On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 8:35 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
*I give up. If you want to continue to believe that every physicist in the world is a fool because they believe the Equivalence Principle is correct even though tides exist then fine, go right ahead. I have come to the conclusion that it's impossible to have an intelligent civilized conversation with you, at least not for long; however promising it may start out as, it's only a matter of time before it degenerates into something like the following:* *>"Hey ASSHOLE, stop your fucking, abusive mind reading."* *John K Clark * On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 8:35 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cabe6d46-0346-451e-b138-e9d6a084069an%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAJPayv2eukWecsHu5JGoM8YTutik7pm9gzWR6huAb%3DGkzgeBbw%40mail.gmail.com.
