On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:43 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
First Linde didn't prove eternal inflation as you claim.
That wasn't what I claimed. Linde showed that if eternal inflation is
untrue then so is Guth's entire inflation idea, and then we're back to
trying to solve the very serious
On 2/23/2014 8:41 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:43 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
John,
Yes, that's my understanding, but that wasn't clear in your original post.
However it is simply impossible for anything physical to be literally
infinite when the nature of infinity as an unending PROCESS (forever add
+1) rather than an actual number is understood.
I hate it when
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
John,
Yes, that's my understanding, but that wasn't clear in your original post.
However it is simply impossible for anything physical to be literally
infinite when the nature of infinity as an unending PROCESS (forever
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
I hate it when otherwise intelligent physicists use infinite in the sense
of just really really big!
I hate that too, in fact I take pride in not using the word infinite
unless a proper subset of the thing can be put into
John,
First Linde didn't prove eternal inflation as you claim. Eternal
inflation is a theory. In fact you yourself admit this when you write IF
Linde is correct...
Basically the bounding problem of any physical infinity is that it would
take infinite energy over infinite time to 'achieve'
Jesse,
But from the links you yourself provide:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O
To quote from the abstract:
If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity
comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted gravitationally
towards its path as though it
Brent,
What problem do you think P-time has in SR? I see none. Have you been
following my discussion with Jesse as to why it is possible to correlate
proper times (the twins own actual ages) 1:1 for the twins all along their
worldlines in a frame independent way simply by comparing the
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
But from the links you yourself provide:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O
To quote from the abstract:
If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity
comparable to the speed
On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
But from the links you yourself provide:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O
To quote from the abstract:
If a
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:37:06PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
But from the links you yourself provide:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O
To quote from the abstract:
If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity
comparable to the speed of
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
But from the links you yourself provide:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O
To
On 2/22/2014 3:43 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Would it be correct to say that the equivalence principle is another way of
saying that gravitational and inertial masses are the same? Which I believe
some theories indicate they may not be.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
It's true that SR says nothing about gravity, but incorrect that it
deals only with objects in uniform motion. Special relativity can handle
acceleration just fine too, either by analyzing it in the context of an
John,
I don't see how your CMB spot example works. Any 'spots' = features would
not necessarily be caused by gravitation but could be caused by initial
inhomogeneities as space itself expanded. Those are not necessarily ruled
out. So I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows unless
On 2/21/2014 8:50 AM, John Clark wrote:
Astronomers proved that, although there are certainly local variations, on the very
largest scale the universe is in general flat. They did this by looking at the Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), it is the most distant and oldest thing we
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 03:11:56PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
Just to clarify, it is *space* that is flat, but spacetime is still
curved, i.e. expansion of the universe is accelerating.
That could only be true in one particular inertial reference
frame? Surely, it can't be the case that
On 2/21/2014 3:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 03:11:56PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
Just to clarify, it is *space* that is flat, but spacetime is still
curved, i.e. expansion of the universe is accelerating.
That could only be true in one particular inertial reference
On 2/19/2014 10:09 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:42 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no sense in which an observer in an accelerating elevator in
the flat
spacetime of special relativity could correctly
On 19 February 2014 13:30, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Acceleration of a point particle doesn't cause light crossing the
particle to bend (because it's a point) but accel of a larger object
does because light takes time to cross the object.
I'm sure the particle size is
Sorry I should have read on before making that last post.
It would appear that acceleration alone doesn't curve space, the only
curvature involved is that due to the mass/energy involved.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
Russell, Brent, Jesse, et al,
The increased kinetic energy of the particle is not due to its
acceleration but to its relative velocity to some observer. Mass also
increases with relative velocity, but that apparent increase in mass is
only with respect to some observer the motion is relative
The curvature of spacetime is understood in a coordinate-invariant way, in
terms of the proper time and proper length along paths through spacetime,
so it doesn't depend at all on what coordinate system you use to describe
things. Physicists do sometimes talk about the curvature of space
distinct
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
You should stop talking about space, it's 4D spacetime; but yes it's
curved, although if you were inside that sealed elevator you couldn't tell
if the curvature was caused by rockets accelerating the elevator in deep
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:42 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no sense in which an observer in an accelerating elevator in
the flat spacetime of special relativity could correctly conclude that
spacetime has any curvature
What you say is true but only according to
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
You say that You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by observing
if light moves in a straight line or not. and then you say that light does
NOT travel in a straight line in the accelerating elevator example you
On 19/02/2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
In which theory? IIUC, acceleration of an infinitesimal point particle
does not change the curvature of space. And acceleration of a massive
particle only changes the curvature by the amount due to the increased
kinetic energy of
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:44:58 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 01:28:09PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen
edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
You say that You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:57:21AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 19/02/2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
In which theory? IIUC, acceleration of an infinitesimal point particle
does not change the curvature of space. And acceleration of a massive
particle only changes the
On 2/18/2014 4:30 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:57:21AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 19/02/2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
In which theory? IIUC, acceleration of an infinitesimal point particle
does not change the curvature of space. And acceleration of a
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
You say that You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by observing
if light moves in a straight line or not. and then you say that light does
Craig,
If I understand you it sounds close to my theory of Xperience which I just
described in my other reply to you on the What are numbers... topic.
Please refer to that..
Edgar
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:49:57 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:23:32
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:22:50 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
No, the proper understanding is that gravitation and curved space are
EQUIVALENT. Both are produced by the presence of mass-energy (and stress).
I would say that gravity and curved space are metaphorical
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Einstein couldn't be classed as witless
He claimed atoms were the littlelest
When they did a bit of splittin' em
It scared everybody shitless.
A Quantum Mechanic's vacation
Left his colleagues in dire consternation
Craig,
I agree with your idea in one sense, that actually space and clock time are
just computational relationships between events, specifically the
dimensional aspects of those events, rather than the actual physical
background to events that is usually assumed.
In my book on Reality, I
John,
You say that You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by observing if
light moves in a straight line or not. and then you say that light does
NOT travel in a straight line in the accelerating elevator example you give.
So, by your terminology, does that mean that the acceleration of
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:32:35 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
I agree with your idea in one sense, that actually space and clock time
are just computational relationships between events, specifically the
dimensional aspects of those events, rather than the actual physical
Craig,
But how can elemental computation arise out of even more primitive
sensory-motive qualities and supervene on an even more primordial
possibility of aesthetic appreciation and intentional participation since
those seem to be human dependent attributes?
Aren't you confusing human mental
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:23:32 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
But how can elemental computation arise out of even more primitive
sensory-motive qualities and supervene on an even more primordial
possibility of aesthetic appreciation and intentional participation since
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Einstein couldn't be classed as witless
He claimed atoms were the littlelest
When they did a bit of splittin' em
It scared everybody shitless.
A Quantum Mechanic's vacation
Left his colleagues in dire consternation
Though
On 16 February 2014 06:07, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Einstein couldn't be classed as witless
He claimed atoms were the littlelest
When they did a bit of splittin' em
It scared everybody shitless.
A Quantum
On 16 February 2014 09:35, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Limericks?
No, I just put a quote at the end of my post... Seems I can't do anything
without starting a trend.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this
The pushing theory of gravity is an interesting one which crops up
occasionally (even in science fiction, at least when written by the
wonderful Barrington Bayley). I have a feeling there is some fundamental
flaw with it, but I can't recall if I just imagined that, or actually read
it somewhere...
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
The accelerating elevator is in deep space. There are no tidal forces.
You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by observing if light moves in a
straight line or not. If you were in deep space and the elevator was
On 15 February 2014 09:44, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
The accelerating elevator is in deep space. There are no tidal forces.
You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by observing if light moves in
a
On 2/14/2014 12:39 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Asks the agnostic: if there is a 'flat tangent space' - how did it curl up? (isn't
that our distorted view (or words) only?)
((Matter did it?? how??))
We know the equations and they make accurate predictions. We're
All,
By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation.
Gravitation curves space.
So doesn't this mean acceleration should also curve space? If not, why not?
If not, doesn't that violate the Equivalence Principle?
If so what is the geometric form of that curvature
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation.
Too vague. A more precise statement is that in an observer in free-fall in
a gravitational field can define a local inertial frame in an
Jesse,
Let me think about this, but it is NOT the observer in free fall in a
gravitational field that is equivalent to acceleration. It is an observer
RESISTING free fall (e.g. standing on the surface of the earth) that is
equivalent to acceleration.
So please take this into consideration and
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Let me think about this, but it is NOT the observer in free fall in a
gravitational field that is equivalent to acceleration. It is an observer
RESISTING free fall (e.g. standing on the surface of the earth) that
Acceleration does cause the formation of an event horizon, I believe, which
might be considered to couple it with gravity (in an unexpected way).
On 14 February 2014 09:33, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Congrats! Illustrates how 3-4 wrongs (unknowns?) make a right.(explained).
Event horizon - nice. Even if you couple it.
Gravity: a toughy one. I have an explanation so good that nobody repeats
it. An 'unexpected way' is unexpected. JM
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 2/13/2014 11:02 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Even though the curvature disappears in the first order terms, it remains in the higher
order terms, whereas curvature is really zero in all terms for an accelerating observer
in flat spacetime. So, the answer to your question is that acceleration does
On 14 February 2014 10:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/13/2014 11:02 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Even though the curvature disappears in the first order terms, it remains
in the higher order terms, whereas curvature is really zero in all terms
for an accelerating observer in flat
The event horizon due to acceleration is just relative to the one accelerated. I doesn't
warp space, so there's no reason it should interact with anything.
Brent
On 2/13/2014 12:41 PM, LizR wrote:
Acceleration does cause the formation of an event horizon, I believe, which might be
considered
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:56 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an
answer
In this case the horizon is basically just the edge of a light cone, and a
continuously-accelerating observer can indefinitely avoid crossing into
this light cone (see the top diagram at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates -- x=0 is the edge of the
light cone, while the curve labeled
I didn't really imagine that an acceleration-caused event horizon warps
space (particularly since it will, I think, generally be a long way from
the accelerating observer?) I wouldn't imagine that acceleration in itself
warps space...?
But I *do *seem to recall that the accel-caused EH emits
On 14 February 2014 11:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't imagine that acceleration in itself warps space...?
Actually I take that back. A pair of neutron stars in close orbit (both
accelerating under their mutual gravity) *do* warp space, presumably due to
their motion.
(...I
On 2/13/2014 2:55 PM, LizR wrote:
I didn't really imagine that an acceleration-caused event horizon warps space
(particularly since it will, I think, generally be a long way from the accelerating
observer?) I wouldn't imagine that acceleration in itself warps space...?
But I /do /seem to recall
On 2/13/2014 3:01 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 February 2014 11:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
I wouldn't imagine that acceleration in itself warps space...?
Actually I take that back. A pair of neutron stars in close orbit (both accelerating
under their mutual
On 14 February 2014 12:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:01 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 February 2014 11:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't imagine that acceleration in itself warps space...?
Actually I take that back. A pair of neutron stars in close orbit
On 2/13/2014 3:27 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 February 2014 12:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:01 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 February 2014 11:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't imagine that
Brent,
Correction. That should be Unruh radiation or the Unruh effect, not Uruh.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:18:00 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/13/2014 2:55 PM, LizR wrote:
I didn't really imagine that an acceleration-caused event horizon warps
space (particularly since it
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:22:18AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation.
Gravitation curves space.
No - curved space generates the phenomena of gravitation.
It is sometimes said that matter curves space.
So doesn't
Jesse, Brent, Liz, et al,
Free fall in a gravitational field is NOT acceleration. Standing on the
surface of the earth IS acceleration because only then is the acceleration
of gravity felt as such.
Given that, let me clarify my example:
Observer A is standing on the surface of earth. He
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse, Brent, Liz, et al,
Free fall in a gravitational field is NOT acceleration. Standing on the
surface of the earth IS acceleration because only then is the acceleration
of gravity felt as such.
Yes, that's why I
Yeah, tidal forces make a measurable difference between the guy on a planet
and the accelerating elevator guy. Basically a planet is (more or less)
spherical, so the gravity field isn't uniform over the flat floor of hte
elevator, but pulls slightly towards the centre of the sphere. With
sensitive
Russell,
No, the proper understanding is that gravitation and curved space are
EQUIVALENT. Both are produced by the presence of mass-energy (and stress).
You say Motion through curved space appears as acceleration in a flat
tangent space.
Are you saying then that acceleration from a rising
Jesse,
The accelerating floor of an elevator the size of a planet is not an
infinitesimal neighborhood of a point in spacetime. So that comment of
yours does not apply.
And I don't see any tidal forces at play here since the entire floor of the
elevator is accelerating 'upward' (just in the
Liz,
As usual, you are late to the party.
The accelerating elevator is in deep space. There are no tidal forces.
The tidal forces of EARTH'S gravitation on the man standing on earth are
negligible and can be ignored. They are just the difference in
gravitational pull on his head and feet.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:22:50PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
No, the proper understanding is that gravitation and curved space are
EQUIVALENT. Both are produced by the presence of mass-energy (and stress).
In General Relativity, gravitation is not a force, but rather a
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
The accelerating floor of an elevator the size of a planet is not an
infinitesimal neighborhood of a point in spacetime. So that comment of
yours does not apply.
It seems to me it should apply, since you asked
The equivalence principle only works for infinitesimal regions because any
gravitational field will vary from point to point, while acceleration is
uniform.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On 14 February 2014 14:39, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
As usual, you are late to the party.
And I see you haven't lost any of your wit and charm.
The accelerating elevator is in deep space. There are no tidal forces.
The tidal forces are for the non-accelerating elevator
77 matches
Mail list logo
