On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:57:45 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/15/2023 4:02 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 11:50:15 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:01:00 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>> Can an oscillating one ton mass suspended from a helicopter (so there
> >>>>>>> is no coupling with the Earth)...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, you believe a hovering helicopter exerts no force on the earth....
> >>>>>> There are actually jokes based on that childish misconception (truckload
> >>>>>> full of birds, etc.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The helicopter disconnects the oscillator with the ground.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, any ocillations in the mass would result in oscillations in the force exerted by the hovering helicopter on the ground. Again, the idea that with a hovering helicopter "there is no coupling with the Earth" is the kind of childish misconception that jokes are made of.
> >>>
> >>> Any prop wash force against the earth would be at a vastly different frequency
> >>> and amplitude from the suspended oscillator.
> >>
> >> You're just reiterating the misconception. Again, any ocillations in the suspended mass would result in oscillations in the force exerted by the hovering helicopter on the ground... yes, at the same frequency. The idea that, with a hovering helicopter, "there is no coupling with the Earth" is the kind of childish misconception that jokes are made of, similar to the belief that arithmetic implies 1=-1. Look, if you want to generate quadripole waves (the lowest-order gravitational waves), you need an isolated oscillating dipole mass, i.e., two masses connected by a spring, oscillating back and forth. No net external forces. Your helicopter is comically braindead.. Of course, this won't generate waves of detectable magnitude for any realistic size masses.
>
> > Legion, I believe you have had a mental trauma. The frequency of the Super Stallion prop wash can be in no way comparable to the frequency of the simply harmonic oscillator slung beneath the Super Stallion. Remember? Do you understand this? Ask me if any of this is still unclear to you.
> You do realize, don't you, that the frequency of the suspended
> oscillating mass will be superimposed on the frequency of the helicopter
> blades on the force on the ground, don't you? No, I'm sure you don't.
>
> Now make yourself useful, go fetch a bucket of prop wash.
I grant you that Moroney. But the air component of the oscillator's frequency must be attenuated by a factor 100. If that's not enough then suspend the oscillator from a 1000 foot leash. In that case the air component attenuation must be almost infinite.

On 8/15/2023 6:34 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:57:45 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/15/2023 4:02 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 11:50:15 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:01:00 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Can an oscillating one ton mass suspended from a helicopter (so there
>>>>>>>>> is no coupling with the Earth)...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you believe a hovering helicopter exerts no force on the earth...
>>>>>>>> There are actually jokes based on that childish misconception (truckload
>>>>>>>> full of birds, etc.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The helicopter disconnects the oscillator with the ground.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, any ocillations in the mass would result in oscillations in the force exerted by the hovering helicopter on the ground. Again, the idea that with a hovering helicopter "there is no coupling with the Earth" is the kind of childish misconception that jokes are made of.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any prop wash force against the earth would be at a vastly different frequency
>>>>> and amplitude from the suspended oscillator.
>>>>
>>>> You're just reiterating the misconception. Again, any ocillations in the suspended mass would result in oscillations in the force exerted by the hovering helicopter on the ground... yes, at the same frequency. The idea that, with a hovering helicopter, "there is no coupling with the Earth" is the kind of childish misconception that jokes are made of, similar to the belief that arithmetic implies 1=-1. Look, if you want to generate quadripole waves (the lowest-order gravitational waves), you need an isolated oscillating dipole mass, i.e., two masses connected by a spring, oscillating back and forth. No net external forces. Your helicopter is comically braindead. Of course, this won't generate waves of detectable magnitude for any realistic size masses.
>>
>>> Legion, I believe you have had a mental trauma. The frequency of the Super Stallion prop wash can be in no way comparable to the frequency of the simply harmonic oscillator slung beneath the Super Stallion. Remember? Do you understand this? Ask me if any of this is still unclear to you.
>> You do realize, don't you, that the frequency of the suspended
>> oscillating mass will be superimposed on the frequency of the helicopter
>> blades on the force on the ground, don't you? No, I'm sure you don't.
>>
>> Now make yourself useful, go fetch a bucket of prop wash.
> I grant you that Moroney. But the air component of the oscillator's frequency must be attenuated by a factor 100. If that's not enough then suspend the oscillator from a 1000 foot leash. In that case the air component attenuation must be almost infinite.

No, it will be proportional to the motion, regardless of the length of
the "leash".

On 8/15/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/13/2023 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to
>>>>>>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c.
>>>>>>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape
>>>>>>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend
>>>>>>> relativity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time
>>>>>>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar.
>>>>
>>>>>> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they
>>>>>> haven't read? A liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better,
>>>>>> but so what?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>>>>
>>>>> What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying.
>>>> Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never
>>>> read it.
>>>>
>>>> It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the
>>>> "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an
>>>> outright lie.
>>> I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave.
>>
>> Nope. It was a false review, a lie, since you never read the book.
>>
>>> As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless.
>>
>> I didn't read the book, just like you didn't, so I can't be certain that
>> the book was stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I can, however, be quite
>> certain it is, just from the idiotic title. Yet my nonexistent 1 star
>> review (because I already know it's stupid, deceitful, and worthless) is
>> just as (in)valid as your stupid, deceitful, and worthless 5 star review.
>>
>> At least you walked your lie back.
>>
>>> I did not pretend to have read the book,
>>
>> And at least you came clean and admitted your review was a falsehood.

> I didn't walk anything back,

So you are going back to your lie of giving a book you never read a 5
star review?

> and I wonder why you keep flagrantly lying about it without providing any reasoning.

Who is lying? I never gave a 5 star review to a book I never read.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/15/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/13/2023 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>>>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to
> >>>>>>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c.
> >>>>>>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape
> >>>>>>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend
> >>>>>>> relativity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time
> >>>>>>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they
> >>>>>> haven't read? A liar.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better,
> >>>>>> but so what?
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> >>>>
> >>>>> What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying.
> >>>> Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never
> >>>> read it.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the
> >>>> "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an
> >>>> outright lie.
> >>> I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave.
> >>
> >> Nope. It was a false review, a lie, since you never read the book.
> >>
> >>> As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless.
> >>
> >> I didn't read the book, just like you didn't, so I can't be certain that
> >> the book was stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I can, however, be quite
> >> certain it is, just from the idiotic title. Yet my nonexistent 1 star
> >> review (because I already know it's stupid, deceitful, and worthless) is
> >> just as (in)valid as your stupid, deceitful, and worthless 5 star review.
> >>
> >> At least you walked your lie back.
> >>
> >>> I did not pretend to have read the book,
> >>
> >> And at least you came clean and admitted your review was a falsehood.
>
> > I didn't walk anything back,
> So you are going back to your lie of giving a book you never read a 5
> star review?
> > and I wonder why you keep flagrantly lying about it without providing any reasoning.
> Who is lying? I never gave a 5 star review to a book I never read.
Volney, don't put words it peoples mouths because that is lying. I said I hadn't read it and knew it was worth five stars anyway so stop lying.

Ken Seto wrote:

> Gravity already exists in all of space (the aether). All objects are
> confined to follow the geometries of space.

you disgusting sack of shit. You kiss my ass and suck my dick. There is no
a "𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆" Lisa Heaven. The Lisa Heaven worked for microsoft and you
stole her template. You repugnant subhuman excrement.

On 8/15/2023 11:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/15/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/13/2023 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to
>>>>>>>>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c.
>>>>>>>>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape
>>>>>>>>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend
>>>>>>>>> relativity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time
>>>>>>>>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they
>>>>>>>> haven't read? A liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better,
>>>>>>>> but so what?
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying.
>>>>>> Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never
>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the
>>>>>> "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an
>>>>>> outright lie.
>>>>> I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. It was a false review, a lie, since you never read the book.
>>>>
>>>>> As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't read the book, just like you didn't, so I can't be certain that
>>>> the book was stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I can, however, be quite
>>>> certain it is, just from the idiotic title. Yet my nonexistent 1 star
>>>> review (because I already know it's stupid, deceitful, and worthless) is
>>>> just as (in)valid as your stupid, deceitful, and worthless 5 star review.
>>>>
>>>> At least you walked your lie back.
>>>>
>>>>> I did not pretend to have read the book,
>>>>
>>>> And at least you came clean and admitted your review was a falsehood.
>>
>>> I didn't walk anything back,
>> So you are going back to your lie of giving a book you never read a 5
>> star review?
>>> and I wonder why you keep flagrantly lying about it without providing any reasoning.
>> Who is lying? I never gave a 5 star review to a book I never read.

> Volney, don't put words it peoples mouths because that is lying. I said I hadn't read it and knew it was worth five stars anyway so stop lying.

And again you lie, you give a book you never read 5 stars because you
magically "knew" it was worth 5 stars. Reviews are for books one has
read and now wish to rate.

What would you say if I gave it a 1 star review? After all I already
know it's complete garbage just from the description plus the fact that
you give it 5 stars. What more justification do I need?

On 2023-08-16 14:37:53 +0000, Volney said:

> On 8/15/2023 11:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>>>> On 8/13/2023 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to
>>>>>>>>>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c.
>>>>>>>>>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape
>>>>>>>>>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend
>>>>>>>>>> relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time
>>>>>>>>>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they
>>>>>>>>> haven't read? A liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better,
>>>>>>>>> but so what?
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it.
>>>>>>>> I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying.
>>>>>>> Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never
>>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the
>>>>>>> "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an
>>>>>>> outright lie.
>>>>>> I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. It was a false review, a lie, since you never read the book.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as
>>>>>> usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't read the book, just like you didn't, so I can't be certain that
>>>>> the book was stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I can, however, be quite
>>>>> certain it is, just from the idiotic title. Yet my nonexistent 1 star
>>>>> review (because I already know it's stupid, deceitful, and worthless) is
>>>>> just as (in)valid as your stupid, deceitful, and worthless 5 star review.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least you walked your lie back.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not pretend to have read the book,
>>>>>
>>>>> And at least you came clean and admitted your review was a falsehood.
>>>
>>>> I didn't walk anything back,
>>> So you are going back to your lie of giving a book you never read a 5
>>> star review?
>>>> and I wonder why you keep flagrantly lying about it without providing
>>>> any reasoning.
>>> Who is lying? I never gave a 5 star review to a book I never read.
>
>> Volney, don't put words it peoples mouths because that is lying. I said
>> I hadn't read it and knew it was worth five stars anyway so stop lying.
>
> And again you lie, you give a book you never read 5 stars because you
> magically "knew" it was worth 5 stars. Reviews are for books one has
> read and now wish to rate.

OK. When you've looked up "authoritative" in a good dictionary you
should also educate yourself about what lying is. Incidentally, I
intend to keep an eye on your "review", so if you edit it further to
make it look less bad I shall see and will tell everyone.

I think your best bet now is to keep quiet and hope that the scandal
will die down.
>
> What would you say if I gave it a 1 star review? After all I already
> know it's complete garbage just from the description plus the fact that
> you give it 5 stars. What more justification do I need?

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:20:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/15/2023 6:34 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:57:45 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/15/2023 4:02 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 11:50:15 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:01:00 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Can an oscillating one ton mass suspended from a helicopter (so there
> >>>>>>>>> is no coupling with the Earth)...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, you believe a hovering helicopter exerts no force on the earth...
> >>>>>>>> There are actually jokes based on that childish misconception (truckload
> >>>>>>>> full of birds, etc.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The helicopter disconnects the oscillator with the ground.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, any ocillations in the mass would result in oscillations in the force exerted by the hovering helicopter on the ground. Again, the idea that with a hovering helicopter "there is no coupling with the Earth" is the kind of childish misconception that jokes are made of.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any prop wash force against the earth would be at a vastly different frequency
> >>>>> and amplitude from the suspended oscillator.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're just reiterating the misconception. Again, any ocillations in the suspended mass would result in oscillations in the force exerted by the hovering helicopter on the ground... yes, at the same frequency. The idea that, with a hovering helicopter, "there is no coupling with the Earth" is the kind of childish misconception that jokes are made of, similar to the belief that arithmetic implies 1=-1. Look, if you want to generate quadripole waves (the lowest-order gravitational waves), you need an isolated oscillating dipole mass, i.e., two masses connected by a spring, oscillating back and forth. No net external forces. Your helicopter is comically braindead. Of course, this won't generate waves of detectable magnitude for any realistic size masses.
> >>
> >>> Legion, I believe you have had a mental trauma. The frequency of the Super Stallion prop wash can be in no way comparable to the frequency of the simply harmonic oscillator slung beneath the Super Stallion. Remember? Do you understand this? Ask me if any of this is still unclear to you.
> >> You do realize, don't you, that the frequency of the suspended
> >> oscillating mass will be superimposed on the frequency of the helicopter
> >> blades on the force on the ground, don't you? No, I'm sure you don't.
> >>
> >> Now make yourself useful, go fetch a bucket of prop wash.
> > I grant you that Moroney. But the air component of the oscillator's frequency must be attenuated by a factor 100. If that's not enough then suspend the oscillator from a 1000 foot leash. In that case the air component attenuation must be almost infinite.
> No, it will be proportional to the motion, regardless of the length of
> the "leash".
For arguments sake, I grant this too. Now what? Well, we simply request that the LIGO gravity wave "detection algorithm" writers write a detection algorithm that recognizes the signature of our suspended quadrupole oscillator. This is a great compromise, Mulroney. Because it tests both the LIGO and the theory/formulas of GR.

This really raises the stakes for LIGO.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:10:36?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 3:24:09?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:44:35?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:39:42?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:31:29?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 1:39:27?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Cr:
> > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 1:28:25?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:32:45?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > > > > > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:00:07?PM UTC-7, patdolan:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50?AM UTC-7, Laurence:
> > > > > > > > > > > > To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when,
> > > > > > > > > > > > according to relativity, the speed of gravity is c.
> > > > > > > > > > > A very timely and insightful question, Laurence. I
> > > > > > > > > > >have just returned from LIGO on the Hanford Nukular
> > > > > > > > > > >Reservation and will file a report on this and other
> > > > > > > > > > >topics next week. I saw the 2017 Nobel prize--donated
> > > > > > > > > > >by one of the LIGO recipients--on display there.
> > > > > > > > > > >Engraved on the side of the small oak pedestal, atop
> > > > > > > > > > >which is affixed Nobel metal, is a wave-like
> > > > > > > > > > >representation of the gravity waves that supposedly
> > > > > > > > > > >escaped two black holes. Said waves making their way to
> > > > > > > > > > >Washington and Louisiana, 7 milliseconds apart. Much
> > > > > > > > > > >more later.
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure they have in place sufficient safeguards
> > > > > > > > > > against false detections ...
> > > > > > > > > What matters is what they are sure of...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jan
> > > > > > > > I was there, in the lobby, watching the fancy screen display
> > > > > > > > of the live data coming in from 200 yards away, from
> > > > > > > > Louisiana, and from an inferior device somewhere in Europe.
> > > > > > > > The mirrors regularly "go out of lock" which is duly noted
> > > > > > > > on the display. All oscillations are admittedly from trucks,
> > > > > > > > footfall, wind, etc...except for about one event per month.
> > > > > > > > They claim to have detected 90 or so gravitational
> > > > > > > > oscillations so far. About 10 per year.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It was explained to me that they failed for around 10 years.
> > > > > > > > Then they got a new tranche of tax-payer money for "major
> > > > > > > > upgrading" (of salaries?) and within two days of spending
> > > > > > > > all the money they claimed to have detected the first, and
> > > > > > > > Nobel-winning gravity wave. This sequence of events is a
> > > > > > > > transparently phony as Hunter's special prosecutor
> > > > > > > > appointment today.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I purchased a LIGO tee-shirt and two LIGO comic books: one
> > > > > > > > in English and its translation in the Language of the Black
> > > > > > > > Feet Indians of the Central Plains of N. America.
> > > > > > > It does seem like a boondoggle to me. How much must gravity
> > > > > > > diminish given the inverse square rule, yet they claim to
> > > > > > > detect undispersed ripples?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Yup. They claim 1/1000th of a nukulus sensitivity. Or roughly
> > > > > > 1/100th of a proton's width physical movement detection. And
> > > > > > this at 350 degrees Kelvin. Absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > The whole thing is fake and a boondoggle:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The effective temperature of the mirrors is 1.4uK, but that's not
> > > > > the real temperature of the mirror material:
> > > > > iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/11/7/073032/meta.
> > > > > Instead the feedback mechanism causes the mirrors to appear to the
> > > > > beams as if they had that temperature.
> > > > Since I don't know much about it, can you explain why they can't
> > > > detect the gravity from other planets in our own solar system?
> > > >
> > > It was explained to me by the docent on duty (an English-History
> > > major, his first month on the job) LIGO is a straight up MMX device
> > > that measures a change in the length of one of the arms as a gravity
> > > wave goes by.
> > >
> > Yes, but they cannot detect gravity waves from the planets with LIGO.
> Another excellent point, Laurence!
>
> If the sun and the moon can turn the entire Pacific Ocean into a gravity
> long wave detector--10 foot tides here in Puget Sound--why don't the two
> LIGO detectors (Richland and Livingston) exhibit differences of at least
> 1/100th of a proton four times a day?
>
> It's all fake.

You really should try to understand the difference
between a gravity wave and a gravity gradient.
Since you obviously do not, all you can ridicule is yourself,

Jan

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 11:43:19 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:10:36?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 3:24:09?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:44:35?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:39:42?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:31:29?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 1:39:27?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Cr:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 1:28:25?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:32:45?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > > > > > > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:00:07?PM UTC-7, patdolan:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50?AM UTC-7, Laurence:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > according to relativity, the speed of gravity is c.
> > > > > > > > > > > > A very timely and insightful question, Laurence. I
> > > > > > > > > > > >have just returned from LIGO on the Hanford Nukular
> > > > > > > > > > > >Reservation and will file a report on this and other
> > > > > > > > > > > >topics next week. I saw the 2017 Nobel prize--donated
> > > > > > > > > > > >by one of the LIGO recipients--on display there.
> > > > > > > > > > > >Engraved on the side of the small oak pedestal, atop
> > > > > > > > > > > >which is affixed Nobel metal, is a wave-like
> > > > > > > > > > > >representation of the gravity waves that supposedly
> > > > > > > > > > > >escaped two black holes. Said waves making their way to
> > > > > > > > > > > >Washington and Louisiana, 7 milliseconds apart. Much
> > > > > > > > > > > >more later.
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure they have in place sufficient safeguards
> > > > > > > > > > > against false detections ...
> > > > > > > > > > What matters is what they are sure of...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jan
> > > > > > > > > I was there, in the lobby, watching the fancy screen display
> > > > > > > > > of the live data coming in from 200 yards away, from
> > > > > > > > > Louisiana, and from an inferior device somewhere in Europe.
> > > > > > > > > The mirrors regularly "go out of lock" which is duly noted
> > > > > > > > > on the display. All oscillations are admittedly from trucks,
> > > > > > > > > footfall, wind, etc...except for about one event per month.
> > > > > > > > > They claim to have detected 90 or so gravitational
> > > > > > > > > oscillations so far. About 10 per year.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It was explained to me that they failed for around 10 years.
> > > > > > > > > Then they got a new tranche of tax-payer money for "major
> > > > > > > > > upgrading" (of salaries?) and within two days of spending
> > > > > > > > > all the money they claimed to have detected the first, and
> > > > > > > > > Nobel-winning gravity wave. This sequence of events is a
> > > > > > > > > transparently phony as Hunter's special prosecutor
> > > > > > > > > appointment today.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I purchased a LIGO tee-shirt and two LIGO comic books: one
> > > > > > > > > in English and its translation in the Language of the Black
> > > > > > > > > Feet Indians of the Central Plains of N. America.
> > > > > > > > It does seem like a boondoggle to me. How much must gravity
> > > > > > > > diminish given the inverse square rule, yet they claim to
> > > > > > > > detect undispersed ripples?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yup. They claim 1/1000th of a nukulus sensitivity. Or roughly
> > > > > > > 1/100th of a proton's width physical movement detection. And
> > > > > > > this at 350 degrees Kelvin. Absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The whole thing is fake and a boondoggle:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The effective temperature of the mirrors is 1.4uK, but that's not
> > > > > > the real temperature of the mirror material:
> > > > > > iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/11/7/073032/meta.
> > > > > > Instead the feedback mechanism causes the mirrors to appear to the
> > > > > > beams as if they had that temperature.
> > > > > Since I don't know much about it, can you explain why they can't
> > > > > detect the gravity from other planets in our own solar system?
> > > > >
> > > > It was explained to me by the docent on duty (an English-History
> > > > major, his first month on the job) LIGO is a straight up MMX device
> > > > that measures a change in the length of one of the arms as a gravity
> > > > wave goes by.
> > > >
> > > Yes, but they cannot detect gravity waves from the planets with LIGO.
> > Another excellent point, Laurence!
> >
> > If the sun and the moon can turn the entire Pacific Ocean into a gravity
> > long wave detector--10 foot tides here in Puget Sound--why don't the two
> > LIGO detectors (Richland and Livingston) exhibit differences of at least
> > 1/100th of a proton four times a day?
> >
> > It's all fake.
>
> You really should try to understand the difference
> between a gravity wave and a gravity gradient.
> Since you obviously do not, all you can ridicule is yourself,
>
> Jan
Jan my boy, we have long passed that point of the discussion. Now we are discussing the possibility of LIGO detecting the gravity waves produced by a quadrupole oscillator ( 10 tons, 10 foot amplitude, 10 Hz, suspended 10 feet above the LIGO roof ) tethered by a 1,000 foot line from a heavy lift Sikorsky Super Stallion helicopter hovering 1000 feet above LIGO.

Furthermore, we grant the LIGO creative team the opportunity to compose yet another "gravity wave detection algorithm" specifically designed to recognize our scenario, to be fed into the extensive LIGO computational apparati.

Now what can you contribute to our colloquy at this point?

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 11:43:19 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:10:36?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 3:24:09?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:44:35?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:39:42?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:31:29?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 1:39:27?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Cr:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 1:28:25?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:32:45?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > > > > > > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:00:07?PM UTC-7, patdolan:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50?AM UTC-7, Laurence:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > according to relativity, the speed of gravity is c.
> > > > > > > > > > > > A very timely and insightful question, Laurence. I
> > > > > > > > > > > >have just returned from LIGO on the Hanford Nukular
> > > > > > > > > > > >Reservation and will file a report on this and other
> > > > > > > > > > > >topics next week. I saw the 2017 Nobel prize--donated
> > > > > > > > > > > >by one of the LIGO recipients--on display there.
> > > > > > > > > > > >Engraved on the side of the small oak pedestal, atop
> > > > > > > > > > > >which is affixed Nobel metal, is a wave-like
> > > > > > > > > > > >representation of the gravity waves that supposedly
> > > > > > > > > > > >escaped two black holes. Said waves making their way to
> > > > > > > > > > > >Washington and Louisiana, 7 milliseconds apart. Much
> > > > > > > > > > > >more later.
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure they have in place sufficient safeguards
> > > > > > > > > > > against false detections ...
> > > > > > > > > > What matters is what they are sure of...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jan
> > > > > > > > > I was there, in the lobby, watching the fancy screen display
> > > > > > > > > of the live data coming in from 200 yards away, from
> > > > > > > > > Louisiana, and from an inferior device somewhere in Europe.
> > > > > > > > > The mirrors regularly "go out of lock" which is duly noted
> > > > > > > > > on the display. All oscillations are admittedly from trucks,
> > > > > > > > > footfall, wind, etc...except for about one event per month.
> > > > > > > > > They claim to have detected 90 or so gravitational
> > > > > > > > > oscillations so far. About 10 per year.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It was explained to me that they failed for around 10 years.
> > > > > > > > > Then they got a new tranche of tax-payer money for "major
> > > > > > > > > upgrading" (of salaries?) and within two days of spending
> > > > > > > > > all the money they claimed to have detected the first, and
> > > > > > > > > Nobel-winning gravity wave. This sequence of events is a
> > > > > > > > > transparently phony as Hunter's special prosecutor
> > > > > > > > > appointment today.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I purchased a LIGO tee-shirt and two LIGO comic books: one
> > > > > > > > > in English and its translation in the Language of the Black
> > > > > > > > > Feet Indians of the Central Plains of N. America.
> > > > > > > > It does seem like a boondoggle to me. How much must gravity
> > > > > > > > diminish given the inverse square rule, yet they claim to
> > > > > > > > detect undispersed ripples?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yup. They claim 1/1000th of a nukulus sensitivity. Or roughly
> > > > > > > 1/100th of a proton's width physical movement detection. And
> > > > > > > this at 350 degrees Kelvin. Absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The whole thing is fake and a boondoggle:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The effective temperature of the mirrors is 1.4uK, but that's not
> > > > > > the real temperature of the mirror material:
> > > > > > iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/11/7/073032/meta.
> > > > > > Instead the feedback mechanism causes the mirrors to appear to the
> > > > > > beams as if they had that temperature.
> > > > > Since I don't know much about it, can you explain why they can't
> > > > > detect the gravity from other planets in our own solar system?
> > > > >
> > > > It was explained to me by the docent on duty (an English-History
> > > > major, his first month on the job) LIGO is a straight up MMX device
> > > > that measures a change in the length of one of the arms as a gravity
> > > > wave goes by.
> > > >
> > > Yes, but they cannot detect gravity waves from the planets with LIGO.
> > Another excellent point, Laurence!
> >
> > If the sun and the moon can turn the entire Pacific Ocean into a gravity
> > long wave detector--10 foot tides here in Puget Sound--why don't the two
> > LIGO detectors (Richland and Livingston) exhibit differences of at least
> > 1/100th of a proton four times a day?
> >
> > It's all fake.
>
> You really should try to understand the difference
> between a gravity wave and a gravity gradient.
> Since you obviously do not, all you can ridicule is yourself,
>
> Jan
Jan my boy, we have long passed that point of the discussion. Now we are discussing the possibility of LIGO detecting the gravity waves produced by a quadrupole oscillator ( 10 tons, 10 foot amplitude, 10 Hz, suspended 10 feet above the LIGO roof ) tethered by a 1,000 foot line from a heavy lift Sikorsky Super Stallion helicopter hovering 1000 feet above LIGO.

Furthermore, we grant the LIGO creative team the opportunity to compose yet another "gravity wave detection algorithm" specifically designed to recognize our scenario, to be fed into the extensive LIGO computational apparati.

Now that you have been updated, what can you contribute to our colloquy at this point?

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:23:23 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-16 14:37:53 +0000, Volney said:
>
> > On 8/15/2023 11:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >>> On 8/15/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/13/2023 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to
> >>>>>>>>>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c.
> >>>>>>>>>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape
> >>>>>>>>>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend
> >>>>>>>>>> relativity.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time
> >>>>>>>>>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they
> >>>>>>>>> haven't read? A liar.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better,
> >>>>>>>>> but so what?
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it.
> >>>>>>>> I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying.
> >>>>>>> Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never
> >>>>>>> read it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the
> >>>>>>> "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an
> >>>>>>> outright lie.
> >>>>>> I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope. It was a false review, a lie, since you never read the book.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as
> >>>>>> usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I didn't read the book, just like you didn't, so I can't be certain that
> >>>>> the book was stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I can, however, be quite
> >>>>> certain it is, just from the idiotic title. Yet my nonexistent 1 star
> >>>>> review (because I already know it's stupid, deceitful, and worthless) is
> >>>>> just as (in)valid as your stupid, deceitful, and worthless 5 star review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At least you walked your lie back.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I did not pretend to have read the book,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And at least you came clean and admitted your review was a falsehood.
> >>>
> >>>> I didn't walk anything back,
> >>> So you are going back to your lie of giving a book you never read a 5
> >>> star review?
> >>>> and I wonder why you keep flagrantly lying about it without providing
> >>>> any reasoning.
> >>> Who is lying? I never gave a 5 star review to a book I never read.
> >
> >> Volney, don't put words it peoples mouths because that is lying. I said
> >> I hadn't read it and knew it was worth five stars anyway so stop lying..
> >
> > And again you lie, you give a book you never read 5 stars because you
> > magically "knew" it was worth 5 stars. Reviews are for books one has
> > read and now wish to rate.
> OK. When you've looked up "authoritative" in a good dictionary you
> should also educate yourself about what lying is. Incidentally, I
> intend to keep an eye on your "review", so if you edit it further to
> make it look less bad I shall see and will tell everyone.
>
> I think your best bet now is to keep quiet and hope that the scandal
> will die down.
> >
> > What would you say if I gave it a 1 star review? After all I already
> > know it's complete garbage just from the description plus the fact that
> > you give it 5 stars. What more justification do I need?
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
There was never anything at all wrong or dishonest about the review. Anyone who has claimed otherwise is wrong and or lying. Anyone who reads it knows that.

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to relativity,
> the speed of gravity is c.

Answer on your level: It doesn't.
That's why the gravity wave stops being emitted
at the very moment that the black holes have merged,

Jan

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 11:43:19?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
[-]
> > > If the sun and the moon can turn the entire Pacific Ocean into a gravity
> > > long wave detector--10 foot tides here in Puget Sound--why don't the two
> > > LIGO detectors (Richland and Livingston) exhibit differences of at least
> > > 1/100th of a proton four times a day?
> > >
> > > It's all fake.
> >
> > You really should try to understand the difference
> > between a gravity wave and a gravity gradient.
> > Since you obviously do not, all you can ridicule is yourself,
> >
> > Jan
> Jan my boy,

Try to get out of kindergarten first, kiddie.

So, enough of you, till you learn to behave like an adult,

Jan

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 1:34:27 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 11:43:19?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [-]
> > > > If the sun and the moon can turn the entire Pacific Ocean into a gravity
> > > > long wave detector--10 foot tides here in Puget Sound--why don't the two
> > > > LIGO detectors (Richland and Livingston) exhibit differences of at least
> > > > 1/100th of a proton four times a day?
> > > >
> > > > It's all fake.
> > >
> > > You really should try to understand the difference
> > > between a gravity wave and a gravity gradient.
> > > Since you obviously do not, all you can ridicule is yourself,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > Jan my boy,
> Try to get out of kindergarten first, kiddie.
>
> So, enough of you, till you learn to behave like an adult,
>
> Jan
But what if I am no longer and adult? And all that remains of my adulthood is it's vast multi-discpile learnings? Then what? How will you communicate with the entity that sent you and eurohenry scurrying into the tall grass lo those (not so) many years ago when I first dropped the BBP and created a mushroom cloud that still circles the earth. When it comes to physics and explosions, Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing on the BBP, Jan my boy.

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 1:45:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:

.... so many years ago when I first dropped the BBP and created a mushroom cloud that still circles the earth. When it comes to physics and explosions, Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing on the BBP, Jan my boy.

Your BBP is not even a tiny pimple on the ass of relativity. It makes not even a ripple on the surface of the ocean that is relativity.

Yet another D/K poster boy...

On 8/16/2023 2:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

> There was never anything at all wrong or dishonest
> about the review. Anyone who has claimed otherwise is
> wrong and or lying. Anyone who reads it knows that.

Congratulations, up is now down. black is white, the world
is wrong and you are right.Topsy turvy has taken on a whole
new meaning.