Zack_M_Davis comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012) - Less Wrong

25 Post author: orthonormal 26 December 2011 10:57PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1430)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 05 July 2012 05:51:55AM 2 points [-]

I must apologize for the delay in replying. Regretfully, I don't think I can spare any more time for this exchange (and am going to be taking a break from this and some other addicting sites), so this will likely be my final reply.

distance(t) = sqrt(10^2 + c^2((5 - t)^2) Gravity(t) = 6.67 * 10^-11 * sum(802,000distance(t), for t > 0, t < 10) * (10 / distance(t))

Now I think I sort-of see what you're trying to do here, but I don't understand what's motivating that specific expression; it seems to me that if you want to treat space and time symmetrically, then the expression you want is something more like , which should be able to be evaluated with the help of a standard integral table.

Please don't interpret this as hostility (for this is the sort of forum where it's actually considered polite to tell people this sort of thing), but my subjective impression is that you are confused in some way; I don't have the time or physics expertise to fully examine all the ideas you've mentioned and explain in detail exactly why they fail or why they work, but what you've said so far has not impressed me. If you want to learn more about physics, you are of course aware that there are a wide variety of standard textbooks to choose from, and I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 09 July 2012 02:49:13PM 0 points [-]

I do not interpret it, or any of your other responses, as hostility. (I've been upvoting your responses. I requested feedback, and you've provided it.)

I did indicate the integral would be more accurate; I can run a summation in a few seconds, however, where an integral requires breaking out a pencil and paper and skills I haven't touched since college. It was a rough estimate, which I used strictly to show what it was such a test should be looking for. Since we aren't running the test itself, accuracy didn't seem particularly important, since the purpose was strictly demonstrative.

(Neither formula is actually correct for the idea, however. The constant would be be wrong, and would need to be adjusted so the gravitational force would be equivalent to the existing formula for an object at rest.)

Thank you for your time!