Recent content by FactChecker

I personally think that GR's explanation of why ##M_i=M_g## is one of the most intellectually satisfying things in physics.

Give yourself time to think about it. GR is a profound change in our thinking.

There could have been some reason for ##M_i=M_g## other than GR, but nobody could come up with one. It was a mystery until Einstein explained it with GR.

I would call it a satisfying consequence of General Relativity. GR explains the mysterious reason behind ##M_i=M_g##, not the other way around.

General Relativity hypothesizes that an object, appearing to accelerate due to gravity, is simply moving in a non-accelerated straight line in its spacetime geometry. To that object, it is not reacting to an external force, it is going in a straight, non-accelerated path. That is why gravity is...

No. But the current understanding explains why the exact same mass is appropriate in both equations. That is one of the strong points of General Relativity. Without that, we would have to come up with some other theory of why those two masses are exactly the same.

Particles have been accelerated to near the speed of light, so it is known how much energy and force is needed. The results agree with the theory to an impressive degree.

The centrifugal force at the edge of the disk is proportional to the radius of the disk, which in this case is about 30,000 miles. Have you calculated that force? It might be very large. The disk would have to withstand that force.

Yes! It would not occur to me that AI would search through my old emails to find a password. I assume that it took advantage of you being already logged into your gmail account with another password. But if you are running it, it can probably find any passwords that you have direct access to at...

Very true. But it should be added that some work is going on in quantum computing/error correction, and quantum communication with larger entangled objects. These are still infinitesimal compared to a cat.

You are asking about something that is so unlikely that any theories will/have remained unverified for a very long time (billions of years). So the best you can expect now are speculations and assumptions.

I don't think you should count on this. It's often shocking how careless people/companies are on things that they are experts at.

When you talk about a "infinite", are you talking about a distance/metric, or are you talking about the number of elements in the set A? If you are talking about the infinite number of elements in set A, you should read about Cantor's work and cardinal numbers.

Hay!!! I take that personally. ..... well, ok. :cool: If that was the FB consensus, I am surprised and impressed.

"Hedging your bets" is a legitimate technique to reduce the severity/variance/magnitude of alternative outcomes.