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