geordief

Thanks. Words (=ideas) are hard for me (but yes I did read it and will try again) The question ,though I am asking is whether ,if Einstein had not existed would a physicist have found it a lot easier to understand the Equivalence Principle once he or she became familiar with the concept of weightlessness ,as was the general public once astronauts started floating around in their cabins a la Gagarin. I know Einstein's mind's eye showed him the workman falling off his ladder and so being weightless for a very short time.... (I wasn't sure whether to post this thread in the hard science section as my question was maybe as much historical as involving the nitty gritty of the theory) Edit:top of page 376 is that a misprint: "mb=K superscript1"? Does "mk=K superscript1" make more sense?

Einstein describes how an accelerating sealed chamber is indistinguishable from a gravitational field to an observer in the chamber. I have learned and read a little about this in the past 5 years or so and also that Einstein described this as his happiest idea. It seems to be possibly the kernel of General Relativity and yet I wonder whether his appreciation was any different or more profound than the appreciation of weightlessness and artificial gravity that became common knowledge as soon as astronauts went into space in the 60s. True ,Einstein realized this without seeing astronauts floating around the spacecraft but what I want to ask is whether the common or garden appreciation of weightlessness and artificial gravity that is really second nature to most people (well I hope so) is equally enlightening as Einstein's Equivalence Principle or is there more to it than that(I appreciate that astronauts do not accelerate to the extent of causing light rays to bend in front of their eyes😀 )

Reported for non-attribution of quotation😇

Well philosophers can be objects of ridicule (think Python) https://youtu.be/l9SqQNgDrgg and Socrates himself was dismissive of them in his Apologia ,not wishing to be associated with them and their seeming reputation for speciousness (was it?) -he was being accused of not respecting the gods ,if I recall correctly) Imagine how insufferable they would be as a profession if they agreed on a position

I don't need any app on my phone as it came included in one of the android upgrades. I just have to turn on the camera ,point it at the QR code and the website connected to the QR code pops up on the screen. I have no idea if this procedure works differently with non android phones.

Oh,peas.

Currantly

It's a squishy slope that comes to no gourd.

Are we allowed ad hominyms now ?

You cannot fight the Man from Del Monte

Thanks,plenty there.

They were preserved in aspic.

Cream whipped?

I can't edit it now.

What are the conditions that favour the set of ,eg blackcurrant jelly? I assume the proportion of pectin to fluid volume is one of them. What about temperature....is that fixed? And does continuing the boil after the liquid is starting to set cause the set to deteriorate?(how fine is that judgement?) Any other parameters?

Thanks. Yes ,I thought of writing "Euclidean geometry" but was a bit uncertain as to the correct terminology "Natively" an auto misspelling for "naturally" I am guessing.(my bold)

Is the geometry of spacetime universally applicable because the old geometry of space and time as measured from any one point has proved incapable of modeling events in other places and times to a sufficient degree of accuracy under high speeds of relative motion? (which spacetime can do except under extreme conditions)

Is this discussion beating around the bush of the simple question "Does a leaf in the forest still fall when we are not looking"? Does our looking represent the scientific endeavour and the question as to whether the ship sails on regardless ,the philosophical endeavour? I feel that the scientific endeavour and the philosophical endeavour are complimentary but clearly are different paths to an ever progressing regressing ** end. There are other paths too,and some point in the other direction. ** damn that autocorrect facility

I spoke too soon .I think your first idea may have changed my settings back to more or less how it was(though what I actually did I am not quite sure ,since it didn't seem to work the last time I tried)

No ,don't think it is that ,for me (I just zoom it up to what is comfortable now .These devices can be frustrating but never so bad as to wreak physical vengeance on them- in my case the user is equally to "blame")

That happened to me too.I use ithe screen as a flashlight and often enough a chance knock in the dark brings it to settings and I get either high contrast or ,like you small font that I cannot seem to change. I have just lived with it for the past few weeks as I cannot find the way back

I love those questions and I don't think they are hard to answer (when you are as thick as me it is easier ) The first man or lady might have been escaping a wild beast of some description and instinctively appreciated the protection it gave. This appreciation may have been reinforced by repetition. So he was a proto scientist(statistician?) But trying to rationalize it in his free time he may have waxed philosophical (esp if he was trying to impress the lady)

I we start with "we don't know " then all assertions can seem plausible.

https://theconversation.com/a-new-kind-of-physics-stephen-wolfram-has-a-radical-plan-to-build-the-universe-from-dots-and-lines-136830 Along those lines?

How would you know that there were no more galaxies? They might just be moving too fast for you to see them. Apparently in our own distant future we will longer be able to see any of the galaxies that we can see today as their speed of recession will have gone above the speed of light....