If an object with velocity V enters a uniform gravitational field in the opposite direction of the force of gravity, that object will eventually have zero velocity with respect to the gravitational field and then start accelerating in the direction of the force of gravity. If there is an accelerometer on that object throughout this journey, Einstein's concepts say that the accelerometer always reads zero throughout this entire journey. Why is that?
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 9:34:06 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If an object with velocity V enters a uniform gravitational field in the opposite direction of the force of gravity, that object will eventually have zero velocity with respect to the gravitational field and then start accelerating in the direction of the force of gravity. If there is an accelerometer on that object throughout this journey, Einstein's concepts say that the accelerometer always reads zero throughout this entire journey. Why is that?
> Thanks,
> David Seppala
> Bastrop TX

Not "throughout" the journey, trolling crank

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 9:34:06 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If an object with velocity V enters a uniform gravitational field in the opposite direction of the force of gravity, that object will eventually have zero velocity with respect to the gravitational field and then start accelerating in the direction of the force of gravity. If there is an accelerometer on that object throughout this journey, Einstein's concepts say that the accelerometer always reads zero throughout this entire journey. Why is that?

For the same reason that Newton's concepts say it, namely, it is true. Or are you asking why it is true? In other words, are you asking why an accelerometer doesn't register any acceleration when on a free trajectory in a gravitational field? Newton explained this very clearly in Principia (1687).. Side note: the concept of a perfectly uniform gravitational field is an idealization, but the same applies to actual varying gravitational fields, i.e., an accelerometer reads zero along a free trajectory (not referring to tidal effects over the dimensions of the device).

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 9:34:06 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If an object with velocity V enters a uniform gravitational field in the opposite direction of the force of gravity, that object will eventually have zero velocity with respect to the gravitational field and then start accelerating in the direction of the force of gravity. If there is an accelerometer on that object throughout this journey, Einstein's concepts say that the accelerometer always reads zero throughout this entire journey. Why is that?
> Thanks,
> David Seppala
> Bastrop TX

Entering gravity is entering its outer drop off. There is no inner.
Einstein thought gravity went away. Falling replaced
weight instead. Only gravity weight can go to zero.
not the field strength that causes free fall.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-6, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 9:34:06 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > If an object with velocity V enters a uniform gravitational field in the opposite direction of the force of gravity, that object will eventually have zero velocity with respect to the gravitational field and then start accelerating in the direction of the force of gravity. If there is an accelerometer on that object throughout this journey, Einstein's concepts say that the accelerometer always reads zero throughout this entire journey. Why is that?
> For the same reason that Newton's concepts say it, namely, it is true. Or are you asking why it is true? In other words, are you asking why an accelerometer doesn't register any acceleration when on a free trajectory in a gravitational field? Newton explained this very clearly in Principia (1687). Side note: the concept of a perfectly uniform gravitational field is an idealization, but the same applies to actual varying gravitational fields, i.e., an accelerometer reads zero along a free trajectory (not referring to tidal effects over the dimensions of the device).

Let me ask the question with a scale instead of an accelerometer. Say a person is at rest in a uniform gravitational field and is on a scale that shows his weight to be 150 pounds. Now instead of being in a uniform gravitational field, let that person be on the same scale in a rocket accelerating with the same rate as the uniform gravitational field would accelerate him. Doesn't that scale show his weight as being 150 pounds? If the answer is yes, then what happens if that same person is in the accelerating rocket and also in the uniform gravitational field with the acceleration force of the rocket pulling him in the opposite direction as the gravitational field. His rocket is not moving in the gravitational field in this scenario. A result of Einstein's concepts is that the scale will still show his weight as 150 pounds. That doesn't make any sense to me. Please clarify why the scale always shows his weight to be 150 pounds in each of these three scenarios.
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:51:07 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> A result of Einstein's concepts is that the scale will still show his weight as 150 pounds.

Preparing fresh strawmen, Seppaler?

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:51:07 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > If an object with velocity V enters a uniform gravitational field in the opposite direction of the force of gravity, that object will eventually have zero velocity with respect to the gravitational field and then start accelerating in the direction of the force of gravity. If there is an accelerometer on that object throughout this journey, Einstein's concepts say that the accelerometer always reads zero throughout this entire journey. Why is that?
> >
> > For the same reason that Newton's concepts say it, namely, it is true. Or are you asking why it is true? In other words, are you asking why an accelerometer doesn't register any acceleration when on a free trajectory in a gravitational field? Newton explained this very clearly in Principia (1687). Side note: the concept of a perfectly uniform gravitational field is an idealization, but the same applies to actual varying gravitational fields, i.e., an accelerometer reads zero along a free trajectory (not referring to tidal effects over the dimensions of the device).
>
> Let me ask the question with a scale instead of an accelerometer.

Have you understood the answer to your question with an accelerometer?

> Say a person is at rest in a uniform gravitational field...

There is no such thing as a perfectly uniform gravitational field, which is partly why the equivalence principle does not apply to extended regions. Also, you can't just say "at rest in a gravitational field", you would have to say at rest in terms of a system of coordinates in which the metric is independent of the time coordinate. Remember, someone in free-fall or on any ballistic trajectory can claim correctly to be at rest in terms of the free-falling coordinates.

> ... and is on a scale that shows his weight to be 150 pounds. Now instead of
> being in a uniform gravitational field, let that person be on the same scale in
> a rocket accelerating with the same rate as the uniform gravitational field
> would accelerate him.

Again, you must specify what system of coordinates you are referring to, and whether there is a gravitational field present, and so on. Suppose you said "Consider another rocket far from any gravitating body, and subject to constant proper acceleration of "a", resulting in a certain object showing 150 lbs on a scale in that rocket".

> Doesn't that scale show his weight as being 150 pounds?

You are the one specifying the situation. If you specify a situation in which a scale shows 150 lbs, then, sure enough, in that situation the scale shows 150 lbs. Your compulsion to "ask" idiotic "questions" like that is symptomatic of a much deeper problem that has nothing specifically to do with relativity.

> What happens if that same person is in the accelerating rocket and also
> in the uniform gravitational field with the acceleration force of the rocket
> pulling him in the opposite direction as the gravitational field. His rocket is
> not moving in the gravitational field in this scenario.

Again, you already covered the case of an object that is at rest (in a gravitational field) in terms of a system of coordinates in which the metric is independent of the time coordinate. See above. Surely no sentient being could think this is a separate question, when it is manifestly the same situation. Did you get kicked in the head by a mule?

> The scale will still show his weight as 150 pounds. That doesn't make any sense to me.

It doesn't? Can your brain articulate what causes it to "think" it doesn't make sense that when the scale reads 150 it reads 150? What else (besides 150) would it read, when it reads 150? And what causes your brain to "think" that the scales would read differently according to Newtonian theory than according to general relativity?

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:23:03 PM UTC-6, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:51:07 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > If an object with velocity V enters a uniform gravitational field in the opposite direction of the force of gravity, that object will eventually have zero velocity with respect to the gravitational field and then start accelerating in the direction of the force of gravity. If there is an accelerometer on that object throughout this journey, Einstein's concepts say that the accelerometer always reads zero throughout this entire journey. Why is that?
> > >
> > > For the same reason that Newton's concepts say it, namely, it is true.. Or are you asking why it is true? In other words, are you asking why an accelerometer doesn't register any acceleration when on a free trajectory in a gravitational field? Newton explained this very clearly in Principia (1687). Side note: the concept of a perfectly uniform gravitational field is an idealization, but the same applies to actual varying gravitational fields, i.e., an accelerometer reads zero along a free trajectory (not referring to tidal effects over the dimensions of the device).
> >
> > Let me ask the question with a scale instead of an accelerometer.
> Have you understood the answer to your question with an accelerometer?
>
> > Say a person is at rest in a uniform gravitational field...
>
> There is no such thing as a perfectly uniform gravitational field, which is partly why the equivalence principle does not apply to extended regions. Also, you can't just say "at rest in a gravitational field", you would have to say at rest in terms of a system of coordinates in which the metric is independent of the time coordinate. Remember, someone in free-fall or on any ballistic trajectory can claim correctly to be at rest in terms of the free-falling coordinates.
>
> > ... and is on a scale that shows his weight to be 150 pounds. Now instead of
> > being in a uniform gravitational field, let that person be on the same scale in
> > a rocket accelerating with the same rate as the uniform gravitational field
> > would accelerate him.
> Again, you must specify what system of coordinates you are referring to, and whether there is a gravitational field present, and so on. Suppose you said "Consider another rocket far from any gravitating body, and subject to constant proper acceleration of "a", resulting in a certain object showing 150 lbs on a scale in that rocket".
> > Doesn't that scale show his weight as being 150 pounds?
> You are the one specifying the situation. If you specify a situation in which a scale shows 150 lbs, then, sure enough, in that situation the scale shows 150 lbs. Your compulsion to "ask" idiotic "questions" like that is symptomatic of a much deeper problem that has nothing specifically to do with relativity.
>
> > What happens if that same person is in the accelerating rocket and also
> > in the uniform gravitational field with the acceleration force of the rocket
> > pulling him in the opposite direction as the gravitational field. His rocket is
> > not moving in the gravitational field in this scenario.
> Again, you already covered the case of an object that is at rest (in a gravitational field) in terms of a system of coordinates in which the metric is independent of the time coordinate. See above. Surely no sentient being could think this is a separate question, when it is manifestly the same situation. Did you get kicked in the head by a mule?
>
> > The scale will still show his weight as 150 pounds. That doesn't make any sense to me.
>
> It doesn't? Can your brain articulate what causes it to "think" it doesn't make sense that when the scale reads 150 it reads 150? What else (besides 150) would it read, when it reads 150? And what causes your brain to "think" that the scales would read differently according to Newtonian theory than according to general relativity?

Okay I got it! Thanks!
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 10:05:25 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:23:03 PM UTC-6, Trevor Lange wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:51:07 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > If an object with velocity V enters a uniform gravitational field in the opposite direction of the force of gravity, that object will eventually have zero velocity with respect to the gravitational field and then start accelerating in the direction of the force of gravity. If there is an accelerometer on that object throughout this journey, Einstein's concepts say that the accelerometer always reads zero throughout this entire journey. Why is that?
> > > >
> > > > For the same reason that Newton's concepts say it, namely, it is true. Or are you asking why it is true? In other words, are you asking why an accelerometer doesn't register any acceleration when on a free trajectory in a gravitational field? Newton explained this very clearly in Principia (1687). Side note: the concept of a perfectly uniform gravitational field is an idealization, but the same applies to actual varying gravitational fields, i.e., an accelerometer reads zero along a free trajectory (not referring to tidal effects over the dimensions of the device).
> > >
> > > Let me ask the question with a scale instead of an accelerometer.
> > Have you understood the answer to your question with an accelerometer?
> >
> > > Say a person is at rest in a uniform gravitational field...
> >
> > There is no such thing as a perfectly uniform gravitational field, which is partly why the equivalence principle does not apply to extended regions. Also, you can't just say "at rest in a gravitational field", you would have to say at rest in terms of a system of coordinates in which the metric is independent of the time coordinate. Remember, someone in free-fall or on any ballistic trajectory can claim correctly to be at rest in terms of the free-falling coordinates.
> >
> > > ... and is on a scale that shows his weight to be 150 pounds. Now instead of
> > > being in a uniform gravitational field, let that person be on the same scale in
> > > a rocket accelerating with the same rate as the uniform gravitational field
> > > would accelerate him.
> > Again, you must specify what system of coordinates you are referring to, and whether there is a gravitational field present, and so on. Suppose you said "Consider another rocket far from any gravitating body, and subject to constant proper acceleration of "a", resulting in a certain object showing 150 lbs on a scale in that rocket".
> > > Doesn't that scale show his weight as being 150 pounds?
> > You are the one specifying the situation. If you specify a situation in which a scale shows 150 lbs, then, sure enough, in that situation the scale shows 150 lbs. Your compulsion to "ask" idiotic "questions" like that is symptomatic of a much deeper problem that has nothing specifically to do with relativity.
> >
> > > What happens if that same person is in the accelerating rocket and also
> > > in the uniform gravitational field with the acceleration force of the rocket
> > > pulling him in the opposite direction as the gravitational field. His rocket is
> > > not moving in the gravitational field in this scenario.
> > Again, you already covered the case of an object that is at rest (in a gravitational field) in terms of a system of coordinates in which the metric is independent of the time coordinate. See above. Surely no sentient being could think this is a separate question, when it is manifestly the same situation. Did you get kicked in the head by a mule?
> >
> > > The scale will still show his weight as 150 pounds. That doesn't make any sense to me.
> >
> > It doesn't? Can your brain articulate what causes it to "think" it doesn't make sense that when the scale reads 150 it reads 150? What else (besides 150) would it read, when it reads 150? And what causes your brain to "think" that the scales would read differently according to Newtonian theory than according to general relativity?
> Okay I got it! Thanks!
> David Seppala
> Bastrop TX

How do you measure changing weight from changing speed?