>
> >>>> This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
> >>>
> >>> You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
> >>> Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
>
> >> Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on
> >> mass/gravitational force?
> >
> > I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the
> > caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.
> So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.

No Volney. I’m trying to get you to realise that you have no evidence
to prove that external force cannot change natural frequencies of
atomic resonance. As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.
Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim
You have none to disprove it.

> Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r
> squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
>

Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
as gravitational potential.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

Even Albert recognised the connection between
resonant frequency and g potential. His mistake was to
think it was due to his delusional theories of relativity.

[Dono.]

On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:00:11 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> The Force on the atoms which slows
> down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
> as gravitational potential.

Force and potential are two different things, pathetic imbecile

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How deep can you get into a gravity time well?
Light does not slow down as c so it does not obey
escape speed leaving gravity. It is c constant.
The atom responds to escape velocity instead.
Voyagers are slowing down because of that.
Light isn't...

[Volney]

You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.

> As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
> resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
> force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.

No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the
same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is
only the effects of gravitational potential differences from one point
to another which causes a frequency difference (via redshift or blueshift).

> Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim

You have no evidence whatsoever.

> You have none to disprove it.

You cannot disprove a negative.

>> Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r
>> squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
>>
>
> Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
> down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
> as gravitational potential.

No, it is not! Gravitational potential is not a force! Gravitational
acceleration (times the mass) is the force. Gravitational potential and
gravitational acceleration vary with distance differently. GR effects
vary with potential (1/r relationship). Gravitational acceleration is
what causes force/weight which would cause affects on a mass-based
resonance.

> Even Albert recognised the connection between
> resonant frequency and g potential.

No, he knew GR varied with potential differences, not force, so there is
no direct connection.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 06:55:30 UTC+2, Volney wrote:


> No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the
> same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is

"Second during a second" is a tautology, not a law of nature.
And, anyway, GPS people are sane, so they fucked the laws
of nature [announced in its name by your idiot guru] and
made a second of 9 192 631 774 on a satellite and
9 192 631 770 on Earth.

[Mathew Bajaev]

and why? Is Zelensky's loyalty to Davos, City of London, Pentagon & Wall
Street, waning? What kind of 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱_𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 are you??

I met a refugee family from Ukraine in my country…they absolutely hated
Zelensky…said he is a corrupt criminal

POOF lol! And just like that, 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗶𝘀_𝗼𝘂𝘁_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀 cycle.
Congressman Jim Jordan of the US Congress is likely to win the vote for
the Speaker of the House, and as such 𝗻𝗼_𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 will be
approved for Ukraine! It's over for Ukraine. Zelensky had the opportunity
to settle a peace deal before it ever started, instead he took 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗦 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲
𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘁. The US government will use Israel issue
to renig on their promise to Ukraine.

but fuck, the 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗲𝘀 are about to lose Palestine too. What a fucking
turn around for capitalist america. They lose 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹 too, lol.

𝗘𝘅-𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗮𝗶𝗱𝗲_𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗻𝗲𝘄_𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
https://r%74.com/ru%73%73ia/584921-ukraine-dead-end-arestovich/

[Lou]

I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
(What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)

> > As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
> > resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
> > force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.
> No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the
> same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is
> only the effects of gravitational potential differences from one point
> to another which causes a frequency difference (via redshift or blueshift).

The first postulate. Hmm ..what part of the bible was that from again?

> > Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim
> You have no evidence whatsoever.

Oh I forgot...relativists don’t do evidence.
I suppose I better not mention my evidence from Hafael Keating or GPS.
It might destabilise an already destabilised relativist.

> > You have none to disprove it.
> You cannot disprove a negative.

Blarney

> >> Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r
> >> squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
> >>
> >
> > Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
> > down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
> > as gravitational potential.
> No, it is not! Gravitational potential is not a force! Gravitational
> acceleration (times the mass) is the force. Gravitational potential and
> gravitational acceleration vary with distance differently. GR effects
> vary with potential (1/r relationship). Gravitational acceleration is
> what causes force/weight which would cause affects on a mass-based
> resonance.

I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
frequencies to change at different altitudes.
Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
and compare disc sizes of both images.
The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
That distance relationship is not r^2.


Grow up, stop fantasising about magic goblins and relativistic
warp drives and start leaning basic maths and geometry for a change .

> > Even Albert recognised the connection between
> > resonant frequency and g potential.
> No, he knew GR varied with potential differences, not force, so there is
> no direct connection.

Didn’t stop him from using ‘r’ and not r^2 when he was trying to con his
followers into thinking changes in natural resonant frequencies due to
external force was actually magic goblins farting in different time dimensions.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >
> > You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
> > the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
> > your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
>
> I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
> prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
> When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)

But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
in Pound Rebka.

> Fact is: Gravity is a force.

:-))

> Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force

Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.

> Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
> at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
> that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
> the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
> to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
> Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
> Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
> Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
> and compare disc sizes of both images.
> The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
> That distance relationship is not r^2.

Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.

> Grow up, stop fantasising about magic goblins and relativistic
> warp drives and start leaning basic maths and geometry for a change .

Pot, kettle, black :-))

[Volney]

No, they don't. You only wish that they do.

> When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)

The Cs atoms in an atomic clock are in freefall.

>
>>> As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
>>> resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
>>> force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.

>> No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the
>> same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is
>> only the effects of gravitational potential differences from one point
>> to another which causes a frequency difference (via redshift or blueshift).
>
> The first postulate. Hmm ..what part of the bible was that from again?

Go show the first postulate as being false and collect your Nobel Prize.
It's like conservation of momentum, conservation of charge and so forth.
If they were shown to be false so much physics just falls apart. The
first postulate simply states the laws of physics are the same
everywhere (and everywhen). Meaning, in this case, 1 second to a local
observer is 9192631770 Cs atomic transitions, whether the atomic clock
is on earth or in orbit.

>
>>> Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim

>> You have no evidence whatsoever.
>
> Oh I forgot...relativists don’t do evidence.

No, you don't do evidence. You haven't shown *any* evidence in this thread.

> I suppose I better not mention my evidence from Hafael Keating or GPS.

You don't have any evidence from them. They are evidence supporting
SR/GR instead.

> It might destabilise an already destabilised relativist.
>
>>> You have none to disprove it.

>> You cannot disprove a negative.

> Blarney

Yet it's true. Provide a proof that unicorns don't exist. A real proof,
not just "nobody has ever seen one".

>>>> Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r
>>>> squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
>>> down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
>>> as gravitational potential.

>> No, it is not! Gravitational potential is not a force! Gravitational
>> acceleration (times the mass) is the force. Gravitational potential and
>> gravitational acceleration vary with distance differently. GR effects
>> vary with potential (1/r relationship). Gravitational acceleration is
>> what causes force/weight which would cause affects on a mass-based
>> resonance.
>
> I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
> Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
> atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
> frequencies to change at different altitudes.

GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.

GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.

> Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
> at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
> that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
> the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
> to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.

Yet the force is known since Newton to go as inverse r squared.

> Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
> Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
> Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
> and compare disc sizes of both images.
> The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.

But 1/4 the area, which is what counts.

> That distance relationship is not r^2.

The exposed area is.

>
>
> Grow up, stop fantasising about magic goblins and relativistic
> warp drives and start leaning basic maths and geometry for a change .

The math and geometry of special relativity is beautiful, fascinating.

>
>>> Even Albert recognised the connection between
>>> resonant frequency and g potential.

>> No, he knew GR varied with potential differences, not force, so there is
>> no direct connection.
>
> Didn’t stop him from using ‘r’ and not r^2 when he was trying to con his
> followers into thinking changes in natural resonant frequencies due to
> external force was actually magic goblins farting in different time dimensions.

Word salad. Albert never connected resonant frequencies to inverse r.

[Lou]

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > >
> > > You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
> > > the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
> > > your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
> >
> > I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
> > prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
> > When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> > (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
> But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
> fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
> in Pound Rebka.

In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
Nothing to do with relativity.

> > Fact is: Gravity is a force.
> :-))

Said Gary as he floated off into space.
If it isn’t a force Gary,...then what is pushing you/pulling you
towards the earths surface?
Oh I know..Albert Einstein’s relativistic glue.

> > Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> > And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
> Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.

If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
to do with gravitational potential?

Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc

> > Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
> > at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
> > that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
> > the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
> > to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
> > Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
> > Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
> > Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
> > and compare disc sizes of both images.
> > The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
> > That distance relationship is not r^2.
> Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.

You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
between force and distance from Center.
It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
the change in rate of velocity.

[Horace Moldovanov]

Lou wrote:

> On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in
>> free fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma
>> rays in Pound Rebka.
>
> In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the
> detector at a different altitude that create the illusion of
> relativistic dilation.

amazing the harnagel talks about the atoms, force and freefall in same
sentence. You guys don't undrestand anything in physics. You don't know
what it is. What a fucking education system in america. For instance this
title

𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘_𝗨𝗣𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦:_𝗥𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀_𝗡𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹,_𝗛𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿_𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗛𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀
https://sputnikglobe.com/20231015/live-updates-red-cross-negotiating-with-
israel-hamas-to-deliver-medicine-to-hostages-1114206311.html

a red cross 𝗶𝘀_𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 with an israel??

[Lou]

But they do. Didn’t you claim that the observed change in ticking rates
at different altitudes is defined by GM/r?
That change is due to the different force exerted on atoms at different
altitudes. As defined by GM/r.
You can’t win the argument. Because relativity only assumes that observed
effects are relativistic. All theory, including relativity or classical, is assumption only.
As long as assumptions matches predictions.
Also in classical theory resonance had already been observed as a precedence.
In that changing a resonant systems weight or mass will alter
it’s natural resonant frequency. Heavier= slower . As observed in Caesium atoms.
At least Classical theory has precedence. SR and GR don’t.

> > When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> > (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
> The Cs atoms in an atomic clock are in freefall.

Whatever. They are not changing altitude.

> >
> >>> As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
> >>> resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
> >>> force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.
>
> >> No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the
> >> same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is
> >> only the effects of gravitational potential differences from one point
> >> to another which causes a frequency difference (via redshift or blueshift).
> >
> > The first postulate. Hmm ..what part of the bible was that from again?
> Go show the first postulate as being false and collect your Nobel Prize.

I was trying to point out that the first postulate is only one of many
interpretations of reality. It is not the only “truth”
To pretend it is would be religious dogma.

> It's like conservation of momentum, conservation of charge and so forth.
> If they were shown to be false so much physics just falls apart. The
> first postulate simply states the laws of physics are the same
> everywhere (and everywhen). Meaning, in this case, 1 second to a local
> observer is 9192631770 Cs atomic transitions, whether the atomic clock
> is on earth or in orbit.

You obviously haven’t thought much about how resonance works.
Under a resonant model...If at earths surface my atomic clock clicks
out the seconds. I will see it tick out seconds. If I move up to 6000k
above earths surface resonance will slow my clock ticking down slightly
BUT, I will always only see it tick out seconds and not notice any difference.
Regardless of altitude. Only if I compare my clock to another at
a different altitude will I see any difference.And it will always be
the other clock which is running at a different rate. Not mine.

> >
> >>> Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim
>
> >> You have no evidence whatsoever.
> >
> > Oh I forgot...relativists don’t do evidence.
> No, you don't do evidence. You haven't shown *any* evidence in this thread.
> > I suppose I better not mention my evidence from Hafael Keating or GPS.
> You don't have any evidence from them. They are evidence supporting
> SR/GR instead.

That is your problem. You think an observation can only confirm
your preferred theories assumption.
Thats not how physics works.
You get observations and data. And then see which theories predictions
match the observations. And in many cases data matches multiple
theories. As with MMX or H-K.

> > It might destabilise an already destabilised relativist.
> >
> >>> You have none to disprove it.
>
> >> You cannot disprove a negative.
>
> > Blarney
> Yet it's true. Provide a proof that unicorns don't exist. A real proof,
> not just "nobody has ever seen one".
> >>>> Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r
> >>>> squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
> >>> down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
> >>> as gravitational potential.
>
> >> No, it is not! Gravitational potential is not a force! Gravitational
> >> acceleration (times the mass) is the force. Gravitational potential and
> >> gravitational acceleration vary with distance differently. GR effects
> >> vary with potential (1/r relationship). Gravitational acceleration is
> >> what causes force/weight which would cause affects on a mass-based
> >> resonance.
> >
> > I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
> > Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> > And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
> > atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
> > frequencies to change at different altitudes.
> GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
>
> GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.

Wrong. GMm/r and GMm/r^2 are only mathematical formulas.
Neither are a force. They are squiggles on paper.
Force is what we experience when we are pulled to the floor by an invisible unknown
mechanism. No one knows what “force” really is. We can only measure it

> > Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
> > at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
> > that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
> > the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
> > to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
> Yet the force is known since Newton to go as inverse r squared.

No that’s acceleration. Force causes acceleration. Acceleration is
not a force.It is a mathematical calculation.
Acceleration is a measurement of the rate of change of velocity.

> > Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
> > Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
> > Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
> > and compare disc sizes of both images.
> > The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
> But 1/4 the area, which is what counts.
> > That distance relationship is not r^2.
> The exposed area is.

Volume is r^3 . Area r^2. Circumference and diameter r.
I’ll use r. It works. And if pressed I can say this force is
directional. It points in one vector. And the volume and
gravitational mass is greatest in a line going through the Center
of the earth to the observer. And Force points in this direction
And this is best modelled by r.
Anyways you ignore the facts that:
A) Relativity arbitrarily uses r not r^2 or r^3. Why is Albert allowed
to use r but not a classical model?
B) Gravitational potential uses r. And describes this as the amount of
work needed to raise an object to a certain altitude.
What is the force that requires this amount of work to be neccesary?
The only force that could do this is the force of gravity pressing back.
So therefore all things being equal, if it takes x amount of workforce to
raise an object against G.
Then G must be pushing back at this same amount x of force.
Otherwise you will have a deficit on one side of the equation.

[Rhett Dobrosotsky]

Volney wrote:

> Yet it's true. Provide a proof that unicorns don't exist. A real proof,
> not just "nobody has ever seen one".

a rhinoceros.

‘𝗬𝗼𝘂_𝗼𝘄𝗲_𝘂𝘀’_–_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻_𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝘁𝗼_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆
Dmitry Kuleba said he’s been trying to instill sense of guilt among
officials in Berlin in citing events of WWI and WWII
https://r%74.com/russia/584957-ukrainian-fm-kuleba-germany-guilt-complex/

Seems like Nazi Ukrainians learnt from their mistakes and the mistakes of
Nazi Germany. So 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮, now they are
marching 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁. To the Nazi Ukrainians, 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗮𝘁 𝗕𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗻, go
all the way to the 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗻. From the Dnipro to Thames, hail Nazi Ukraine.
Just make a 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲

The most interesting guilt aspect 𝗶𝘀_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱_𝗼𝗻_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀. Around
25 million from WW2 and yet Germans insist on helping the NATO nazi
Ukrainians 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀. Could Russians be offended?

Europe owes Ukrainian nothing. After this s𝗵𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗪𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗼𝗻
𝗽𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗲𝘁𝘀.
You dragged into a war. We owe you nothing. Ancient mad people who run
Ukraine. They sending Ukrainian 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝘆 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲. Signed. Philip
X.
Like the Netherlands, I also have 1000 questions.

This 𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 must end. Signed. European.

True. Germany owes Kuleba a lamp post dodging punishment. Since the
beginning of the SVO, Ukraine has received 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁_$33_𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 from the G7
countries. They have become key 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲
𝗯𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲𝘀. This was announced by the Minister
of Finance of Ukraine Sergei Marchenko

"OK Ukraine. Here's a pretzel and some lederhosen. Now we're even. You're
on your own"

[Lou]

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

Not to mention ...escape velocity. The force needed to counter
the force of gravity is modelled by r. Not r^2


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 2:18:24 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
> > > prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
> > > When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> > > (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
> >
> > But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
> > fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
> > in Pound Rebka.
>
> In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
> at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
>
> If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
> the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase
> and decrease the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
> Nothing to do with relativity.

Sly Louie ignores the fact that Cs atoms aren't subjected to the force of
gravity, only to its potential.

> > > Fact is: Gravity is a force.
> >
> > :-))
>
> Said Gary as he floated off into space.
> If it isn’t a force Gary,...then what is pushing you/pulling you
> towards the earths surface?

F = Del GM/r, that's a derivative for those challenged mathematically.

> Oh I know..Albert Einstein’s relativistic glue.

It's simple Newtonian calculus, Louie.

> > > Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
> > > And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
> >
> > Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.
>
> If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
> work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
> What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
> to do with gravitational potential?

Louie, Louie, Louie! You're the only one pretending it has nothing to do
with GM/r. F = Del GM/r, so GM/r DOES have "something" to do with
force. It's just that the force varies as 1/r^2, not 1/r.

> Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
> frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
> GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc

Repeating falsehoods don't make them true. There is no force on the Cs
atoms in atomic clocks, either on earth or in space. You slyly choose not
to admit that inconvenient fact.

> > > Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
> > > at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
> > > that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
> > > the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
> > > to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
> > > Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
> > > Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
> > > Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
> > > and compare disc sizes of both images.
> > > The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
> > > That distance relationship is not r^2.
>
> > Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
>
> You can’t change the rules governing the universe.

Pot, kettle, black :-))

> Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
> It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r

> And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
> between force and distance from Center.

Nope. Hafele-Keating confirms that it's not force, but potential.

> It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.

No one's making that mistake, Louie. Physicists know that a = F/m.

> Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
> measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
> the change in rate of velocity.

Or does acceleration create force? Deceleration is just negative
acceleration. When a moving object is suddenly stopped by running
into a stationary object, the stationary object is subjected to a force.
So force is a way to measure acceleration.

[Webster Dzhumabaev]

Lou wrote:

> On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
>> GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.
>
> Not to mention ...escape velocity. The force needed to counter the force
> of gravity is modelled by r. Not r^2

a r^2 is still an r in r^2, fucking stupid. Not to mention that 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗺𝘀, but 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗯𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘀. Moreover, the wannabe country, capitalist america, 𝘂𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗱 by double citizenship 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗲𝘀, is about to lose all wars. Double citizenship ruling another country 𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻. You are a citizen 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆, my friend.

these impertinent and indolent monkeys are demanding 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 to 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 on be giving 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 and stuff 𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 to the fucking nazi ukraine.

𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝗮𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_–_𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿
https://r%74.com/business/584960-western-partners-losing-focus-ukraine-aid/

Ukraine looking for someone who can throw them a bone

Why the western tax payers have to pay for a war that has nothing to do with them, instead of forcing Kiev regime to negociate? Ukraine 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢, 𝗻𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗨. It seems that the hatred of Russia is too expensive, 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗘𝗨 𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗿𝘀.

Ukraines only hope of salvation now is for the people 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹, surrender to Russia 𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗯𝗲𝗴 to recome part of the Russian Federation.

I wonder how much of 𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 this Marchenko khazar goy nazist 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁. In any case, those big money goes first and foremost through 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿_𝗱𝗶𝗿𝘁𝘆_𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 08:05:57 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> first postulate simply states the laws of physics are the same
> everywhere (and everywhen). Meaning, in this case, 1 second to a local
> observer is 9192631770 Cs atomic transitions, whether the atomic clock
> is on earth or in orbit.

No, stupid Mike, anyone can checj, it's 9192631774 on the
orbit. Even that idiot Roberts is admitting that GPS second
is different from the one from your insane church.

[Lou]

On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 14:20:04 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 2:18:24 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
> > > > prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
> > > > When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
> > > > (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
> > >
> > > But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
> > > fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
> > > in Pound Rebka.
> >
> > In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
> > at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
> >
> > If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
> > the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase
> > and decrease the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
> > Nothing to do with relativity.
> Sly Louie ignores the fact that Cs atoms aren't subjected to the force of
> gravity, only to its potential.

If gravitational potential (GM/r) has nothing to do with gravity,
then why do we need work done (force) to lift mass up to a higher
altitude?

That’s an odd assumption to say atoms feel no force.
You forgot...gravity. That’s a force. Calling it potential
or work is just another fancy word for force.
It’s like plumbers calling themselves hydraulic engineers.
They’re all plumbers to me.

> > It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
> No one's making that mistake, Louie. Physicists know that a = F/m.
> > Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
> > measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
> > the change in rate of velocity.
> Or does acceleration create force? Deceleration is just negative
> acceleration. When a moving object is suddenly stopped by running
> into a stationary object, the stationary object is subjected to a force.
> So force is a way to measure acceleration.

Chicken and egg maybe. But I think Force came first.
This discussion can go on in a circle forever. You and Volney will
say potential isn’t force. I will then say it is force. Seeing as it’s
only ever needed to counter force. And the only thing that can counter force...
is more force.

[Volney]

On 10/15/2023 4:18 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>>>
>>> On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
>>>> the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
>>>> your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
>>>
>>> I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
>>> prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
>>> When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
>>> (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
>> But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
>> fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
>> in Pound Rebka.
>
> In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
> at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.

Assertion is not proof. GR explains Pound-Rebka perfectly.

> If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
> the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
> the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
> Nothing to do with relativity.

Babble.

>>> Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
>>> And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
>> Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.
>
> If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
> work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
> What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
> to do with gravitational potential?

You don't know the difference between gravitational potential and force
if you write that.

>
> Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
> frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
> GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc

Nope. Assuming the conclusion at best.

>
>>> Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
>>> at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
>>> that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
>>> the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
>>> to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
>>> Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
>>> Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
>>> Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
>>> and compare disc sizes of both images.
>>> The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
>>> That distance relationship is not r^2.

>> Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
>
> You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
> Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
> It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r

That's the potential. Force goes as GM/r².

> And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
> between force and distance from Center.

Assuming the conclusion.

> It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
> Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
> measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
> the change in rate of velocity.

Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR
varying as potential, not acceleration/force.

[Volney]

On 10/15/2023 8:19 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 6:30 PM, Lou wrote:

>>> I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
>>> Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
>>> And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
>>> atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
>>> frequencies to change at different altitudes.

>> GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
>>
>> GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.
>
> Not to mention ...escape velocity. The force needed to counter
> the force of gravity is modelled by r. Not r^2
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
>

Escape velocity is a velocity (duh-h-h!), not a force! It is determined
by the amount of potential (GM/r) it has to work against for an object
to escape.

[Maciej Wozniak]

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

[Jonathanrob Vertinsky]

Volney wrote:

>> It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
>> Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
>> measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
>> the change in rate of velocity.
>
> Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR
> varying as potential, not acceleration/force.

well, that's not a potential. A potential may fall when used. The
curvature gradient doesn't. Meanwhile "𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗼
𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀”

𝗔𝗹𝗹_𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗯𝗹𝗲_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝘁𝗼_𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀
The call comes as Moscow claims that Kiev's much-hyped counteroffensive
has run out of steam
https://r%74.com/russia/584971-ukraine-conscripts-paper-check/

Those meant for slaughter 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿. That's exactly what
capitalism does with people which are fools.

He's sending his citizens to known death, and he doesn't care. Once this
is over he'll 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿 mansion in Florida.

That would include "the last Ukrainian". Who will the U.S./NATO sacrifice
next? Well 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 I think

I'm an American and if my country ever needed me for a war I'd learn
Spanish

as a Canadian I would go to jail before I would fight in a war for Canada
𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆…Turdeau and his liberal government has wrecked
canada…𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:14:09 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
>
> On 10/15/2023 4:18 AM, Lou wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
> > > fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
> > > in Pound Rebka.
> >
> > In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
> > at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
>
> Assertion is not proof. GR explains Pound-Rebka perfectly.

And the frequency shift is directly proportional to height, ergo, 1/r, not 1/r^2.

> > If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
> > the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
> > the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
> > Nothing to do with relativity.
>
> Babble.
>

> > If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
> > work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
> > What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
> > to do with gravitational potential?
>
> You don't know the difference between gravitational potential and force
> if you write that.

Louie tries to rewrite Newton (who knew perfectly well the difference
between F = GMm/r^2 and GM/r). Louie is more than three centuries out
of date.

> > Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
> > frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
> > GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
>
> Nope. Assuming the conclusion at best.

Louie doesn't know the difference between force and potential, so know he's
using weasel-words like "strength."

> > > > ....

> > >
> > > Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
> >
> > You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
> > Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
> > It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
>
> That's the potential. Force goes as GM/r².

Now he's trying to pretend that GM/r is force :-))

> > And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
> > between force and distance from Center.
>
> Assuming the conclusion.
>
> > It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
> > Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
> > measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
> > the change in rate of velocity.
>
> Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR
> varying as potential, not acceleration/force.

It's hard to argue physics with someone who flunked high school physics
and doesn't want to learn.

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How do you measure the difference between an absolute motion and a relative?
The atom has motion that can compete with light's absolute. At a motion BH
the atom can leave light behind. How can the relative compete with the absolute?

[Volney]

On 10/15/2023 4:06 PM, Jonathanrob Vertinsky wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>
>>> It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
>>> Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
>>> measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
>>> the change in rate of velocity.
>>
>> Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR
>> varying as potential, not acceleration/force.
>
> well, that's not a potential. A potential may fall when used. The
> curvature gradient doesn't. Meanwhile "𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗼
> 𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀”

Yes, nymshifter, the Ukrainians sure have been busy slaughtering the
nazified 卐ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐 invaders at the slaughterhouse called Avdiivka!
6000 卐ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐 soldiers slaughtered in a week! And hundreds of APCs,
tanks, artillery. What about you, nymshifter? Isn't it about time you
grab a rusty rifle and go to die for Putler's palaces?