Capiert

Precession

happens also on earth.

Momentum can be rotated to the opposite side

where it then has the opposite direction.

That effect depends on impulse mom=F*t, (duration time t).

The slower the top turns, the longer the mass (each molecule)

can be affected (on 1 side, vs the opposite).

Thus a spinning top, will swoop (=precess) extremely low (horizontal)

at slow rotating speed, (rather that stand up almost straight vertical).

I.e.

Longer duration time t,

that the mass has (F=Wt=m*g) accelerated down (fallen),

(or been left behind, push theory)

so the angle is (larger) lower, e.g. further down (wrt top).

 

 

(Note: How can a mass have force, when itsself is (only) part of (the) force (equation)?

Who owns who? What owns what? (A factor can be owned.)

That hierarchy must surely be obvious for those who can see & grasp.

Force has mass (in its product, 1 of the 2 factors),

but mass can't have force unless m=F/g (it's divided by acceleration (freefall)).

(But per acceleration g, is meaning it must have been "accelerated" (past tense, not during).)

Thus that force (F=m*g) is only an 'accelerating mass', not a driving (force).

It is a observation (effect), not a cause that drives.)

 

 

The twist (curve) direction between the (2) axii

(e.g. Left vs right hand rule,

for generators vs motors)

depends on the Coriolis acceleration,

a (tangential) speed difference wrt radius,

e.g. orbit around the sun, galaxy too.

 

Since speed difference is (proportional to the mass's) impulse,

that has affect on how

& which direction things twist (curve).

 

Do I really need Einstein's calculation about Mercury,

for here on earth?

Especially when it's understandable without him?

Back then they could hardly measure a difference.

& no one cares that it is on the boarders of tolerance

& influence (prestige).

Please bring me something more significant in range >60%, rather than ppm.

For a wild goose chase, that only 1 person performed.

All eggs in 1 basket. (I need something more than just splitting a hair.)

Something I can see. Was there a photo? or 2?

 

The Stern_Gerlach experiment can also be explained as,

a (static) magnetic gradient*

that can be seen as a(n extra) magnetic field change

wrt position, for a moving charge.

Different spins are not needed.

If a charged electron beam is shot left of symmetry

(midline, of max vertical magnetic field)

then the beam would travel up (lets say, because it 1st moves left, slightly);

the beam going (slightly) to the right side (of magnetic field max, middle)

would go down.

Thus the (beam also) splits, without electrons having to "spin" (at all)

while they travel

in a non_homogeneous magnetic field.

Thus Electrons' "Spin" is not needed. Throw it out.

At least there. For that explaination.

Equal populations, up vs down (output),

has to do with how much NOT off_center the beam is, left vs right (as input).

 

*magnetic_field density change

 

I expect the Stark effect would be similar,

because magnetic field is from moving charges.

High voltages accelerate, or repel.

 

The contra is, if an electron is a ball, we know balls can spin. e.g. baseballs.

 

Maybe we should split into themes?

It says:

"Suggestions,"

 

"Comments" (I made some)

"and Support" (got none).

 

 

"Ideas, questions and support for the forums." (I made none).

Well, I didn't get any support from this forum, as my comments suggest.

Answers deleted. Apologies. Just realised this is still in the Sandbox. Capers: please ask the mods to move this, if you actually want to discuss it.

Hi, I'm not competent enough. I'm still learning in sandbox, programming.

I would like to discuss, to find the pro's & contra's, before entering the speculation forum.

E.g. Save time, & arguements, instead of making everyone angry with the way I (wrongly) say things.

Occationally some things must be said, though.

 

Would you please repost your criticism again?

If you want to discuss this, please post in the Speculations forum.

When we're ready.

Please delete this empty box.

I have mastered quotes tags, sufficiently.

Apart from the fact that velocity is a vector. So this is wrong.

Wasn't the (+x,yz) position dealt with rather 1 sided?

 

Please show that this, and your other incorrect equations

Which other incorrections do you mean (are suppose to be wrong, for your team)?

(Please indicate where it is wrong, before you assume that. I might have made a typo, (&/or auto word processor messing my sentences up) & don't know where (or when). Otherwise I cannot follow you, I'm visually impaired, & autistic.)

 

That is a standard mechanics formula, for linear acceleration,

with the values g=a, h=s substituted.

It couldn't be more standard (=valid) & an interesting application.

It can't give anything but rather accurate values.

With the other values such as centrafugal acceleration (e.g. decreasing g)

from the earth

& others are considered (e.g. doppler, air density & other fine details, whatever they are). =It seems to be giving good values.

Pi^2~9.8 is a math approximation, for convience. But has calibration reference advantage (syntax).

E.g. Starting ref, then +/- variation from a pure abstract (math) value.

 

For me it couldn't be more accurate (for the effects suppose to be dealt with, i.e. linear fall accelleration).

I haven't seen that it fails, so badly.

Saves time too!

(Something Einstein couldn't, he could only dilate discussions. SR, GR.)

 

If they don't then your "theory" doesn't match reality and is therefore wrong

If..(?) Where is the flaw? That sentence "tries" to say I am wrong, but has NOT said that I am wrong!

Your sentences (to me) seem so. Attempts.

I don't use Einstein, because I don't need him, like he didn't need the Ether (1905).

I have different results from him, as well, probably small details, obvious in the formulas (comparisons). At sublight speeds might be ruffly similar?

I haven't seen an experiment where we have almost attained light speed to prove him.

I do observe, though, that everybody "assumes" he is right.

I doubt his results, without the necessary evidence, & return to classical physics corrected, til then.

The way you physicists did that before was unacceptable for me, lacking classical rigor (v0=initial speed).

Include that correctly & I can begin to accept it.

 

Surely you should be able to understand my perspective.

 

My expressions wrong & right are from my perspective, not yours.

 

Please maybe recommend how I should say things (acceptably).

My english is not very good, communicating.

Very Special Relativity

 

SRN=Special (..) Relatively New

 

 

 

We (can) use the (kinetic energy)

KE=m*((v1^2)-(v0^2))/2

for mass m

with final_speed v1 (gained)

from initial_speed v0

((is) set to the) ether's (light) speed c

to find the (ether's (mass's)) kinetic energy

KEo=m*((v1^2)-(c^2))/2

i.e. with respect to (wrt)

the ether.

 

The final speed v1

is the speed (that was) lost (wrt the ether,

although gained by us.)

That is now, all in absolute coordinates. The ether (coordinates).

 

Commonly wrongly known as the rest mass energy (from Einstein & others).

It is simply the (kinetic) energy the ether has to offer.

An energy lost when we change our speed (from zero),

& an energy gained when we loose speed.

 

From the ether's perspective, (the) earth is travelling at -c light's speed, going in the opposite direction (to how we experience it, on earth).

 

I think we should always keep in mind both perspectives, (wrt earth & ether)

because they reinforce each other. They are compliments. e.g. opposites pairs.

 

Perhaps the main reference (ours, earth) should be first, followed by the opposite (ether). Or else the ether's ((absolute) must be) 1st followed by us (then the earth's) as (some sort of) fraction? You decide.

 

In any case, I think we can describes things from here (earth), without all that extra syntax (text).

 

A person from here (earth), speeding up to light's speed,

will be seen by the etheriods (mom or mother nature or good, the inhabitants living in or on the ether, i.e. within) as slowing down from a terribly fast (& dangerous) speed -c. What we call light speed, but it's negative. Because (s)he is coming from the opposite direction.

 

Landed, everything on or in the ether, is at rest. However on earth those guys look like they're going in a heck(!) of a hurry, namely light's speed c. They went by (away) so fast we can't see them anymore.

 

Now I don't know why anybody needs to be so fast, except to get to the ether, to stay alive & communicate with mother nature.

 

So, anyway, a few things happen in the process.

The light from them (=(s)he) coming to us (on earth) takes some time (delay)

getting to us. (Instead of dilation).

 

Since they were going away from us the light signals we get are lower frequency (red shift, doppler).

 

If they are approaching doppler blue shift frequency increases, & wavelength decreases. (Instead of length contraction).

 

(Einstein did NOT mention the moving_frame's orientation direction,

whether it was approaching (to), or receding from the resting_frame.

Whether it was front or behind. i.e. incomplete, not a 100% description. =Inferior.)

 

The mass remains constant (conservation of mass).

 

Momentum increases if accelerated because the speed increases (conservation of momentum). (Instead of relativistic mass).

 

Well that just about does it for SR (correction).

I hope you have fun.

Don't forget to use the correct (gravity) acceleration formula g from the (final) height h1=h0+v0*t+g*t*t/2

 

h0=initial height

t=time

g=v/t

v=v1-v0 speed difference.

 

 

Titel: Very Special Relativity.

Cheer!

This is not the right way to view calculus.

But it is the correct view to (cross_examine) interogate (=question, test) calculus (for leaks).

(It is a view that you do not contend (=believe) could ever have any importance or significance, especialy if C is not known completely).

& so you ignore C pushing it into a closet (locked up) to keep the room tidy.

 

It is true that calculus uses limits, but the point is that we have a mathematically well defined notion of

1=i) the rate of change of a function with respect to some variable at a specified value of that variable (ie an instantaneous change)

2=ii) the area under the graph of a function between two specified values of the variable.

(This can be generalised to multivariable (=general formula?.)

These two notions (=ideas) agree with what we expect from examples that do not require* calculus, the area under a straight line.

(*not "requite", as you typed. Even you have difficulty with this website editing. It is so squirrelly trying to edit with it. It does not always obey! For me it's terrible torture on_line! Nerve racking. I need more than 3x the time to correct it. A single post can cost me half a day's time, ~4hrs plus.. . Your programmers are not aware of the tablet problems. It ruins people!)

In this sense the C you give (Cd) is zero, by (via algebra of the) definition.

Unless you mean the C that is the constant of integration (Ci).

(There are 2 different constants (if they are), & to be thorough (rigorous).)

This just reflects (=indicates) that you can differentiate different functions and get the same result specifically if they differ only by a constant

or function.

2 exist.

 

A straight line is a nice (=pretty, easy) example. It has no problems, obvious.

Things look (very) different when dealing with curves. (Pandora's box is opened up, so to speak.) E.g. It's

Non_linear, X with exponents more or less than 1. E.g. (X^n, n#1, n=2,3,..).

Non_Euclidian (=curved, not straight). It it has many problems & generally is too complicated for most people.

 

But to keep that simple let's concentrate (only) on circular geometry, because it is so regular, consistent. It has the same system built into it, because it uses whole numbers (intergers) in the exponent (instead of fractions or irrational numbers). It also uses Pi. There we can get a glimpse of what is happening, with those (integer test samples).

 

Calculus is used all the time to calculate area and volume,

& it confuses me, that it is perfect, for circular geometry.

 

(But the devil is in the detail. Maybe a common trait cancels out?)

 

The nth Dimension formula (© 2003 PS) is

[math](1/2*n) * (Pi*D^n)[/math]

D=2*r diameter

Pi=3.14

r=radius

n=dimension number 1, 2, 3.

If there is a 4th dimension,

that formula will help describe it.

(But I doubt there is 1.)

Time is not a dimension,

it is a scalar,

it is a parameter,

because Dimensions have direction & amount;

but time only goes forward (not backwards, too)

determined by it's amount.

(Otherwise we could make time machines,

other than clocks.

Nobody has done that to prove it.

Particle physics theory, are guesses of what could be (my opinion).

(I have never seen the hands of time go in the opposite direction,

except when I turn my wrist watch upside down, & other clocks so.

Have you?)

 

The formula is split into 2 terms.

Using only the right term, we get

n=

1 circumference

2 sphere's_area

3 8*Pi*(r^3).

 

Using both terms, we get

n=

1 semi_circle

2 circle's_area

3 sphere's_volume.

 

Compared dimensionally, though,

the single term represents the next dimension.

E.g. n=2 is for a "sphere's" area.

A sphere is a 3D object, not 2D;

but its area is considered 2D.

Maybe that is the error? I.e.

Expressed in cataloging

where everything is found.

A bit of chaos.

 

A circumference

is a 2D shape,

but is created with dimension n=1

(using only the 2nd term).

 

As I've said (=meant), calculus is a little bit squirrelly (in my opinion),

not completely logical.

 

Using D(iameter) instead of only r(adius) allows more overview, & insight.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Calculus is an aproximation going to limits.

Calculus answer=approximation+C

An approximation is not the exact answer (by definition).

Thus constant C is added on.

Without C

Calculus gives (instead of is, sorry) an approximation

e.g. integrate.

Answer=integral of function+C.

Nobody uses C, its always left out.

Instead, the approximation is used

Answer~integral of function. But

Answer#integral of function.

The integral of the function is NOT the (real) exact answer.

The difference between exact answer & the approximation is error.

Error=Exact answer-approximate answer.

 

Is that clear now?

Please wait!

Caution: program errors (mixed up, some hash)

 

C=Exact-approximation

C=Error

calculus=approximation+C

 

calculus=approximation+Error

 

Can anyone define C for me? (Formula, to get numbers).

What is in C?

Nothing cannot be (the answer).

Everything else is assumption (approximation), not exact science.

 

Error*oo=large number! Noticeable.

oo=infinity. =N.

 

As example:

 

There is an "Edit" button at the bottom of every post which allows you to do just that. So, for example, you could reformat that sentence properly:

I wish I had X_Ray vision, for old posts, so I could see their edit button.

 

Thus, that asumption is wrong. Approximation only, with serious error,

because it was assumed.

 

Improvement proposal:

Can (edit) timelimits be changed (corrected)? (Permission wise?)

The rate of change of change of acceleration is known as jerk

3rd order, big jerk?

Jerk! ;-)

(Ha ha.)

But why? I am spastic. Anything said, I get both meanings (or more), thrown back & forth, between the different perspectives.

Many distractions. I cannot stay on topic. P.S. I like you (too). Otherwise you would not have said what's spontaineously on your mind. Softly with a smiley. Good joke. (Even if it was cynical).

There

is,

quite

reasonably,

a

limit

on

the

time

for

edit

.

.

.

befor

e

postin

g.

 

The content could be improved as well.

Good medicine. (Extremes. I can dish it out, but can't take it.)

The content could be improved as well.

No bout adout it!

Think of it this way inertia the the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on..

That sentence stuns me also, you said it (I didn't), that's what I mean. Exactly.

 

So when you statedThis statement is incorrect. As a body in motion (inertia) will stay in motion in a straight line until acted upon by a force.

Any change in direction or momentum (inertia) is a change, in acceleration.

Not acelleration of acelleration.

 

Ref

Think of it this way, "inertia is the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in motion to stay in motion, in a straight line, unless acted on" by an outside force.

 

inertia: (ruffly) a body stays (having) the same (straight) speed ,

unless acted on by an external pressure, P=F/A.

 

A body does not change speed on their own. Conservation of momentum (mom=m*v. Newton's 1st law).

Something (e.g. pressure) must "cause" it to accelerate (=effect).

 

Thus, constant speed.

 

+mom2=+F*t Impulse changes speed. Adding momentum changes speed. (Newton's 2nd law).

Pushing a body (with pressure P=F/A) for a duration (time t) increases its speed.

mom1+mom2=mom3 (v=v1) (m=m1) v1+v2=v3 m=m1=m3 m2=0 (very interesting, mom2 is massless, =has no mass).

 

Mom1 (1st law) is a conservation of mass law (inductively)

& mom2 (2nd law) is a defile(ment) against constant speed.

 

0=(mom1+mom2)-mom3 (3rd law), opposite momentum is needed, to maintain mass (?)

mom1=mom3-mom2

 

REaction=REpulsion (EM=electromagnetic).

Action=mom2 (acceleration, a=F/m).

 

Is that correct so?

 

(I'm still not sure how to twist mom3 (for Newton's 3rd), to interpret it, & need some time Please.)

 

 

There is an "Edit" button at the bottom of every post which allows you to do just that. So, for example, you could reformat that sentence properly:

No! that's wrong.

If I go to

10 May 2016 07:14 PM

I do NOT find an "edit" button

like I would find in a recent post.

It's just NOT there!

 

Even if this were true, why should anyone believe what you say? At least a professor has credibility and deserves the benefit of doubt. You're just spewing unsupported nonsense.For example, you say thisut give no actual supporting evidence that it's true. There's no science to discuss, or rebut.

Einstein gets into orbits. Your schools teach obits as ellipses, & that an ellipse is a cone cut.

But that's wrong. A cylinder cut produces an ellipse. A cone cut produces an egg.

 

An egg has 1 focii (sun), not 2 (Kepler's ellipse).

 

Your physicist's often wrongly leave out the initial speed v0 in kinetic energy KE=m*((v^2)+v0),

v=v1-v0 speed difference, m=mass, v1=final speed.

KE#m*(v^2) not equal

KE~m*(v^2) approximation.

 

D'Arsenval meters have linear scales.

They are used to measure currect & voltage linearly.

Their movement is loaded with a spring, that's Hooke's law of force.

Any linear display is compensating against force. (Equivalence. Linear=Force; not linear then not force.)

But meters use power.

Thus electric power is force_squared P=Fi*Fv

& has wrong units.

But power is the rate of doing work.

Lifting mass, a height per second.

That doesn't agree with the electrical definition (units).

You also have dark energy, for things you can not explain.

 

Constant means something does not change. Never.

General relativity discovers light's speed changes

(it's not a 100% constant). It's not always constant.

SR was based on that c is constant.

Theory died! Hit the dust. Undependable.

& sentence wording says nothing about that,

hiding SR behind GR.

(1920, ch22).

 

 

.

 

inertia: (ruffly) a body stays (having) the same (straight) speed ,

unless acted on by an external pressure, P=F/A.

 

A body does not change speed on their own. Conservation of momentum (mom=m*v. Newton's 1st law).

Something (e.g. pressure) must "cause" it to accelerate (=effect).

 

Thus, constant speed.

 

+mom2=+F*t Impulse changes speed. Adding momentum changes speed. (Newton's 2nd law).

Pushing a body (with pressure P=F/A) for a duration (time t) increases its speed.

mom1+mom2=mom3 (v=v1) (m=m1) v1+v2=v3 m=m1=m3 m2=0 (very interesting, mom2 is massless, =has no mass).

 

Mom1 (1st law) is a conservation of mass law (inductively)

& mom2 (2nd law) is a defile(ment) against constant speed.

 

0=(mom1+mom2)-mom3 (3rd law), opposite momentum is needed, to maintain mass (?)

mom1=mom3-mom2

 

REaction=REpulsion (EM=electromagnetic).

Action=mom2 (acceleration, a=F/m).

 

Is that correct so?

 

(I'm still not sure how to twist mom3 (for Newton's 3rd), to interpret it, & need some time Please.)

mass: object's resistance to change its "state" of motion when a force is applied.

Inertia: tendency of a body (=mass) to resist acceleration.

What is the difference?

 

What is state?

 

 

Unless you mean, the 1st applies pressure P=F/A

& the 2nd does not?

Push, pull.

..

Mass is resistance to inertia.

(What?!=) That "stuns" me to read, the 1st time.

 

As I said, I have not read the principia (or how it's called). (My latin is not very good.)

I use the word inert, intuitively (not according to your modern formula definitions)*

trying to figure how nature works.

I do not limit myself to your vocabulary & perspective.

I'm concerned with how other people see it too, e.g. naturally, without an education.

I don't know your vocabulary (exactly, if at all).

But I'm just trying to figure out things (the way nature is, & mechanics?).

* Perhaps that is where we differ. I'm just trying to explain things (my way) for me, simply (if possible)

in my own words, to complete my picture.

You know things, that I don't from my perspective.

& I don't know what they are all called (in yours), to explain it.

 

E.g. Perhaps my so called "inertial" discusion

is only about "vectors"? (Maybe that's why a new word for speed was invented, velocity?

e.g. To isolate that as a mixture of 2 or 3, 90 degree angled, parts.)

Straight line "speeds" ("distances", per time). (Euclids? Arrows?)

How should I call it? (motion of (virtual) points?)

To explain it in normal words.

 

Ewert (1996) commented (in words) on the (terrible) problem of mass (~weight) & inertia could never be the same, in physics.

It was outrageous for him [too?].

 

I was curious what was meant, because I didn't follow back then. What did Newton say? What is meant now?

I only know his 3 laws & my intuitive conclusions.

 

Can you help there? (I hope I've said it right, to get the message across. ?)

 

I'm searching to follow my intuitions (=to identify things, (you or) I already have);

not reject them (like you often advize.

That is (=would be) unnaturally disgusting(=ugly) brute force against nature, for me.

Not a harmonic (harmony) synthesis. Simple common sense is what I want, not frustrated comprimises.)

 

Ref

The statement you made that inertia is resistance to motion makes absolutely no sense.

Ether theories have been proved to be incorrect.

How do you mean "proved"?

The rest of your post is too garbled to decipher

Which points? Maybe they are typos, I haven't noticed, or I've used the wrong word, or sentence structure.

 

P.S. Is there any way to improve past posts, that do not allow edit anymore?

Your method of posting great walls of text is not helping you communicate.

Yes your website does not allow me

to update, correct modify & improve

my past posts,

as my texting & programing

get familiar (to me)

& improve.

 

Perhaps arrangements can be made,

for the benefit of the readers?

 

Typos (& errors) are a disgrace, I know.

 

I only want to be understood.

Okay, we understand our motion as a curve on space-time. This is fine.I am not sure I follow you. We have a local inertial frame for which we can consider ourselves at rest.We can have many such local frames as long as they are close to us and comoving.No idea what this means.I have no idea what you mean by this.It may help if you learned some of this 'complicated perspective' first.

I see the universe constructed differently from you.

Inertial, is resistance to motion (an oversimplified explaination).

 

I see it as straight line motion, (Newton's 1st law)

but for 3 axii, xyz,

there are (really) 6 directions (of motion), i.e.

forth,

& back included.

Physicists ignore that,

as trivial (mundane etc).

But "minus -" is angle 180 degree (rotation).

Plus +, has 2 meanings,

1 for addition,

& the 2nd for angle (rotation).

You multiply polarity to add angles.

i=(-)^0.5, =90 degrees.

i*i=90 + 90 degrees, =180 degrees, =i^2, =(-) (polarity, angle) =-1 (factor)

i^3=270 degrees

i^4=360 degrees =(-)*(-) (that's minus multiplied by minus, angles), =(-)^2 (that's minus squared).

You use 2 sticks (horizontal "-" (minus) & vertical, as cross(ed) symbol) for plus "+",

for "positive" (=360 degree) angle.

But that "positive" is really "minus squared"

if you want to reverse it (=the math)

in order to thoroughly track (=follow)

it (throughout the universe).

 

A dimension, is bidirectional,

but Newtonion (=inertial)

is only single direction.

 

Changing direction (=angle)

needs energy (input)

(which is also momentum (related))

mom=E/va.

 

So, 6 directions

can describe,

the 3 axii (too).

 

Each is related by 90 degrees

but those are also each

very specific rotation angles

(which you are familiar to as curl cross_products).

There is a very specific angle structure,

it is not random

so (that) any angle can (NOT) do.

It must be the right 1.

Thus the math must be tracked

for those (exact) angle (directions),

which I believe you use tensors

for producing=creating

that (angle(s) direction(s))

& polar lengthes info.

 

So, it is possible

to follow (=track)

(length) measurements (& their direction=orientation, in space)

of anything (like houses, & buildings)

as the earth rotates

during the day.

 

Why all the hassel?

 

Because of the electromagnetic

right hand rule

for motors & generators

is fixed (=non_swappable)

for energy in

vs energy (coming) out

from your (electrical) machines. (e.g. Matter).

 

The universe has a very definite "structure"

which many physicists

have wrongly rejected

as the ether.

 

They believe

there is nothing there, (as vacuum),

but to me it looks like substance.

It (=vacuum) has no molecules (atom)

because most have been removed,

but it does seem somewhat

like fluid water

under certain conditions

that I perceive.

That is only my impression.

 

I would not be a classic physicist (no calc),

without (it=ether).

 

Although, we rotate with the earth,

I suspect

there is an absolute axis (in the universe)

on which everything

is calibrated (to)

or "scaled". (An important word if you ignore physicists', definition, scalar.)

& if that exists

(as a structure)

then it will have

(different) properties

(as a Barrier (change), surface).

 

With Pythagorus's law

we know how much the conversions (of length) are,

between the 3D's axii as x,y,z.

 

The (math) integrations of a quarter circle (part of a circumference)

produces a fraction of Pi.

 

So Pi is a (very) very special number

for multi_dimension structure.

It's sort of the glue(ing number)

between them

for area, &/or volume.

It (=Pi) doesn't seem so simple or empty to me,

as only a (strange, non integer) number.

It seems to be working (dynamically, corresponding=communicating

between the dimensions actively)

but what we get (mathematically, as 3.14..)

is only a (truncated simplified) final result.

It's (=Pi is) always shapining up (varrying, within tolerances),

constantly changing slightly

like anything thermal.

It's still convenient,

that we can have (it=Pi as)

such a simple approximation

as only 1 symbol,

&/or wierd number.

 

There is a lot in it,

& it is the key

to the dimensions (structure, construction

of the universe).

You definitely have numerous misconceptions on Einstein vs SR.

I don't see them as misconceptions,

I see them as my evaluation of him.

This website also evaluates us whether they are correct or not,

in an effort to get closer to dealing with the person.

You can not forbid me from the impressions I become, & expect me to accept that.

I thought it is a free country, away from communism & brainwashing propaganda.

I want to think for myself & come to my own conclusion (=be the judge of it myself).

Not everything that is said is true, but also not everything that is said, the opposite.

 

He didn't throw out SR.

Yes he did.

You've obviusly missed the post from 2016 05 10 19:14 (17:14 PM)

That would mean you have the misconceptions.

 

SR is perfectly valid in Euclidean space.

Perfect? Hmm, with that math? I have my doubts.

Sorry.

 

It's been incorporated into GR, and is an essential aspect within GR which is designed to handle curvature.

What type of curvature do you mean? Also perfect?

 

Even if this were true,

and it is

why should anyone believe what you say?

That's a good question.

Believe it or not

belief is not knowing,

(it is an emotional state

with nothing to do with the facts (=logic))

it's assuming,

based on "thin" air.

We mix the facts (with emotion, as we please).

A sensible person would react to different ideas,

because they know the weaknesses

of what they possess.

But a self sufficient person would ignore with disinterest

because it does not improve their situation.

Only when that is at stake is there interest in what they are suppose to do. (Improvement.)

Otherwise NO motivation,

& that's a barrier for others.

You don't get complaints for no reason.

There is a reason!

 

If you want to know,

you go to the original texts

& read them like Einstein said (=recommended),

instead of professing what everybody does NOT know!

 

At least a professor has credibility

NOT anymore considering the proliferation of wrong material!

But I can close an eye.

 

and deserves the benefit of doubt.

What benefit are you talking about?

Now I consider the students deserve that instead!

(Maybe the wrong ones are perhaps, in the wrong place from disinterest & lack of attention.

They have not been schooled well enough.)

 

You're just spewing unsupported nonsense.

Where is it not supported? Where & what is non_sense, may I ask please?

I can not force you to read (e.g. Einstein), if you don't want to.

It's not my job to read for you.

I can (try to) point you in the right direction,

but (if you believe, without knowining, then nobody can help you

because your emotions have taken over,

not allowing you to, thus producing your foolish ration,

& then it's your choice (per whim) which way you go.

We all make mistakes, we'll all failable, & egoists!

 

I know how foolish students are! They become professors,

thinking they know everything they've studied!

Not all though. We're here for a good time not a long time.

 

For example, you say thisut give no actual supporting evidence that it's true.

I'm sorry I can not decipher that small typo. What is thisut? Please clarify.

 

There's no science to discuss, or rebut.

Are you sure?

We don't throw out SR,

Yes, I have observed that,

but Einstein did!

 

because in many circumstances it still works out accurately.

Yes, that is the momentum effect, from the speed.

(Mass is (significantly) constant).

Ewert's book (1996) said the concept of relativistic mass happens at all speeds,

NOT just near the speed of light. He equated it to momentum.

Drop a 1kg stone on your foot from 10 cm above,

then compare that with (from) 1 m

(then from 10 m also if needed,

to feel the pain).

The stone had enough momentum (some prefer saying energy)

to damage

at the faster speed.

Mass & speed are interchangeable (=swappable) mathematically,

but we know: ONLY the mass is constant,

NOT the speed.

That same momentum concept works the same way,

ALL the way up to near light speed c.

Why should the effect make an abrupt change

(at some certain speed)

& swap mass for speed,

but still continue to speed up?

That would make no sense!

 

[The problem is, you, (like too many) believe everything your professors say,

even if it is not true. Or am I being too rude?

Einstein & Lorentz thought it was very important that we knew how relativity was developed

so we could decide for ourselves what was true, (& what not; NOT somebody else)

for when they were no longer there.

See "the relativity principle" (book).]

 

It is also not possible to understand GR without a firm understanding of SR.

Yes, but Einstein kicked out SR. He did not want it any more, at all!

He was very happy & proud of GR, the sole masterpiece,

that was valid.

It was intended for high school graduates

(not higher,

but .. the opposite happened.

It's too wordy,

& it bores people).

 

For years I questioned if relativity is (really) true,

(years after I had accepted it

but then rejected it).

Because Einstein often said things we could not prove,

to avoid criticism.

We cannot build light speed spacecraft to any of it.

But now I can say,

I (surely) accept it,

(truely convinced);

but not the way everybody thinks.

For me it looks very obvious.

SR is constant speed,

GR is constant (=linear) acceleration.

Both are momentum.

Fine, naturally there are smaller details,

& that gravity is a push, not a pull;

& time delays, instead of dialation (for simultaineous synchronization).

But I don't need much more.

Everyone else does.

My greatest doubt was because of the Frizgerald_Lorentz contraction.

(FItzgerald found it before Lorentz, stating it on half a page in nature magazine (mid 1800s)).

What puzzled me, was SR was based purely on math, & 2 assumptions.

(Please Note: The (average) light_speed c is a constant (that varries),

but that is not what everyone believes.

Unfortunately,

Everyone has been brainwashed to believe it's constant &/or only 1_way,

although experimentally we cannot measure that speed in only 1 direction.)

Einstein had many opponents, but his popularity won

even though he was not always right & made mistakes.*

Gerocke 1926 gave ~5 examples of different c speeds for different years,

even noticeable in different old volumes (= book, years) of the CRC Handbook of Physics & Chemistry.

So we know, c is not constant, (even nasa measures the speed of light to the moon daily, sometimes)

& the best we can measure, is only an average.

Well if it's only an average, what gets done in 1 direction,

gets undone during the return direction (speed up vs slow down).

How can you measure an ether speed when differences cancel out?

 

Einstein also said he wouldn't use the ether,

because he didn't need it (for his calculations).

Many (wrongly) believe he threw it away, but that's not true.

In Lyden 1922 he said we need it, & the ether was like a sea of frozen photons.

(Please remember, solids' atoms will still wiggle at room temperature because of heat.

But they are roughly in the same place.).

The 2 assumptions were: constant speed c, & the Fitzgerald_Lorentz contraction,

He then fudged everything to keep c constant.

Meters shrunk (got smaller), & time dialated (got larger).

 

Now:

Imagine 2 rockets travelling away from each other at light speed.

Each capitan looks at the other & shouts:

"Hey! Your clock is going slower than mine; but mine is ok (it's running normal)!"

Each denies (the other's accusation). Why? (Optical delusion?)

 

Anyway,

Lorentz worked on relativity,

& had 19 of the 20 terms of GR finished in1904,

1 year before Einstein ever began SR.

 

Lorentz flew over "time" too quickly as uninteresting,

& Einstein devoted a good chunk of theory, to time.

 

But the way I see it, is

we're only talking about time "delays",

(of synchonization (he called simultaneous))

thru the (large) distance of space,

instead of dilation

It's really not complicated,

(& suppose to be)

more like an echo delay calculation.

He was actually talking about obvious things

but didn't have it all clear in his head.

At least that's my opinion that makes more sense (to me),

considering Einstein chucked (=threw) out his own (SR) theory.

(=We finally have a continuum, from start to finish.)

 

Much of your last post is so scattered I can't make any sense of it.

It reads like random thoughts thrown together without any effort to apply a logical sequence to your post

Yes, way too many thoughts come at the same time,

so it's difficult for me to keep track of everything

getting it all into slow (hacker infested) computers

on time, before I forget.

It's a problem,

& you are not prepared for a brief comment

of many different things. I just fly thru as many as I can.

It takes me almost half a day just to get that far for only 1 post.

It's a race against time.

I also have health issues (causing problems),

that is difficult to control (& it's an experiment too).

 

Although it is evident that your math skills may be lacking on the relations involved.

In particular the choice of coordinate systems.

Yes. Quite obvious. I prefer algebra, & xyz.

1 set(up) (well used) is better than none (or poorly used);

2 sets or more would be redundant for my needs (maybe),

just to try to comprehend nature.

Unless you have some tips (quick)?

 

*1 of his 1905 papers also wrongly comments electromagnetism,

(e.g. the motor's rotor vs stator principle),

that it is only a 1 direction effect

although it is bidirectional.

E.g. We can either have the magnetic field static or moving,

instead of only static.

 

So he used the most unacceptable (=unbelieveable) arguement

of his time

(that were state of the art, but wrong)

to get attention & popularity.

 

Maybe, it was a surprise attack?

A distraction,

to get his main ideas thru.

Thanks for the comments.

Very appreciated

I'm going to look into it.

 

But at first glance,

I see that you are using calculus,

as your basis,

& I am sorry to have to tell you

it's corrupt.

Please read Miles Mathis's analysis

also for the Lagrangian.

 

Btw The FEM finite element method

& calculus both give different answers.

Industry has dumped calculus

in favor of the FEM,

& for good reasons,

I will too

in favour of algebra.

 

Industry & top consulting companies do NOT recommend calculus

if you want stability

without the fear of collapse.

For building anything large & complex such as bridges

or skyscrapers, large rockets, aircraft carriers, spacestations, microwave antenna designs, ..whatever.

A few are ok, sometimes.

But the risk is too large when life is at stake,

or large production & financing.

 

Calculus produces

very different answers

& has been proven to been unreliable

because of that.

I'm not interested in rolling dice

with Noether's 1915 theorems,

(so_called) proof methods,

either.

That's not an acceptable basis.

It's unreliable. Sorry.

 

If I get a chance to pin point her errors exactly, I will,

but that's a needle in a haystack,

& I can't promise anything.

It seems futile for anything

in that calculus direction.

No reliability.

Thus a waste of time.

 

 

The cause for that,

is calculus

is only an approximation tool.

 

If you need an exact, accurate answer,

all the time,

then calculus will NOT do!

 

Newton knew it had errors,

& did NOT want to release (=publish) it

for over 20 years.

 

It wasn't until Liebnitz came up with something similar

& published,

that the students of both began to question

who found the method first

supposing Newton had been robbed of the ideas

by the other,

& visa versa.

That false presumption

(from the (loyal) students (with anger & resentment)

from both sides)

finally led to the (bitter) conflict

between both professors.

On their own

both professors had no need to argue.

Science is an independent, reproduction (or replication)

of similar methods.

 

An interesting article exists

in scientific american's

biography

of Newton.

 

Miles Mathis('s articles) can point out for you,

some of the weaker points of calculus analysis.

 

Perhaps with some improvement proposals.

 

Cheers!

 

The biggest bug is the one I pointed out earlier.

It is possible to prove mathematically that energy and momentum are conserved quantities

 

(PS: ..if the method of proof is reliable, but since that is not the case we must reject that method.)

 

You seem to have ignored this (PS: ..for good reasons.)

As I said earlier, please get back to us when you have shown the errors in this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

(PS: ..that seems to be becoming embarassing.)

 

Unless you can do that there is no point in you posting anything.

 

(PS: But perhaps that is sufficient, for now?)

 

The second bug is this

"Work=m*h/t, m=mass, h=height, t=time (That is very fundamental! The most important thing. Most logical=obvious.)"

which is plain wrong.

Please explain.

 

Work is truely not an energy,

it is a type of momentum,

as the definition states.

 

Please take note carefully.

 

work=m*h/t

is the mass m

moved to a distance d(=h height),

within (=per) a (specific) time t [in seconds].

 

That is the definition

of work (done).

No other is allowed.

(All others lie, deceiving their accomplishments).

 

That is the calculation,

Tesla used,

for the Niagara falls,

to get momentum out

(as moving electrons, called current I),

electricity;

& the same (electrical) momentum (electricity)

was used to pump (the same amount of) water (mass)

back up the height,

in (=per) time,

to (test &) calculate the efficiency.

 

I.e. How true(thful)=accurate

the calculations were

(to reality).

 

I'll assume you did not know all that?

 

Are there any other supposed bugs?

Conservation Of What?

Nice of you to ask

 

COW=Conservation of work

 

 

Abstract summary

 

Basic thesis:

there is a (very stupid, primative rudimenty) math error

in the (standard) work formula (till now)

indicating

work is not energy (Work#Energy)

when compared to the stated definition of work (in words).

It's so fundamental that it's significance might be missed.

The formula does not agree with the worded definition.

That has serious consequences for energy calibration in physics,

producing very peculiar problems.

It is definitely a math error.

The error was discovered with algebra,

& should be obvious (implied).

A solution (compromise) is proposed.

It's a peculiar kind of momentum

using only the initial_momentum

& half of the momentum_difference.

(A few tricks & tips are given to help memorize the formulas.)

 

 

The correct formula

should look something like this.

 

Work=m*h/t, m=mass, h=height, t=time (That is very fundamental! The most important thing. Most logical=obvious.)

 

Did you get it? Where's the problem? The standard work formula does not look so simple. Energy does NOT look like that, at all! That's the problem! It needs the following to bend it right:

 

Work=W/v, W=WE=Work's_Energy (please observe it's possesive 's , to distinguish it from work), v=speed_difference

Work=moma=m*va, va=average speed

Work=mom0+mom/2, mom0=initial_momentum, mom=momentum_difference=impulse.

 

Work's_Energy (is not work!, it's energy instead! There is a difference!)

 

W=WE=F*d

 

Speed_difference

v=v1-v0

 

Initial speed v0

Final speed v1

 

 

Please see the trashcan for more details.

It's been put there because of ignorance.

 

(Would somebody please help me recover it,

& iron out the bugs? If any? I'm new.

Nobody else seems to have noticed it before

nor taken this issue seriously

what it's all about.

The error is so basic, that it's difficult to believe.

I do not know how to correct it better than that.)

 

I consider this theme very important, (high priority),

& suspect it will help solve the dark energy issue.

 

It is a very fundamental error

affecting energy calibrations.

 

Power as well.

 

 

If you can grasp the above

then you've got most of it.

 

Signed

 

GENERAL I. N. Formation. Cheers!

Your method of posting great walls of text is not helping you communicate.

Sorry.

 

I don't know how to use your quote buttons (exclusively).

I'm new.

Okay, we understand our motion as a curve on space-time. This is fine.

 

 

I am not sure I follow you. We have a local inertial frame for which we can consider ourselves at rest.

 

 

We can have many such local frames as long as they are close to us and comoving.

 

 

No idea what this means.

 

 

I have no idea what you mean by this.

 

 

It may help if you learned some of this 'complicated perspective' first.

1.

I do not use Einstein's space*time,

it's a non_reversible stew (=mix)

which will not return unique answers back

(without a decoding key value).

2 values in, 1 value out,

without 1 of the original values

the other original value

can NOT be found

from the output.

Einstein liked it because it gave such large values;

but quotients are much more analytical.

It is rejected (by me). Sorry.

 

2.

Our "local" inertial frame is curving

around in a circle;

but since we're moving

thru space (the universe is another inertial frame, wrt it=that universe)

then we are moving in a spiral.

I see an inertial frame as a dimension (direction).

Straight line motion.

You believe energy can not be created nor destroyed,

but that is happening all the time,

(you call it conversion)

when we bounce,

but it (=motion, speed) is being destroyed (=cancelled)

in 1 direction;

& being (newly) created (like beaming if you may wish)

in another direction.

That is how I see it.

When 2 waves meet

with opposite phase,

they cancel,

& nothing is left.

No more energy (is) there. Nothing!

It's not reversible.

If you need waves, then you must "creste" them (from scratch)! Basta.

 

If you are moving in a curve,

you must use (at least) 2 (straightline motion) dimensions.

Newtonian physics functions only in a straight line;

a curve is a mix(ture).

Thus needs 2 coordinates, or more =3.

Put all 3 coordinates together,

& you can describe any motion inertially.

Say it so: 3 inertial coordinates, are our 3 dimensions;

or should I say 6 inertial directions.(?)

 

(It's very important

that things move it straight lines.

That's (almost) half of Newton's 1st law.)

 

3.

Yes but considering only the earth('s surface)

where I am, you will call that 1 inertial system

although I see 3 (x,y,z dimensions);

acceptably calling it a frame sytem.

Inertial for me is only in 1 direction (Euclide),

straight line.

Newton meant resistance to move

but you have to see

where that comes from.

Collisions & recoils, backfires, bounce.

It has to do with how the dimensions separate,

or distinguish themselves

from each other.

It's fascinating.

(e.g. gravity is only vertical.)

 

4.

Each dimension is not related to the other,

x,y,z are not connected vastly (separate, by angle!),

they are like 3 different (=unique) people.

They do not know what the other does.

& yet they are somehow strangely connected.

Something holds them together, the universe.

Otherwise they would never have met (together).

& a conversion from 1 dimension

to the other would not have taken place. (= would not be possible).

There difference(s) is the barrier. (It's not infinite!)

It takes force (per se collision presure)

to overcome that barrier,

making a conversion posible, at all.

(It's difficult, but not (infinitely) impossible.)

They are 3 completely different dimensions!

That might sound mad, (WE are mad) like I'm talking about multi dimensions above 3, (Erratum are=is.)

but please recognize what's there already, staring you in the face.

You'll never get to anything higher,

if you don't recognize what you already have.

They are all built the same way (so to speak, directions different; but where they meet (? wow!).

Interesting things are happening there.

Don't ask me what, I don't know (enough), nor any body that does.

 

Semantics: either something is "for" & assists (=helps);

or it is "against" & does not help, or it interferes

working against, as counter productive.

 

"Unique" is 1 of a kind,

it will never be found

anywhere else,

(ever again).

 

We have only these 3 dimensions (graspable).

They are the only 1's we can deal with.

 

5.

(I think)

any straight line

(between 2 points)

can be broken down into

its x,y,z coordinates using pythagorus's law

r^2=x^2 + y^2 + z^2.

I asume you know that

but doubted I did,

or something else.

It's still good to ask questions,

because you are going to (wrongly) assume

I know somethings I don't;

& but for others although I do, not.

Misunderstandings happen all the time.

I have to struggle that my PCs get in them what I want to say.

Sometimes they have a mind for themselves.

 

Pythagorus' law seems to connect the 3 dimensions together.

Any received transfer is proportioned to the other 2 dimensions' losses.

I think that's obvious. I just say things different from what you are used to.

 

That's what we see, but there is a catch to it.

That's our local reference frame;

but if there is an absolute reference frame (e.g. the universe's)

then it has nothing to do with our randomness, earth reference frame;

there might be hints

to finding the true coordinates.

If so however,

I suspect they will only be found with (specific) speeds,

& other peculiarities.

Resonances are a good place to start searching in. ~ quantum speeds, so to say.

We generally only observe coordinate mixtures,

not a single absolute axis.

The effects might be as astounding as a laser, if or when we find it.

(There are many ways to skin a cat.)

The flow is the connection between 2 dimensions (or more)

& how much it changes.

Pythagorus's formula (probably from the babylonians)

gives us a good idea

of what happens

when changing

a dimension's value.

Just take a pencil in your hand,

& rotate it slowly.

A lot is happening

to each molecule

(considering

we are only a sub inertial reference frame).

It's mind boggling.

 

6.

What do you think I am here for.

I can't do everything on my own,

but can't stand it when others get stuck too

when it looks so obvious to me.

The risk of foreign ideas

is to loose

my own god given talents

perspectives & ideas.

Am I an egoist? yes! who isn't?

It's a question of degree, =amount. How much? it varies

whether I'm under attack.

No risk no fun. At least that's what they say.

 

I'm no different from most people.

Physics is very strict,

because the physicists have a lot of problems to solve.

I didn't believe it at 1st,

but falling into quite a few booby traps,

I got convinced.

It's no bed of roses,

or should I say,

it is, ouch!

 

My original goal has been to make physics

quicker & easier,

but it has costed me my life

& done the opposite.

Hold in hand the same (with the same mass) dumbbell on Earth, then on the Moon, or Mars. They don't hold at relativistic velocities, and photons.f.e. in Newton's physics kinetic energy is:[math]E.K.=\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/math]but in Special Relativity:[math]E.K.=m_0c^2\gamma-m_0c^2[/math]Classic physics momentum:[math]p=m_0v[/math]Special Relativistic momentum:[math]p=m_0v\gamma[/math]etc.

Oh yes! That looks like the same special relativity

that Einstein kicked out the window as trash

in his book (1920 ch22).

I don't know why your profs don't keep you up to date.

Sorry.

 

Relatativistic mass

is suppose to be momentum.

Speed is the variable,

not mass.

There is no conservation of speed,

only conservation of mass.

 

Still, thank you for digging it up for me,

it's always convenient to have it handy

as note, summary,

so compact & concise.

 

The full truth to the kinetic energy

is you are missing the initial speed squared (term),

which can be significant

for speeds near or at light speed c.

The kinetic energy formula (pronounced "key")

KE=m*v*va, m=mass v=speed difference, va=average speed,

is already relativistic.

Sorry.

 

The

E= m*(c^2)

formula, is someone elses work,

(it originally did not come from Einstein

but instead from a man in Tirol, before Einstein.

Einstein found=guessed a series that also fit it

because he did not derive it,

we have no evidence of a derivation, & it)

can be derived when the initial speed

v0=c

is allowed to be light speed c

using simple algebra

& the complete g (linear acceleration, freefall) formula

including missing 3rd term of 3.

Any high school graduate with maths can do it

because only addition, subtraction, multiplication & division are needed.

 

It's unfortunate Swanson was too eager to sent it to the trashcan.

Good place to start.

 

What is it lacking?

 

Is that because we are turning

around in a circle?

 

In other words

that we are not going

in a straight line?

 

I think if we are traveling

in a curve

we have more than just 1 true inertial frame

we have at least 2

if not 3 true (inertial) frames

which can be co_ordinated together (synchronized),

because all 3 dimensions seem unique (against each other).

Where they each begin & end seems undecernable though.

Due to Pythagorus('s right angle squared rule) they seem to flow

into each other.

 

You must understand,

I do not come from your complicated perspective.

 

However,

to backdown

from your question:

gravitation is inertial,

that means obeying Newton's 3 laws

(& quite possibly more).

 

I suspect the word true

meany pure.

 

So is gravitation purely inertial?

I'd say mostly,

let's say >95%

in most cases.

There are magnetic effects,

& electrostatic effects.

But what I want to discuss

is the inertial character

of gravity.

(Sorry for the personification, there.)

 

We live in this universe.

It is inertial.

I've even read Miles Mathis

unified field theory,

& it's also inertial.

Everything (mechanical, or physical)

fits into that scheme inertial.

I don't know any other place

than this universe,

particularly the earth.

& I do not know any place

(in the universe)

where Newton's laws

do NOT hold.

If you Physicists

are afraid

to use his laws

for some other case

then I don't know who can help you?

(A psychiatrist, or loved 1?)

 

Although we have 3 dimensions x,y,z, please notice the alphabet ends there

(on purpose),

I suppect the universe is different

from how we perceive it,

but I can not tell you how.

 

As far as I am concerned everything (=mass) is inertial (=moveable)

or at least mostly.

 

But please tell me the difference.

What is not inertial,

& why.

I suppose inertial

means moveable,

encompassing (=including)

speed & acceleration.

Anything (=masss) that can be moved

(=is moveable).

 

If we look at Newton's intent,

inertia (might have) meant mass

m=F/a.

But I haven't studied the principia

to find out exactly

what he meant, &

if that is true.

Because there is another way to express force

with a quotient,

as reciprocal mass.

I don't know if inertia is that,

because Ewert (1996) got upset

that inertia & gravitational mass

were not the same

really confounding (=ruining)

Newton's original treat(i)s ideas.

The problem stems

from the (new spastic) definition

for weight

where the gravitation (acceleration) constant g

was used (hung onto the mass) as a multiplier

instead of divisor.

2 possibilities existed,

& you guessed it,

(naturally)

they chose the wrong (worst) 1

to make force.

It was the easiest way for them

(perhaps for the future too)

but the worst way for our (past) history.

Pounds are pounds

in mass & weight.

But kilograms are only mass

 

(they could have incorporated g into that kilogram definition, altogether,

so weight & mass could be interchangeable, as something like

 

Wt=Fo*g=m

where the (new) force is Fo=m/g mass per acceleration,

instead of multiplied, (that would have made a neat new_ton as small as it is,

fitting the expression tons of fun,

 

but didn't)

& (instead they selected) Newtons (to be the g factor, instead of divisor for the mass, &)

are used for weight.

 

But atomic weight for chemists is mass.

What a (popular) mess.

The chemists added onto mass the word "weight" just to be sure they would be understood.

& the bathroom scale still "weighs" mass.

Go to a government office for a passport, or doctor to to get weighed

& they've always give it in kg, not Newtons.

& nobody will admit the error, that started back with the SI (~1967?).

Back then they were happy just to have made the 1st move

(away from the chaos of different number systems),

into metric.

But USA didn't didn't join in.

My advice to them (USA) is go binary, all the way,

with a few modifications,

like 1" 2" 4" ..

the binary_foot 16"

but 8" would do (& be more understandable, for children, instead of giants, like the Anunnaki).

The equivalence principle is certainly valid..

(edited follows)

 

but I would say that "we don't feel gravity, only pressure on a surface".

 

More appropriate would be pressure in [not on] a 'volume'

(because only pressure is against surfaces,

in the sense of molecules colliding (=repelling, bouncing off)

against (other) molecules,

(which are all vibrating anyway

due to (their) temperature;

otherwise that doesn't makes sense (for me, (at all))).

 

Pressure throughout a volume, is random motion (=collisions)

(no longer gravitational)

& decreases with height.

E.g.

My blood pressure is higher (=larger)

in my feet,

than it is in my head.

What I'm then feeling

is (fluid) pressure

P=F/A

(that accumulates

layer by layer

from top

down(wards))

but

onto my nerve sensor's (area),

& it's Boyle's law

of (fluid pressure) compensation (equilibrium, osmosis so to say ruffly).

That's no longer gravity for me,

that's its side effects. Something else.

Facit: That's not gravitational acceleration (any longer),

it has been converted to fluid pressure('s acceleration),

where the molecules are banging (=bouncing) around with each other.

Each has been accelerated to (ruffly) an average momentum mom=m*v.

But the details are a little more complicated (than that).

That's just the ruff ideas.

 

Example:

 

If I set my foot on the floor

it bulges at the bottom.

If I continue to put my (full) weight on it (=my foot)

it bulges (even) more.

Now if that floor (board) (was & still) is attached

to a hydralic lift (under it, like at a car station, for a car)

& I switch it on

to raise,

then while it raises

my foot (near around the sole) bulges

a tiny bit more

depending

on the lift's acceleration.

If I lower the lift hydraulically (with less pressure),

my foot sole region's bulge reduces.

That's all fluid mechanics.

We can leave out gravity,

except when the lift is not moving

(up nor down).

Gravity as a basis

for what we feel is superfluous (it is not decisive for our feeling),

instead acceleration is.

We feel whether gravity is there or not,

& we can not distinguish whether it is gravity, or NOT!

(& get this, I bet (=believe) gravity is so. But who can prove it?)

Acceleration affects that (back) pressure,

& that depends on the forward direction.

Don't you find it unusual

that Einstein

brought our attention

to the fact that an elevator

can simulate (additional) gravity (gravitational acceleration)

(& perhaps its (not real) cancelation,

narrow mindedly seen,

in a falling elevator,

as weightless)?

 

Not even a magnetic nor electric field is felt

when we near it (in a house)

(unless (we touch the power cables, or) its mighty strong).

Why then is gravity so (refined) chic,

it goes thru everything

without scattering (distortion)?

(& it can't be absorbed, nor saved.

Instead, we have to lift things (to height h)

to save potential energy PE=m*g*h.)

Because (significantly) gravitation is (only) acceleration!

I.e. for the most part.

Nothing else will do that!

 

In a positive G maneuver, in an agile aircraft, your blood is forced away from your head

(e.g. left behind, away from the travel direction),

 

resulting in black-outs, unless compensated for by a G-suit or a reclining seat

(to buck the excess pressure, from your body's back(side of direction travel)).

 

 

You don't just feel the Gs (=g*n) pushing you down (=backwards,

 

due to the inertial drag

of trying to accelerate the molecules

by the transfering (from fluid mechanic's) molecular collisions (pressure)

onto them..

 

(So where did the source of that (cockpit) pressure come from?:

From the thrusters, onto the plane('s fussilage), into the seat.

That's all solid state, (elastic collision) atomic bonds (transfer).

But it's still a push.

(Even if parts of the fussilage, transfer it at some parts, into a pull.

The Net is a push!))

 

every individual part of you feels that (pressure or) force (per area,

 

naturally acceleration

of molecules,

from the fluid pressure).

 

We don't have a gravity simulator,

we only have the opposite.

E.g. Weightlessness in orbit.

Otherwise we wouldn't need airbags

when (severely) braking, in a car.

& then we would not get the bruises

nor internal rips, that bleed;

all because of surface contact (area), PRESSURE.

E.g. How much pressure,

depends on how small the area is,

for the same amount

of "acceleration" force,

expressed as molecules colliding

(decelerating,

while the opposite (target) molecule accelerates).

 

Force is simply a finess way

to describe

(a kind (k=m) of)

"acceleration",

with a mass (m=(actually, lack_of=anti_)efficiency)

coefficient.

It could also be written

F=(k)*a

to get the idea across.

 

Inertial (gravity)

is an interesting theme for me.

I'm interested in the arguements against (it).

(If any?)

I only need a list

(maybe a few brief comments for the exotic 1's).

At worst, in priority e.g. biggest problem 1st.

 

--

 

Einstein gave us a bridge, the gravitational equivalence,

(but) it's our job to use it, & cross it, if we want.

Nobody has to if they don't want to, or are afraid.

 

That's the future (in my opinion).

 

Plus, anyone can return (back, (into the past('s concept))),

if they want.

 

Einstein also said,

there is no preferred reference system,

they are all valid.

 

I notice Physicists,

avoid inertial gravitation

(like the plague)

as suppose to be wrong,

but I don't know why?

 

I suppose we should be diplomatic,

each (person)

left to their own decision

(if, when, where, & why).

 

It's a public bridge.

Come & go, when & where you want,

as you please.