Genady

From the event of the ship leaving to the event of the ship returning, everyone on Earth experiences 10 years, and everyone on the ship experiences 1 week. What is confusing about it?

Sorry, when I said, "I think that OP rather is about a centripetal acceleration", I meant OP in this thread we are here now, namely, Willem, https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128865-the-earth-is-not-accelerating-upwards/

And the clock/calendar in the ship will indeed show 1 week.

What is wrong about it?

I can't come up with any caveat to add here .

But it is precisely what it means.

OK. To me, the fact that reactions involving virtual particles occur as predicted, is as good evidence as any. More generally, to me, virtual particles are as real as any, with a defining distinction that they appear temporarily and disappear during reactions.

I mean input and output in particle reactions. External legs on Feynman diagrams. Virtual particles are, by definition, internal lines in the latter.

Isn't it simply a consequence of their definition as particles that do not show in input or output? If they do show, they are not virtual, by definition.

I think that OP rather is about a centripetal acceleration.

No, space does not accelerate. The matter on the Earth surface accelerates downwards.

This is a dishonest response. He doesn't tell you to discuss the problem in terms of Variational Calculus. He tells you that F=dP/dT follows from more general principles rather than is just made up, and thus it makes no sense to claim that it is wrong, as you do.

Sure, he is.

This is what I think, too.

Does it?

Why not?

If you are talking about the Earth spinning around its axis, then the points on the surface everywhere accelerate downwards rather than upwards. (except the poles)

Yes, they appear in fewer cases than nuclei, but still the same virtual particles appear in all Feynman diagrams. Regarding separating and analyzing them individually, one word: quarks. I understand what you mean and do not disagree. It is just that the distinction is not good enough for me to decide that they are profoundly different. Like we say here often, it's a model, just like everything else.

True. But not distinct enough for me. For example, atom nuclei don't appear in measurements either; they appear in the calculation of a spread of recoiled alpha particles. The latter also don't appear in the measurements; they appear in calculations of trajectories from the gold screen to the detectors. Etc.

There is no time dilation (split from The twin Paradox revisited) - Speculations - Science Forums The same applies here.

All this has been already said and debunked. Nevertheless, the OP repeats themselves without any progress. The OP is going in circles ignoring input from various members and not supporting their claims with any evidence. This thread is now a troll. The OP does not discuss in good faith. * the OP above refers to @martillo

I understand that in evaluating == the LS gets evaluated first, then the RS, then they get compared. Let's say in the beginning x is 1 and y is 2. So, in x == (x=y): 1) the LS evaluates to 1 2) x=y gets executed; x is now 2 3) the RS evaluates to 2 4) 1 == 2 returns false. In (x=y) == x: 1) the LS gets executed; x is 2 2) the LS evaluates to 2 3) the RS evaluates to 2 4) 2 == 2 returns true

OK, one more time. They start from dP/dt=0. Then they rewrite this equation in such a way that the characteristics of the rocket are separate from the characteristics of the ejection. This allows them to express force on the rocket separately from the force on the ejection. The end. They don't need and don't apply F=ma anywhere, and they don't need dP/dt separately for the rocket. If you don't get this, I can't help you anymore.

That is how it should be applied.

Saying that the units match the units of force is not the same as applying F=ma. It is only your misinterpretation of their derivation, that they apply F=ma.