On Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 5:28:55 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:27 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *>>>> The experiment seems pretty damn fair to me. You are allowed to use an instrument of arbitrary precision, even one that is absolutely perfect. And I am allowed to use a volume of arbitrary smallness, even one that has zero volume. * *>>> Is this what you call "physics"? AG* *>> No, that's what I call "local".* >*That's what I call BS! "Local" means that an event in spacetime depends entirely on the local conditions* *So local means local. Like all tautologies that is true, * It's only a tautology because you truncated my partial definition. Not honest IMO. AG *but I give up on trying to convince you that, for at least 80 years, no physicist on the planet believes the existence of tides means that the Equivalence Principle must be wrong. I convinced you of the truth for about 10 minutes a few posts ago, but then you decided to become re-confused. I no longer believe it's possible for you to remain permanently unconfused on this matter. * I've read the definition of "local" and it's not the one you use. You feel it's kosher to rig an experiment to get what you want to get. Sorry, but I don't go for that BS. What do tides have to do with this? AG *>> If you double the gravitational mass of an object falling to the Earth then you double the force it feels from gravity, but if they are equivalent then you have also doubled the inertial mass, so it takes twice as much force to produce the same acceleration. Therefore the rate of acceleration an object has as it falls to the ground is the same regardless of what the mass of that object is.* *> That result follows immediately in Newtonian physics, where the mass being accelerated by a gravitational force is in the numerator, and the inertial mass in the denominator cancel each other out. But how is this recapitulated in GR where there is no force of gravity? AG * *I Never Understood How Curved Time Creates Gravity… Until Now! <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpOER8Eec2A>* *But of course you'll never watch it. * *Hey ASSHOLE, stop your fucking, abusive mind reading. I do sometimes read links. It depends on the situation. AG * *> Generally, time dilation is a symmetric phenomenon,* *Yes. And that plus the fact that Special Relativity says there's no absolute reference frame is why time dilation doesn't produce a logical paradox. If 2 spaceships are not accelerating but are approaching each other at 0.8c they will both observe the other's clock is running 60% slower than their own** clock as measured in their own reference frame. That's odd but it's no paradox because both are free to say that they are stationary and it's the other guy that's moving at **0.8c, or if they prefer they can say that it's the other guy who is stationary and they are moving at 0.8c. The results are the same regardless of which reference frame they choose to claim to be in, they will both see the others clock at running 60% slower than their own. * And no dilation for observers in the frame observing the other frame in motion. AG *Asking which clock is "really" running slower would be a nonsensical question because no reference frame has been specified; so there is no logical paradox, just an odd situation. The symmetry is broken if one and only one of the spaceships accelerates as in the twin paradox, as you pointed out. * Do you really understand Relativity? There are reference frames specified, such as the frame using the LT. AG *> When you accelerate from a traffic light which turns green, the PROTONS in the nuclei of your car and body accelerate. Shouldn't protons, being charged particles, radiate energy when accelerated?* *The amount of energy radiated would be tiny because the rate of acceleration is so small, and that small amount of energy would not affect an atom's stability even slightly because the energy was provided by the car's engine, not by the atom's internal energy. * But not in the case of planetary bodies, say like asteroids, and yet we don't measure any radiation emitted. AG *>> As I have already explained, Pauli's Exclusion Principle is the reason you can't put your hand through your desk or walk through brick walls. Discrete energy levels are the reason electrons don't radiate continuously and spiral into the nucleus. * *> I don't see the connection between the Exclusion Principle and the fact that electrons have discrete energy levels. AG* *I don't recall saying that there was a connection, but now that you mentioned it the Exclusion Principle is why, even though electrons want to be in the lowest energy state, all the electrons in an atom can't be in the atom's lowest energy state. * * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* 4vv -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cabe6d46-0346-451e-b138-e9d6a084069an%40googlegroups.com.
