Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 6:54:50 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On 22/12/2017 11:22 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 11:03:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 12/21/2017 2:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> *If Newton's Law of Gravitation is

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/22/2017 3:43 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 7:45:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/21/2017 11:06 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 4:46:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/21/2017 4:22 PM,

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 7:45:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/21/2017 11:06 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 4:46:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/21/2017 4:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, December 21, 2017

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/21/2017 11:06 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 4:46:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/21/2017 4:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 11:03:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/21/2017 2:04 PM,

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 4:46:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/21/2017 4:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 11:03:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/21/2017 2:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/21/2017 4:22 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 11:03:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/21/2017 2:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:51:51 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/18/2017 11:44 PM,

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 12:54:50 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 22/12/2017 11:22 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 11:03:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 12/21/2017 2:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> *If Newton's Law of Gravitation is

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 22/12/2017 11:22 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 11:03:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/21/2017 2:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *If Newton's Law of Gravitation is covariant -- that is, coordinate frame independent -- I'd expect it to to be

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 11:03:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/21/2017 2:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:51:51 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/18/2017 11:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Invariants are always the

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/21/2017 2:04 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:51:51 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/18/2017 11:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: Invariants are always the important things in physics because they are what we can have

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:51:51 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/18/2017 11:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Invariants are always the important things in physics because they are >> what we can have intersubjective agreement on. >> >> Brent >> > > *IIUC, the field equations

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:36:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/17/2017 2:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:21:27 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/16/2017 2:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> There's a problem applying SR in this

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/19/2017 7:58 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:58:18 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/18/2017 11:54 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 3:32:22 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/18/2017 6:36 PM,

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:58:18 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/18/2017 11:54 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 3:32:22 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/18/2017 6:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, December 18, 2017

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/18/2017 11:54 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 3:32:22 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/18/2017 6:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:48:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/18/2017 12:19 AM,

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/18/2017 11:44 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: Invariants are always the important things in physics because they are what we can have intersubjective agreement on. Brent *IIUC, the field equations are covariant, which means coordinate system independent. * Right. 

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 3:32:22 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/18/2017 6:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:48:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/18/2017 12:19 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 17, 2017

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 3:34:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/18/2017 6:54 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 2:36:32 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:48:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/18/2017 6:54 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 2:36:32 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:48:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/18/2017 12:19 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/18/2017 6:36 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:48:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/18/2017 12:19 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:39:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 2:36:32 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:48:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/18/2017 12:19 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:39:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:48:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/18/2017 12:19 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:39:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:21:27 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/18/2017 12:19 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:39:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:21:27 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/16/2017 2:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: There's a problem

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/17/2017 2:39 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:21:27 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/16/2017 2:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: There's a problem applying SR in this situation because neither the ground or orbiting clock is an inertial

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:39:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:21:27 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/16/2017 2:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> There's a problem applying SR in this situation because neither the >> ground or

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:21:27 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/16/2017 2:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > There's a problem applying SR in this situation because neither the ground > or orbiting clock is an inertial frame.AG > > > An orbiting clock is in an inertial frame.

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 8:18 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > The actual clock readings depends on the number of ticks. So if you claim > the number of ticks is the same for both clocks, there will no difference > in their readings. *​Both clocks produced the same number of ticks in

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:13:49 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:59 PM, > wrote: > > >>​ >>> A curved line from one wall to the other is longer than a straight line >>> ​,​ >>> and yet when you measure the time it takes for light to do

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/16/2017 2:59 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: There's a problem applying SR in this situation because neither the ground or orbiting clock is an inertial frame.AG An orbiting clock is in an inertial frame.  An inertial frame is just one in which no forces are acting (and gravity is

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:59 PM, wrote: >>​ >> A curved line from one wall to the other is longer than a straight line >> ​,​ >> and yet when you measure the time it takes for light to do this with >> your very accurate clock you notice its exactly the same. You already

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 12:08:35 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:11 PM, > wrote: > > > ​>> ​ >>> The Equivalence Principle says if >>> ​you >>> ignore tidal effects and you're in a windowless elevator cab there is >>> no way to know

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:11 PM, wrote: ​>> ​ >> The Equivalence Principle says if >> ​you >> ignore tidal effects and you're in a windowless elevator cab there is no >> way to know if you're sitting on the Earth in a gravitational field or in >> deep intergalactic

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:15:58PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > *IIUC, you're saying that tensors transform covariantly, that is, > independent of coordinate system, but you haven't addressed my question why > Einstein would think accelerating frames are equivalent, or why a theory

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/11/2017 2:19 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's Field Equations? It led to the idea that force-free paths in space could be geodesic paths in spacetime, so the apparent acceleration falling

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 10:43:27 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/10/2017 8:49 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's > Field Equations? > > > It led to the idea that force-free paths in space could be geodesic

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:41:21 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:42 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's >> Field Equations? How did the former lead to the latter? Why was the

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 9:14:09 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:06:00PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Excellent summary. TY. But why would Einstein think there could be a > > covariant theory for accelerating frames when an observer inside

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 10:06 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > Excellent summary. TY. But why would Einstein think there could be a > covariant theory for accelerating frames > ​The speed of light doesn't change even for an accelerating observer ​nor does the spacetime distance between

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:06:00PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > Excellent summary. TY. But why would Einstein think there could be a > covariant theory for accelerating frames when an observer inside such a > frame can do measurements to confirm acceleration and differences with >

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:41:21 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:42 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's >> Field Equations? How did the former lead to the latter? Why was the

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:42 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's > Field Equations? How did the former lead to the latter? Why was the man > falling from the ladder so decisive in leading to the Theory of General >

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/10/2017 8:49 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's Field Equations? It led to the idea that force-free paths in space could be geodesic paths in spacetime, so the apparent acceleration falling objects could be

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 4:49:54 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's > Field Equations? How did the former lead to the latter? Why was the man > falling from the ladder so decisive in leading to the Theory of

Re: equivalence between math and computations

2012/8/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I ´m seduced and intrigued by the Bruno´s final conclussións of the COMP hypothesis. But I had a certain disconfort with the idea of a simulation of the reality by means of an algorithm for reasons

Re: equivalence between math and computations

On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I ´m seduced and intrigued by the Bruno´s final conclussións of the COMP hypothesis. But I had a certain disconfort with the idea of a simulation of the reality by means of an algorithm for reasons I will describe later. Comp is I am a

RE: Equivalence

Sorry, but I don't have much of an idea of what is being discussed in this thread. Could you try to enlighten me? Rmiller originally wrote Equivalence If the individual exists simultaneously across a many-world manifold, then how can one even define a copy? Well, I would say this (i.e.,

Re: Equivalence

Dear R., You make a very good point, one that I was hoping to communicate but failed. The notion of making copies is only coherent if and when we can compare the copied produce to each other. Failing to be able to do this, what remains? Your suggestion seems to imply that precognition,

Re: Equivalence

At 10:23 AM 6/3/2005, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear R., You make a very good point, one that I was hoping to communicate but failed. The notion of making copies is only coherent if and when we can compare the copied produce to each other. Failing to be able to do this, what remains? Your

Re: Equivalence

At 11:27 AM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote: At 10:23 AM 6/3/2005, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear R., You make a very good point, one that I was hoping to communicate but failed. The notion of making copies is only coherent if and when we can compare the copied produce to each other. Failing to be

Re: Equivalence

rmiller wrote: At 11:27 AM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote: At 10:23 AM 6/3/2005, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear R., You make a very good point, one that I was hoping to communicate but failed. The notion of making copies is only coherent if and when we can compare the copied produce to each

Re: Equivalence

At 01:46 PM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote: (snip) What do you mean by the qualia approach? Do you mean a sort of dualistic view of the relationship between mind and matter? From the discussion at http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/rhett.html it seems that Sarfatti suggests some combination of Bohm's

Re: Equivalence

rmiller wrote: At 01:46 PM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote: (snip) What do you mean by the qualia approach? Do you mean a sort of dualistic view of the relationship between mind and matter? From the discussion at http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/rhett.html it seems that Sarfatti suggests some

Re: Equivalence

At 04:40 PM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote: At 03:25 PM 6/3/2005, you wrote: (snip) I spoke with Schmidt in '96. He told me that it is very unlikely that causation can be reversed, but rather that the retropk results suggest many worlds. But that is presumably just his personal intuition, not

RE: Equivalence

-Original Message- From: rmiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:59 PM To: Stephen Paul King; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Equivalence At 11:27 AM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote: At 10:23 AM 6/3/2005, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear R., You make a very good