home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   sci.physics.relativity      The theory of relativity      225,861 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 224,608 of 225,861   
   Paul.B.Andersen to All   
   Re: No amount of experimentation can eve   
   14 Nov 25 12:15:39   
   
   XPost: sci.math   
   From: relativity@paulba.no   
      
   Den 14.11.2025 07:48, skrev Maciej Woźniak:   
   > On 11/13/2025 10:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:   
   >> Den 13.11.2025 13:16, skrev Maciej Woźniak:   
   >>> On 11/13/2025 12:10 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite   
   >>>> is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force   
   >>>> acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall,   
   >>>> the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero.   
      
   >>> If dv/dt is not 0 (or is it?) and "proper acceleration"   
   >>> of relativistic idiots is 0 - i guess acceleration   
   >>> is no longer dv/dt for relativistic idiots. Is it?   
      
   >> No, it isn't dv/dt.   
      
   Any particular reason why you snipped the following?   
      
   I will elaborate.   
   In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured   
   in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame).   
   So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is as   
   explained above.   
      
   In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows.   
   An accelerometer in free-fall  will show zero acceleration,   
   an accelerometer on the ground will show 9.81 m/s² acceleration   
   upwards.   
      
   >   
   > Sure, why would acceleration be - the change of   
   > speed in time? That it should be is an obvious   
   > common  sense prejudice, refuted by a mumbling   
   > idiot and zillions of experiments.   
      
   Why do you think accelerometers show what GR says,   
   and not what your common sense say it should show?   
      
   Could it be that GR is more in accordance with   
   the laws of nature than is your prejudiced common sense?   
      
   -----------------------   
      
   > Thus, since a mumbling idiot postulated that   
   > shark must eat grass, because that's what   
   > "Laws of Nature" are - no wonder that a sheep   
   > became a "shark".   
   >   
      
   Yes, I know.   
   You understand nothing, and can't respond   
   with anything but nonsense.   
      
      
   --   
   Paul   
      
   https://paulba.no/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca