Reply to comment

Jim:

First, you appear to have, once again, mischaracterized/misrepresented my positions, assertions, and/or "requirements".

I simply wish to know where you stand in order to determine how to proceed in any possible attempt at answering your question: "to show how uniform motion/geodesic motion (choose whatever term you wish, it’s the state in the physical world revealed by a gravitiometer) transforms into energy, other than by an interpretive mathematical formalism."

Either you accept Einstein's Field Equation(s) of General Relativity (at least for the sake of further progress), or you call into question even the field equations of General Relativity as not properly having embodied the curved spacetime nature of gravitation.

Either choice is acceptable. You just have to make your choice as to where you stand.

It's quickly nearing time for me to make good on what I said I would do if you refused to make your choice.

So your next post will determine my next step. If you continue to refuse to make your stand clear, so we may proceed, then I will follow though as promised.

You make statements like:

I’m questioning your interpretation, the standard interpretation, of the field equations.

Which appears to suggest that you accept Einstein's field equation(s) of General Relativity, but then at other times you appear to be calling these field equations into question.

I simply want to know which is your actual position, so I may know what I have to work with, so I can know how to proceed (if at all).

On the other hand, if your last statement ("So yes, farewell.") is intended to ask me to "leave", then so be it.

I await your answer, so I will know how to proceed, if at all.

Fare well.

David