Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:30:05 +0000:

You claimed that one cannot possibly measure the gravitational force.
Before discussing your claim, it may be a good thing if you write first
the expression for the gravitational force for an orbiting body (e.g.
Mercury planet).

Still more evasion -- Don't evade the challenge, use whatever expression
you wish. Use whatever definition of "gravitational force" you wish. But
be sure to meet the challenge: describe how to MEASURE the
"gravitational FORCE" on an orbiting satellite, not any indirect or
model-dependent implications of it (such as orbit parameters, which are
geometrical, not any sort of force).

Excuses excuses excuses...

I am still waiting from you to write the force, just that you say cannot
be measured Tom.

Or maybe as usual you are writting about stuff you never studied Tom.
from guidelines:

{DO NOT ARGUE AGAINST PROUD NON-SPECIALISTS
Some people strongly argue over a topic they did not even take the
time to study. Some of this people even reject to read the
references you provide to support your point!

When you correct some of their mistakes, they often reply by making
more mistakes. Avoid this trap also! It fills the network with
useless noise in some exponential way.
}

no place to put the scale. HINT: there is a deep relationship
between
this inability and the inability to measure "gravitational force".
HINT2: both "centrifugal force" and "gravitational force" are
coordinate dependent (this is true in both GR and Newtonian
mechanics).

I waited just that kind of mistaken argument from you Tom and that is
because ironically i cited certain paper i am now studying.

That paper shows how the equation for the orbit (in terms of
gravitational force, which is computed) in the alternative theory is
*independent* of the system of coordinates (whereas you are at least
correct here) the corresponding equation for GR is coordinate dependant.

Game over.

--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt