The equivalence principle

[BlackHole]

The EEP assumes the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system. I know this principle is supported by many experiments.

 

But recently i read an unknown article which seems to contradict the equivalence principle. I don't know how seriously to take it. You can read the entire book here.

[rajama]

I think I'm getting tired, but - huh - light doesn't really travel in straight lines in a gravitational field..? It curves, but it does go straight as it crosses the falling elevator (frame), if spacetime (in that volume) doesn't curve too much..?

 

Actually, doesn't time vary way more than space in a weak field like the Earths..?

 

There must be a simple diagram...

[revprez]

Actually, doesn't time vary way more than space in a weak field like the Earths..?

 

The square of the timelike component of a massive particle's motion in any physically known field is always larger that the sum of the squares of the spatial components.

 

Rev Prez

[Johnny5]

The EEP assumes the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system. I know this principle is supported by many experiments.

 

But recently i read an unknown article which seems to contradict the equivalence principle. I don't know how seriously to take it. You can read the entire book here.

 

 

I haven't had the chance to read the whole article, but I read enough to know that the author intends to be taken seriously.

 

In the part I read through carefully, he is discussing braking radiation, and comparing light emitted by electrons, when they are accelerated, and comparing inertial accelerations, to gravitational accelerations.

 

I've been aware of a problem there for a very very long time. I'm not sure if he is mathematically saying something I already know, but the very fact that he is thinking about the issue, shows that he understands the location of a problem with the EEP.

 

There is something to his article.

 

Regards

[BlackHole]

I haven't had the chance to read the whole article' date=' but I read enough to know that the author intends to be taken seriously.

 

In the part I read through carefully, he is discussing braking radiation, and comparing light emitted by electrons, when they are accelerated, and comparing inertial accelerations, to gravitational accelerations.

 

I've been aware of a problem there for a very very long time. I'm not sure if he is mathematically saying something I already know, but the very fact that he is thinking about the issue, shows that he understands the location of a problem with the EEP.

 

There is something to his article.

 

Regards[/quote']

 

I was thinking about this. General relativity might be wrong in rejecting gravity as a force. I think it is a force. Gravity and magnetism could be related phenomena. All we need is a vacuum theory.

 

Regards

[swansont]

Gravity and magnetism could be related phenomena.

 

What's the evidence that supports this?

[BlackHole]

What's the evidence that supports this?

 

I know it's a half-baked assumption but i think gravity is a force.

[swansont]

I know it's a half-baked assumption but i think gravity is a force.

 

That makes absolutley no link to magnetics, other than magnetics is also a force. This has been discussed already

[BlackHole]

That makes absolutley no link to magnetics, other than magnetics is also a force. This has been discussed already

 

I might be totally wrong here but i think curvature is not the source of gravitation. It's something with the quantum vacuum.

[swansont]

I might be totally wrong here but i think curvature is not the source of gravitation. It's something with the quantum vacuum.

 

The speculation "something with the quantum vacuum" by itself is basically devoid of any scientific value.

[swansont]

I haven't had the chance to read the whole article' date=' but I read enough to know that the author intends to be taken seriously.

[/quote']

 

Intending to be takes seriously means very little. Flat-earthers intend to be taken seriously, too.

 

The article is poorly referenced, so it's not possible to check on his claims to see if he has misinterpreted or misrepresented the claims others, and see if his whole premise is a strawman.

[BlackHole]

The speculation "something with the quantum vacuum" by itself is basically devoid of any scientific value.

 

Dr. Swansont, do you agree with me that gravity is not a geometric phenomenon?

[blike]

Unless you're going to provide evidence, this thread will be closed. Assumptions because you think something is or is not are not up for discussion.

[BlackHole]

Unless you're going to provide evidence, this thread will be closed. Assumptions because you think [/i']something is or is not are not up for discussion.

 

Depends what you mean by "evidence". In cosmology all observations make use of prior assumptions. I might be able to give mathematical evidence that gravity is not space curvature.

[timo]

Gravity and magnetism could be related phenomena. [/quote'] What's the evidence that supports this?

I think the most common evidence for such statements is that the poster hasn´t understood both of them so they obviously have something in common.

 

Now seriously: The striking resemblance of electrostatics and gravity (=electrostatics with only positive charges) in the classical theory is rather obvious. So if it´s easy to expand electromagnetism to a covariant form (=in a form that´s suitable for special relativity) one might think that one can apply a similar procedure of generalization to gravity.

 

Now if the resemblance is so strong, shouldn´t this procedure be quite straightforward? Why has noone tried this so far? Will I win a Nobel Prize if I do that?

Well, of course some people allready tried the most obvious approach. But doing so you´ll very quickly find out that there´s one very important difference between electromagnetism and gravity, namely the charge. The electromagnetic charge is conserved under any processes which is a very nice property. The corresponding charge in gravity would be the "relativistic mass" since in contrast to the "rest mass" it´s also a conserved quantity. This charge density, however, has different properties of transformation under coordinate transformations. It transforms like a 00-component of a tensor of 2nd order as opposed to the charge density in electromagnetism which transforms as a 0-component of a vector. That´s the reason why you can´t build a vectorial theory of gravity like the vectorial one of electromagnetism.

[swansont]

do you agree with me that gravity is not a geometric phenomenon?

 

No. Evidence supports GR, so gravity behaves as if it is a geometric phenomenon, to the best of my understanding.

 

Gravity does not change its behavior under conditions where magnetism does, e.g. I can shield a region from magnetic field to a very large degree, but the gravity is unchanged in that region - I can't shield gravity.

[BlackHole]

I think the most common evidence for such statements is that the poster hasn´t understood both of them so they obviously have something in common.

 

Now seriously: The striking resemblance of electrostatics and gravity (=electrostatics with only positive charges) in the classical theory is rather obvious. So if it´s easy to expand electromagnetism to a covariant form (=in a form that´s suitable for special relativity) one might think that one can apply a similar procedure of generalization to gravity.

 

Now if the resemblance is so strong' date=' shouldn´t this procedure be quite straightforward? Why has noone tried this so far? Will I win a Nobel Prize if I do that?

Well, of course some people allready tried the most obvious approach. But doing so you´ll very quickly find out that there´s one very important difference between electromagnetism and gravity, namely the charge. The electromagnetic charge is conserved under any processes which is a very nice property. The corresponding charge in gravity would be the "relativistic mass" since in contrast to the "rest mass" it´s also a conserved quantity. This charge density, however, has different properties of transformation under coordinate transformations. It transforms like a 00-component of a tensor of 2nd order as opposed to the charge density in electromagnetism which transforms as a 0-component of a vector. That´s the reason why you can´t build a vectorial theory of gravity like the vectorial one of electromagnetism.[/quote']

 

The big difference between gravitation and magnetism is that we don't know of any particle for gravitation, therefore we cannot overemphasize the field theoretic approach like Maxwell did on EM.

[timo]

What exactly do the photons have to to with what I said? I wouldn´t know where they are needed when trying to derive covariant field equations for the EM field - they´re merely a solution to them if I remember that correctly.

[BlackHole]

No. Evidence supports GR' date=' so gravity behaves as if it is a geometric phenomenon, to the best of my understanding.

 

Gravity does not change its behavior under conditions where magnetism does, e.g. I can shield a region from magnetic field to a very large degree, but the gravity is unchanged in that region - I can't shield gravity.[/quote']

 

But space curvature cannot explain why matter has mass. Matter falls due to it's mass.

 

The source of gravity is the quantum vacuum itself. The vacuum can be visualized as consisting of a sea of virtual electron-positron pairs that can only be released or separated when sufficient energy is made available. This area will benefit from a better understanding than currently available.

[swansont]

But space curvature cannot explain why matter has mass. Matter falls due to it's mass.

 

The source of gravity is the quantum vacuum itself. The vacuum can be visualized as consisting of a sea of virtual electron-positron pairs that can only be released or separated when sufficient energy is made available. This area will benefit from a understanding than currently available.

 

 

Many theories fail to explain why matter has mass. They simply don't address it - it doesn't make them wrong.

 

 

The vacuum has no matter, so I don't see the connection to gravity nor to magnetism.

 

The experiments showing modification of the vacuum depends on having conductors to affect the EM fields. Again, what's the connection?

[BlackHole]

Many theories fail to explain why matter has mass. They simply don't address it - it doesn't make them wrong.

 

 

The vacuum has no matter' date=' so I don't see the connection to gravity nor to magnetism.

 

The experiments showing modification of the vacuum depends on having conductors to affect the EM fields. Again, what's the connection?[/quote']

 

There is no connection between gravity and magnetism but there might be a deeper analogy between the electroweak interaction and gravitation. In order to do that one has to localize the energy of the gravitational field which has been proven to be a very difficult task.

 

Regards

[geistkiesel]

I think I'm getting tired' date=' but - huh - light doesn't really travel in straight lines in a gravitational field..? It curves, but it does go straight as it crosses the falling elevator (frame), if spacetime (in that volume) doesn't curve too much..?

 

Actually, doesn't time vary way more than space in a weak field like the Earths..?

 

There must be a simple diagram...[/quote']

You will never measure the unambiguous nonlinear trajectory of a photon.

SR/GR are hardly perceptible concepts and never measured, but a measured zero velocity frame of reference? Easy as pie.

 

Two photons are emitted simultaneously in opposite, or even nonparallel directions. The photons' trajectory in the crossed axes case will intercept perpetually at the emission point of the photons. If any photon is reflected 180 degrees back along the outgoing wave front trajectory after moving a distance ct since the instant of emission, the photon will retirn to the emission point exactly afer traveling another distance ct whatever the rest of the universe is doing or observing friom their point of view.

 

What about the universe and all the particles moving in relative

motion wrt each other? No problem, the zero velocity frame of reference is just another inertial frame, and the only frame that reasonably is actually measured properly re the the relative velocity of frame and photon with respect to an actual frame at rest, absolutely. The shortest distancwe between two theoretical points is to consider the measure of relative velocity of frame and photon as, Vc + Vf = Vcf , or = Vc - Vf = -Vcf . The c-v and c + v do not add velocity components to the speed of light. The c - v and c + v are forever expressions of relative motion between frame and photon.

 

The infinity of motion is easiest observed from the radiation from the solar surface or below. Whatever the sun-earth distance, the measured angle between adjacent arriving wave fronts is always zero. It is only when one "steps back" and takes a look at the big picture do nonparallel concepts enter the mental discussion. iI the picture is confusing and one suggesting a real angle > 0 between adjacent wave fronts then prove to your self two items" " Prove you will not measure the curvature of the planet with any local earth bound meauring scheme other than flat and prove to yourself that the photon stream arriving from the sun is immeasurably other than that model gthagt stacksthe radiating photons in an nonflat geomegtry.

 

The earth surface is always measured flat.

 

The SAT trajectories deviqate immeasurably from intertial frames of reference. . Conjuring up a gross picture of circular motion does not mean a SAT trajectory can be measured other than a straight line in the SAT bound frame of reference.

 

 

What is the absolute zero velocity reference frame, a joke? The absolute zero velocity inertial reference frame is a reference frame defines an infnite numver of points along the trakjectory of emitted photons that does not move wrt x, t, period. Have you ever observed an invariant point P in space thati snot moving? Have you ever taken an invariant spatial point to dinner and discussed the matttter with her intimately?

 

In the Ching_Chuan Su paper Dr. Su informs us thatg the orbital motion of the earth around the sun is not subject to any measurement providing a significant result. The rotational motion of the planet at .464 km/sec is measureable within the earth bound system, In other words the rotational motion of the earth is measurable. If one accepts the reality of the statement tahthe orbital motion is not subject to Sagnac Effect analysis informs us that the current "gravity sucks" model of the plantary force providing equilibrium and complex stellar motion patterns. such as solar system models based on eternally evolvong helical solar system constructs require a drastic overhaul.

 

I suggest that one's direction of enquiry include the stabalizing forces within the turnng motion of he solar system is directly and acausally related tothe maingtenance of gthe conservation of angular m,omentum.

 

TYhe motion of the orbit of the planet is of extra-terrestral significance only and requires the balancing interplay of many massive contributions of stellar objects to maintain nondeviant angular momentum conditions.

 

The force of gravity that throws one back to the ground when gtrying to polrvault tio the moon is from angular momentum considerations retricted to locval effects, as opposed to distant stellar effects. I got as far as consdering the surface of the planet as manifestin a tangential angular velocity component oriented in any angle wrt the flat earth surface. I broke down, but didn.t cry when I was unabkle tio see how a tangential angular momentum could be maintained by certainl fictional motions.

 

The stacking of electrons in the familiar chart does not mean the static structure of the electrons in an atom can be gleaned from the combined condition of Mendeleyev's Chart. After all, atoms and molecules are different and certainly no combined condition as seen in the Mendeleyev descripotion is reeasonably forth comiong soon.

 

When an electron is radiated fron adecaying atom there is no demand or clue even that the decay scheme is the result of a unique mode of force. Here, however, one must consider the total mass of Uranium, for instance in ferreting out information, and not juist to please the statistical expressions of the mathematical models. The mass of a hunk of Uranium affects the bulk activity.

 

Prooof: The critival mass for a nuclear explosion is somewhere arounf 80 kg. Otherwise if less than this amount exists in a localized volume intended to explode, then if everything else is equal, the uraniium will not expliode in a chain reaction a la Almadgordo, and Trinity, release of energy, but you will get very nasty and dirty radiatively speaking in the immediate area.

 

The gravity secret is best resolved in the transformation of a "sucking gravity" model to one based on the maintenance of the angular momentum of the evolving helical structure describing our moving solar syustem

 

Repeat to Angular Momentum/Velocity Players: consider maintenance of a total angular momentum centered solar system model; When gyroscopes conserve motion (i.e. angular momentum) are the force exchanges always processed through local avenues of application or are action at a distance modes inferred? take some time to develop the model and all will be completed with equilibrium. Or are forbidden orthogonakl forces applied?

Here is some AM data.

[/indent