On 5/28/2025 9:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 10:30:44 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:



    On 5/28/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


    On Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 5:13:43 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

        On Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 5:02:16 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker
        wrote:



            On 5/28/2025 2:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


            On Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 2:26:25 PM UTC-6 Alan
            Grayson wrote:

                On Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 1:56:51 PM UTC-6 John
                Clark wrote:

                    On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 3:45 PM Alan Grayson
                    <[email protected]> wrote:

                        /> Why does it "want" to fall when you cease
                        applying the upward force?/


                    *Because if no force is applied the apple wants
                    to take the shortest path possible through 4D
                    space-time; or to put another way, it wants to
                    take the longest possible proper time to get
                    from your hand to the ground.  Remember that
                    unlike the formula for calculating the distance
                    in space, the formula for calculating the
                    spacetime distance between two events contains a
                    minus sign, that's why space is different from
                    time. *


                But before it starts to move, how does it know which
                path satisfies the requirement you allege? AG


            I don't think it knows or wants anything. And I don't
            think GR can answer my question. It must be a postulate
            of GR, that geodesic paths maximize proper time and
            consequently this is the path a test particle will take
            in free fall. In other words, we don't actually KNOW why
            it takes the path it does. AG

            It's just a definition of "geodesic" that geodesic paths
            maximize proper time.


        No, it's not just a defintion. You can calculate proper time
        along different paths, and find a path which maximizes proper
        time. But why a particle takes that path, AFAICT, is unknown.
        It must be a postulate of GR. I was hoping for more. AG

              Did you KNOW why massive bodies attracted one another
            in Newtonian physics?  Do you know why like charges repel
            and opposite charges attract, instead of the other way
            around?  If I told you it was God's will that test
            particles fall along geodesics would you then KNOW why?
            There are never answers to "why" questions at a
            fundamental level...otherwise they wouldn't be fundamental.


        The "why" questions change as we go down the rabbit hole.
        Some get answered. Asking such questions motivates deeper
        theories. It's just that I had higher hopes for GR. AG


    Another problem is this; starting from some point in spacetime,
    we can find the geodesic path to some other point in spacetime.
    But since the particle doesn't know beforehand, the endpoint of
    its path, how is the motion determined? AG
    Then you have to specify the starting point AND an initial
    velocity...just like in Newtonian mechanics, which can also be
    written as an extremal principle.

    Brent


OK. But still, the fact that it takes a path which maximizes proper time, must be a postulate. And how does wrist watch time relate to the path taken? Do test particles carry clocks? AG
Go study some classical mechanics.  Do you think particles carry least-action watches?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e2981c1d-5bed-4730-9966-b952bb1643af%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to