Faraday cages

@humy said
And this box has no windows and he cannot see what is outside it.

We'll add external sources of information later. At the moment it's just about what it appears to the physicist in the box what his own clock is doing.

@deepthought said
I think you are missing my point. The box is small enough that the gravitational field does not measurably vary inside it, so that the physicist and his atomic clock are in the same frame of reference. We are also making the rather unrealistic assumption that the crane is big enough that the box can be raised and lowered enough that there should be a change in the rate ...[text shortened]... 16), so I don't know whether the example I'm giving is realistic. We can do a calculation later on.

No, you are missing the point. Not all people are in a box. Most people know where they are at.
Where is the universe where all people are locked inside boxes? It is not this one. There are people in boxes and people who observe boxes. The people who observe the boxes know where they are at. All you have shown is that people in boxes cannot tell. I know I am on the earth at the 45th parallel. I can measure proper time here and compare it to somewhere else.

When Greene said the math shows it are you claiming he is wrong? Is Brian Greene in a box?

@metal-brain said
No, you are missing the point.

How, according to you, is he missing the point? -lets see;

Not all people are in a box. Most people know where they are at.

Relevance? We already all know this and it has nothing to do with the person in that box.

Where is the universe where all people are locked inside boxes?

Straw man; He didn't say/imply this hypothetical "all people are locked inside boxes". There is just ONE person in that box and there ONLY needs to be ONE person in that box for this argument to work.

The people who observe the boxes know where they are at.

Which is completely Irrelevant; The question is about the one person inside the box, not the people outside the box. Will HE see a change in the behavior in the clock?

When Greene said the math shows it are you claiming he is wrong? Is Brian Greene in a box?

What has whether Greene is in the box got to do with whether Greene's maths is correct? You make no sense whatsoever.

All you have shown is that people in boxes cannot tell.

THAT "people in boxes cannot tell", and assuming you mean by that that the man in the box will see no change in behavior in the clock, IS the relevant point, which you moronicly dismiss with a "All you have shown...". You could have just once in you life showed you can be intelligent by answered his question with a very simple "Yes" or "No" instead of all this usual hateful ranting and raving with straw man and irrelevancies. The question only required a very simple "Yes" or "No" answer.

So, to sum up, its not him that is completely missing the point but you.

@humy said
How, according to you, is he missing the point? -lets see;

Not all people are in a box. Most people know where they are at.

Relevance? We already all know this and it has nothing to do with the person in that box.

Where is the universe where all people are locked inside boxes?

Straw man; He didn't say/imply this hypothetical "all people are ...[text shortened]... le "Yes" or "No" answer.

So, to sum up, its not him that is completely missing the point but you.

The same is true of blind people.

https://www.livescience.com/52488-centrifugal-centripetal-forces.html

You omitted something. Centrifugal force. Can a person in a box know the difference of this other force? Explain why centrifugal force is any less relevant in the thought experiment. If you argue centrifugal force is irrelevant your whole point dissolves.

@Metal-Brain

It's less relevant because you can go to the center of a spinning box and see there is much less force shoving you to the walls of the box.
If you are in a box and a crane is moving you to different levels, your incredibly accurate clock won't look any different to you because both you and the clock change time flows together.
You have to have that clock compared to one on the ground in a different gravity field and there will be a difference seen by comparing clocks but not to the dude inside the box.
Just like going super fast in a spaceship, your time flow and the time flow of a clock is the same so you don't know you are aging less than your twin brother on Earth, till you come back to Earth and rejoin that frame of reference.
That is spelled out by Einstein, the Equivalence principle.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain

It's less relevant because you can go to the center of a spinning box and see there is much less force shoving you to the walls of the box.
If you are in a box and a crane is moving you to different levels, your incredibly accurate clock won't look any different to you because both you and the clock change time flows together.
You have to have that clock ...[text shortened]... th and rejoin that frame of reference.
That is spelled out by Einstein, the Equivalence principle.

LOL!
So now the person in the box is allowed to escape and see where he is? Now you are digressing away from your own criteria!

"That is spelled out by Einstein, the Equivalence principle."

But the equivalence principle is just a thought experiment and nothing more. Centrifugal force could be part of the thought experiment since the person in the box cannot tell the difference. If centrifugal force is irrelevant the thought experiment is irrelevant.

Nobody claimed the equivalence principle was a hard and fast rule, not even Einstein. He knew acceleration is not needed for time dilation. It is a mere thought experiment.

Do you respect people who change their own rules when they see fit? Is that what a competent physicist would do?

@metal-brain said

You omitted something. Centrifugal force.

Which is completely irrelevant to his argument.
Lets suppose the box isn't spinning or exposed to centrifugal force...

The same is true of blind people

Irrelevant.
Lets suppose the person in the box isn't blind and can see the clock.

...Your total irrelevancies are just never ending.
His question only requires a very simple "Yes" or "No" answer. Why be so evasive to him?

@metal-brain said
No, you are missing the point. Not all people are in a box. Most people know where they are at.
Where is the universe where all people are locked inside boxes? It is not this one. There are people in boxes and people who observe boxes. The people who observe the boxes know where they are at. All you have shown is that people in boxes cannot tell. I know I am on the earth ...[text shortened]... else.

When Greene said the math shows it are you claiming he is wrong? Is Brian Greene in a box?

Can my physicist in a box tell if his clock's behaviour has changed if the box changes its state of motion or its position in the gravitational field? We are currently assuming he has no access to an accelerometer. I have a good reason for the spareness of the information available to my physicist in a box.

@metal-brain said
LOL!
So now the person in the box is allowed to escape and see where he is? Now you are digressing away from your own criteria!

"That is spelled out by Einstein, the Equivalence principle."

But the equivalence principle is just a thought experiment and nothing more. Centrifugal force could be part of the thought experiment since the person in the box cannot tell t ...[text shortened]... ct people who change their own rules when they see fit? Is that what a competent physicist would do?

Where did I say he was 'allowed to escape'. If the box with the human inside is spinning and he feels the force pushing him into the wall, he will know it is spinning because he can go to the center of the box and not feel the acceleration due to the spin. If the box has very quiet rockets accelerating the box, there is no way for the dude inside to tell if he is accelerating or just in a gravity field.

@humy said
Which is completely irrelevant to his argument.
Lets suppose the box isn't spinning or exposed to centrifugal force...

The same is true of blind people

Irrelevant.
Lets suppose the person in the box isn't blind and can see the clock.

...Your total irrelevancies are just never ending.
His question only requires a very simple "Yes" or "No" answer. Why be so evasive to him?

"Lets suppose the box isn't spinning or exposed to centrifugal force..."

The person in the box is not allowed to suppose. That is the whole point of the thought experiment. You are making up the rules as you go along. The person in the box can look at a clock, but not compare it to another. That would be a violation of the thought experiment. I suppose next you will allow them cell phones so communication will allow them to know where they are at. The thought experiment predated cell phones, but why not? No need for a person in a box. You are making a far bigger deal out of this thought experiment anyway.

@sonhouse said
Where did I say he was 'allowed to escape'. If the box with the human inside is spinning and he feels the force pushing him into the wall, he will know it is spinning because he can go to the center of the box and not feel the acceleration due to the spin. If the box has very quiet rockets accelerating the box, there is no way for the dude inside to tell if he is accelerating or just in a gravity field.

You think he will be forced against the wall and not the floor? Explain why you think that.

@deepthought said
Can my physicist in a box tell if his clock's behaviour has changed if the box changes its state of motion or its position in the gravitational field? We are currently assuming he has no access to an accelerometer. I have a good reason for the spareness of the information available to my physicist in a box.

No. What is your point?

@metal-brain said
No. What is your point?

The "No" IS the point.
Now that wasn't too painful was it? I mean just answering a straight question with a nice simple "No"?
Why couldn't you just answer each straight question with a simple "yes" or "no" answer in all your previous posts where instead you didn't answer but instead just continually angrily ranted and raved with irrelevancies and a thousand words pointlessly wasting many hours of both your own time and ours?

@humy said
The "No" IS the point.
Now that wasn't too painful was it? I mean just answering a straight question with a nice simple "No"?
Why couldn't you just answer each straight question with a simple "yes" or "no" answer in all your previous posts where instead you didn't answer but instead just continually angrily ranted and raved with irrelevancies and a thousand words pointlessly wasting many hours of both your own time and ours?

If it is a straight question I will answer it. Often they are not. If something is irrelevant I say so. Furthermore, you are the king of ranting and raving and pointlessly wasting many hours of both our time. Remember when I asked you for an alternative explanation to why things fall to time dilation and you said gravity? You could have admitted not having an alternative explanation instead of pretending you gave one. You waste peoples time more than anyone on this forum. More psychological projection from you. Look in the mirror when you rant about it next time.

BTW, he asked an irrelevant question. It doesn't prove any point he was trying to make.

@metal-brain said
If it is a straight question I will answer it.

You just did. Was that painful to you? I only ask because I don't understand why you don't do that more often.

Often they are not.

I see no evidence of this. I understood the recent questions put to you just fine and knew the answers.