On Thursday, October 2, 2025 at 4:15:33 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 10/2/2025 12:42 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, October 2, 2025 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/1/2025 10:42 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, October 1, 2025 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/1/2025 7:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, October 1, 2025 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/1/2025 6:38 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, October 1, 2025 at 7:20:13 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 8:29 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: *> Have physicists in the last 120 years claimed that two paths of different lengths in spacetime which start and end at same events, have the same accelerations, except Brent in his diagram? AG* *In a word, yes. Two worldlines between the same events in spacetime can have different lengths even if both involve acceleration. And proper time is the length of your world line. But of course if they have identical acceleration histories then they are in the same worldline, not a different one.* You're writing nonsense. Brent has two worldlines with different lengths, claiming they have identical accelerations. AG And he included diagrams showing the accelerations had the same amplitudes and durations. And that even was redundant. From the diagram it is clear that Red and Blue had the same velocity at the initiation of their accelerations and they turned their velocity thru the same angle in each period of acceleration...hence one can infer mathematically that their (acceleration*duration) products were the same. Brent *That was your intention, but since the clock moving along the longer path, needs a greater turn if done in one acceleration, I don't think splitting the accelerations into two components solves your intention to make the accelerations of both paths equal. * What the hell does "solves you intention" mean. The velocities are the same and the angle thru which they turn is the same...those are hypotheticals of the story. It follows that the (acceleration*duration) are the same. *"Solves your intention" means your model establishes, from your pov, that acceleration does not solve the TP problem. This is plain English. Why can't you understand it? AG* *On the longer path, the further out it goes, the greater is the turn required, * But that's simple false. No matter how far away Red goes he only need to make a 180deg turn to return. The four turns in the diagram are all 90deg turns in space. Brent *So it has a limit, and 180 deg is more than 90 deg and requires more acceleration. And your model is one case, not all. So why not use what I suggested and circumvent the use of diagrams? AG * That's why I represented Red's turn as two 90deg turns by Red to match the two 90deg turns by Blue. Why don't you learn to read a diagram. Brent *Because 1), I'm a dumbass; and 2), I'm a dumbass; and 3), I want to give you the opportunity to dump on me. Now, if you could read English well, which you obviously cannot, you'd know that I posted my agreement that IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE you've shown that two dissimilar paths can have the same accelerations. Whereas that's enough to prove that acceleration is not always the solution of the problem we're trying to solve, I nevertheless wondered whether what you claimed in this case, is generally true for all pairs of paths. So I came up with an alternate proof which IS general, and doesn't depend on plots. But since you've fallen in love with your plots, you don't appreciate my solution. AG * -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a47122a6-0627-484e-9ba9-1b16df6c9a55n%40googlegroups.com.
