how big is universe ?

@metal-brain said
If time dilation does not cause gravity why have time in the equation at all?
What would be the point of that?

@shallow-blue said
"If the universe isn't eternally unchanging why have a constant in the equation at all?
What would be the point of that?"

It's the same argument as yours, so either it is correct and Zeno was right; or yours is also completely dumb. You can't have it both ways.

@metal-brain said
No, it is not the same. Not even close.
Stop making up nonsense.

If time is not important to the equation why is it in there?

@shallow-blue said
I'm not making up nonsense. Not even close.
Merely parroting yours.

If constancy is not important to the equation why is it in there?

@metal-brain said
If time is not important to the equation why is it in there?

@shallow-blue said
If constancy is not important to the equation why is it in there?

@metal-brain said
In what equation? Whose equation?

@shallow-blue said
The same one as yours, Whose is it? What is it? Where are you? What are you on? Why should I ever take you seriously?

@metal-brain said
What is your source of information?

@shallow-blue said
The same one as yours, Whose is it? What is it? Where are you? What are you on? Why should I ever take you seriously?

@Metal-Brain
The source of information is all your BS posts.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
The source of information is all your BS posts.

The equivalence principle explained:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

There are many "equivalence principles" in general relativity, though they can roughly be arranged in order of increasing generality. The "strong equivalence principle" states:

1) The gravitational motion of a small test body depends only on its initial position in spacetime and velocity, and not on its constitution.

2) The outcome of any local experiment (gravitational or not) in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory and its location in spacetime.

Main thing here is the first sentence of the article: "In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass."

Foremost to note is that the principle's domain of validity is the mathematical framework of general relativity alone, and does not incorporate special relativity and the time dilation that special relativity models as a function of velocity alone (i.e. no acceleration and no mass).

@metal-brain said
I didn't post an equation on this thread that I am aware of.
Shallow doo is just making up BS nonsense.

Hogwash!

Einstein's General Relativity equation has a "T" for time in it.
You just claimed General Relativity does not exist. Now you have a problem with Einstein and his GR equation.

Here's a blog that looks at some excerpts from one of Brian Greene's books:

https://www.scottdstrader.com/blog/ether_archives/000122.html

The last excerpt is of particular interest:

All this led Einstein to conclude that the force one feels from gravity and the force one feels from acceleration are the same. They are equivalent. Einstein called this the principle of equivalence.

...

With special relativity, Einstein proclaimed that absolute spacetime provides the benchmark, but special relativity does not take account of gravity. Then, through the equivalence principle, Einstein supplied a more robust benchmark that does include the effects of gravity. And this entailed a radical change in perspective. Since gravity and acceleration are equivalent, if you feel gravity's influence, you must be accelerating.