Recent content by Dale

Yes. In other words there is no real-valued solution to the problem. I am not sure why you say “Norton” here. It is Kirchoff’s current law. This doesn’t follow from the previous two statements. Whether it is true or not depends on the exact definition of the step function. This idealized...

But do you fully understand that the addition of R changes the problem? In other words, everyone will agree about your solution to the changed circuit. But many people will (with good reason) not agree that this changed circuit addresses the problem posed in the OP. Here is the issue, in the...

The OP question is about ##t=0##, not ##t>0##. The Laplace transform doesn’t give you that. There is no solution for ##t=0##

The irrational numbers are the Dedekind cuts of the rationals where the upper cut has no least element.

I am actually surprised that governments don’t generally use Linux for security reasons. A government should worry that a commercial entity might build in secret back doors, etc. Having the source code allows them to ensure that doesn’t happen.

My experience with WSL has been very positive. It is much better than a Linux virtual machine. And with Docker containers a lot of my technical computing problems are fixed.

You missed the point. I was not claiming that either Minkowski spacetime or Schwarzschild spacetime are realistic. They are just clear examples of two distinct spacetimes that have the same stress-energy. The mathematical fact remains that it is incorrect to think of boundary conditions as...

Both Minkowski spacetime and Schwarzschild spacetime are vacuum spacetimes. They have the same energy-momentum but different boundary conditions. Boundary conditions can also be associated with the topology or symmetry. It is incorrect to think that boundary conditions are always associated...

The boundary conditions.

Sure one can. One doesn’t need to bring in irrelevant topics to hijack a thread. This is utterly irrelevant to the discussion here because none of this reformulation stuff changes the fact that the force of gravity is not locally measurable.

Sure, that is a matter of definitions and categories. Nevertheless, the tidal force is the physical part of gravity, the part that does not share the characteristics of fictitious forces. What is more important than the label is how it behaves. It is not proportional to the mass of the object...

And once there is some actual evidence supporting your preference then it will be an acceptable topic for PF. But even then it would be off topic for this thread.

We are already in that situation with GR alone. So why should we hypothesize about unknown possible future theories when we can already answer the question with current theories? In GR the gravitational tidal force is a true force which is the part of gravity modeled by spacetime curvature...

I won’t argue against that. In either case, the local gravitational force, like fictitious forces, is not measurable either way. It can only be inferred through motion.

Because we have found through years of experience that this is the best way to keep the signal to noise ratio high.