Recent content by Dale

We are asking you for the references. If not some AI hallucination, then where are you getting any of this? Specifically this part:

I would use a Lagrangian approach for this. For a free body in cylindrical coordinates the Lagrangian is: $$L = \frac{1}{2}m \left( \dot r^2 + r^2 \dot \theta^2 + \dot z^2 \right)$$ Since ##\theta## doesn't show in the Lagrangian, it is a cyclic coordinate. So we immediately have the...

No. Read what I wrote. I was complaining about how obnoxious it is to read AI writing. It has nothing to do with a criticism of your years of insight. AI writing is simply annoying to read. It seems that you do not have a physics question, just a question about AI. AI and computer science...

My comment has nothing to do with dissipative forces. It has to do with you specifying a constant distance ##R## from the center of the earth. If ##R## is the equatorial radius then at the pole it will be about 20 km in the air. If ##R## is the polar radius then at the equator it will be about...

Are you having the person walk underground at the equator or are they walking in the air at the pole? The geoid is not at the same distance ##R## from the center of the earth at the pole vs at the equator.

Please don’t use AI. It makes your writing so unnecessarily long. It is obnoxious to read. That said, do you have a question?

That is incredibly frustrating to hear since you literally said exactly that in posts 7, 9, and 13. And each time I asked for clarification. And then your response was "just think about it". @Demystifier answered that in post #4. No, I am very much unwilling at this point. Thread closed. In...

That is completely unproductive. "Just think about it" is not an explanation. No amount of me thinking about it will explain your reasoning. I never said that. I will make one more attempt, and if you do not explain your reasoning then this thread will be closed. The nucleus has a...

It is pretty firmly philosophical. If you are interested in diving into the philosophical stuff on this topic you could start here: Bunge M. Physical Time: The Objective and Relational Theory. Philosophy of Science. 1968;35(4):355-388. doi:10.1086/288228 and then go to later references that...

I still don't understand why you think there is a conflict here. What is it about coordinating a response that would prevent an atom from being in superposition? Please don't repeat the question, explain why you think there is a conflict between the two facts. Explain what it is about...

In what way is there any conflict between a wavefunction being spread out and an atom being in superposition? Again, what is the supposed conflict between superposition and the wavefunction? There simply isn’t any conflict between them as far as I know, and I cannot guess why you think there...

Professional scientific references, not “an AI told me it was a brilliant idea”.

Why would not containing energy somewhere imply that spacetime must be flat there? How can you justify this assumption?

Is this an AI assisted idea? It sounds like the sort of stuff an AI would either produce or encourage.

Whether or not something is defined is a matter of definition. We choose the definitions for our convenience. There are two reasons that restricting the definition of proper time to timelike worldlines is convenient: 1) we can then say that proper time is the time measured by a clock. This...