MigL

True, but could you measure acceleration that accurately without inferring/calculating it from the time dilation frequency shift ?

Thanks for clearing away some of the 'fog', guys.

We have no choice Zap. If we didn't, who would you have a discussion with ?

Assuming I came around to your way of thinking... Exactly how would the maximum of $50k be disbursed ? As INow pointed out, I'm not 100% familiar with E Warren's proposal. Would there be cases where a student loan doesn't qualify for forgiveness ? Perhaps if the student didn't complete his/her studies ? Or if the student takes on a large loan, for medical studies, say, expecting a big salary payout, but can't hack the course load, switches to teaching Phisical Ed., and can't afford to repay the large loan ? I'd be interested in more detail. And maybe if E Warren would explain herself better to citizens who have repaid their obligations, her polling might start to rise again. ( both J Biden and B Sanders are too old, and I can't root for A Yang like JC )

This thread moves pretty fast. Certainly faster than the actual Impeachment trial. As for browbeating and put-downs, you guys are starting to make the trial participants look like amateurs. ( really, comparisons to Goebbels and D Trump debating style ? ) We have opinions. So does everyone else. Every once in a while you can even change someone's mind. But most of the time people are too passionate about politics. ( strange, as JC is Canadian and we are laid back, go with the flow, kind of guys )

Frankly, I hadn't considered that the equivalence principle wouldn't apply because,although the stresses might tear a string, a 1g acceleration wouldn't tear apart a rocket. Nor had I given Born rigidity much thought. I had gone on the assumption that, in the given example, any differences in ( proper ) acceleration would be negligible and probably unmeasurable, and so could be considered equal for our purpose. Then again, the time dilation for the height of a rocket, would also be extremely small. ( sometimes you make one assumption too many )

The fog situation was extremely bad. So bad in fact, that the pilot was flying low enough to follow the road. The Sikorsky ( formerly United Tech., now Lockheed-Martin ) S-76 is fully capable of instrument flying, and should have been flying above the fog layer. It seems the pilot realised his mistake too late, and tried to climb just prior to the crash. I'm still not aware whether he hit something like an electrical tower or wires. Or even an embankment. ( one of the last transmissions from the control tower was " You're still too low." ) I doubt very much a mechanical failiure, as the S-76 has an excellent record. RIP to Kobe, his daughter, and the other 7 who lost their lives.

If she was trying to 'one-up' B Sanders' education platform, it doesn't seem to be working. J Biden is still leading but stagnant. B Sanders is climbing and close behind. E warren is 10 % behind the lead, and falling. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/democratic-polls.html She might get more bang for the buck if she proposed the 'debt free' option first, then, if additional funds are available, she could tackle some sort of debt reduction/forgiveness. ( oops, now I've gone back to the Democratic Primary; my bad )

In a rocket accelerating at 1g, if you are standing in the top ( nose ) and let go of a ball, does it not drop to the bottom of the rocket ? It gains kinetic from potential energy exactly the same as if you let go at the Earth's surface from the same height as the length of the rocket. EM radiation climbing out of the gravitational well to that height on Earth, will be red-shifted, while EM radiation falling into the gravity well will be blue-shifted. This effect is due to gravitational time dilation; the frequency of the EMR are the reference pulses ( light clock ) that measure the dilation. We can now use the equivalence principle to make the exact same statements about the rocket accelerating at 1g. EMR climbing up the rocket ( towards the nose ) will be red-shifted, while EMR falling to the bottom of the rocket ( towards the tail ) will be blue shifted. This is due to equivalent gravitational time dilation, and the effect is exactly equivalent to the 1g , Earth case. Please point out where you see an error in my thinking, Mordred.

I was not aware of that. What would be the timeline for 'debt free moving forward' ? If one impacts the implementation of the other, I would rather see the 'debt free' than the 'debt forgiveness'. The people who have the current debt , have already gotten an education, it is simply a money issue now. But 'debt free' going forward means more people, unburdened by the prospect of large debt, can afford to get an education.

I think there will be witnesses. If they don't allow for witnesses, and J Bolton's book makes all the schemes and unethical behaviour of this administration public, voters will associate the cover-up with the senators also and possibly punish them at re-election. They are all about protecting their a*ses, and throwing others under the bus ( most of them anyway ). But they still won't remove D Trump from the Presidency, witnesses or no witnesses.

I'm not that familiar with The American education system, INow. Phi has mentioned a few other problems other than spiraling costs. But the system as it stands, is unfair to some people, burdening them with excessive debt. The 'solution' being considered, mostly shifts the unfairness around to another group of people. That is why I said it is the wrong vehicle. The money could be better spent subsidizing the education system, making it more affordable going forward. And it wouldn't create any resentment among voters, like the gentleman who posed the question to E Warren ( I really should pull up a link, but it was all over the news or Google searches ), and cause those people to vote a jackass into the Presidency again out of spite. How about 'fair'.

That's an indication of the state of American politics. D Trump would never survive as a mobster. He's got the right instincts ( me, me, me ), but has loose ( twitter ) lips, and a tendency to hang others 'out to dry' for his mistakes ( cant even begin to mention all the names ). Kind of sad that some think that makes him presidential material.

To come together again to compare clocks, one or the other will have to move to the other's location. Either climbing up, or down, the equivalent gravitational well.

There could be some truth in that. Maybe I'm looking at it from a Canadian point of view. Our tuition is heavily subsidized by the Government to keep it much more affordable. There is still an 'un-fairness' in the system, as some provinces are more subsidized than others, and some fields of study are not subsidized at all, making them as, if not more expensive than the US ( medical studies comes to mind ). If E Warren wanted to lower costs of education for everybody, with Government subsidies, I would be all for that. If she wanted to eliminate education costs altogether, I could back that too ( not sure if too many Americans would ). But while I may agree that costs for higher education are getting out of control, I disagree that debt forgiveness is the right vehicle to address the situation. To set up an unfair situation where some repay their debt through hard work and sacrifice, while those who chose not to work hard or make sacrifices to repay their debt, simply have it forgiven, seems to invite defaulting on future debts in the hope of further debt elimination. ( making student loans and higher education even more unattainable ) Since you chose to provide details, Swansont, I'll use your example. You repaid your debt, and I have no idea how much sacrifice was involved, but I'm sure it was still a burden for you and your parents. If one of your contemporary school mates chose not to repay his debt ( and his parents didn't help out ) but, after a couple of years, the Government forgave his debt. Would you or your parents feel you had been treated fairly ? And when your kids go to an undoubtedly even more expensive university, will you feel the need to help them out, or will they feel the need to make sacrifices to repay their debt ? Why not just wait for someone to come along and forgive that debt ? And will student loans not become unattainable for most ( who really need them ) simply because the criteria to qualify will have been tightened considerably, due to the frequent forgiving of debt ?

I'm a little confused about how GR handles variant mass also ( see my last post, 15 hr ago ) As per your explanation, I can see how the metric is a simple coordinate transformation, as that is what general covariance implies. But the variant mass would have the invariant component, a momentum component due to its motion, in common with SR, but GR would possibly even have a gravitational component due to the fact that gravity gravitates.. Can you shed some light on this ( keep it simple ).

And that's with just student loan forgiveness... Can you imagine the benefits if you also forgave mortgages, car loans, business loans, gambling loans, etc. It would be a utopia if ALL loans were forgiven. But no-one would ever be able to borrow money again ( yes, there was quite a bit of sarcasm in there ). If the reason for having to take a student loan is eliminated ( free education ), I have no problem with that. If two people take a student loan, knowing it needs to be repaid, and subsequently one repays it while the other has his debt forgiven, Is not one disadvantaged compared to the other ? Or vice versa, is not the other benefitted compared to the one ?

You're misunderstanding iNow ( or maybe we're not explaining properly ). I have said I have no problem with the introduction of free education for all. Or universal health care for all. What E Warren is proposing is retroactively making higher education free for SOME people. She is 'unbalancing the equation' and giving advantage to one group over the other. And it seems quite a few people are upset with E Warren over her comments to that gentleman. (

I call B.S., Inow. You are a nice guy, but nobody is that nice. If you deplenished your life savings for treatment, while I got mine for free, you would be upset, say the least. ( maybe not, just because you really like me ) Isn't this America, the land of equal opportunity for all ? Introduce subsidies, or make education free for everyone going forward, but don't set differing goalposts for people, or treat them differently. What you want is equal outcomes, that just isn't going to happen. As for JC's question... Introduce universal health care for all. The difference is, everyone gets free cancer treatment, i.e. equal opportunity. Unfortunately, not everyone survives cancer, even with treatment, i.e. unequal outcomes.

Not quite, but I like your cancer analogy. Making education free from this point on, is like finding a cure for cancer. No-one ever has to suffer again. That is equivalent to subsidized or free education, from this point on. Both you and I developing cancer, and while you re-mortgage your house, and spend your life's savings and kid's education funds on treatment, E Warren comes along, and gives me my treatment for free. The way you would feel, is the way people who have repaid their debts, would feel.

Recently heard about a gentleman at one of E Warren's campaign stops questioning her about her plan to forgive student loans. A policy which had previously seemed attractive to me. He said that he had made many sacrifices to pay off his daughter's student loan, and could he have his money back ? She of course, said "No". Seems like a kick in the teeth to all the people who have worked hard and made sacrifices to repay their loans, while those who haven't are going to be rewarded with a disappeared obligation. They knew the choices they were making; a big pay-out from a well paying job. Now they complain that debt repayment takes a big chunk out of that well paying job. By all means, subsidize and reduce the cost of secondary education, so as to reduce or eliminate student loans. To simply 'forgive' their debt sends the wrong message... "If you don't work at your obligations and responsibilities, no worries, someone else will do it for you." ( if this is off-topic in this thread, please split off as this could be worth discussing, and I'd like to hear other's opinions )

I have known a couple of 'mobsters' or lower level 'mob bosses'. You would be surprised how eloquent they are these days, Airbrush.

Swansont is correct. If we look at gravitational time dilation as the loss of energy of an EM reference signal as it travels up a gravitational well, then an EM signal ( light clock ) would lose energy travelling in the direction of acceleration, and gain when travelling opposite the direction of acceleration. By gain/loss of energy I mean increased/decreased frequency and/or shortened/lengthened wavelength. IOW the equivalence principle holds.

Oh, that explains things... You are working with a theory that has been relegated to history for almost a century. ( and which, while useful, had many problems ) Are you going to reference the 'raisin bread' model of the atom next ? I expect it since you keep asking what are fundamental particles composed of...

I think HE was a cross-dresser. Not that there's anything wrong with that.