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
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,
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
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,
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
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.
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
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:
>>>
>>>
>>>
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
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
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
>>
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:
>>>
>>>
>>>
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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.,
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
54 matches
Mail list logo