<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

December 9 2011, 9:24 PM 

In non-gravitational field, there is a space ship (mother ship). Now, two probes separate from the mother ship and begin an accelerated motion to opposite direction (at 2g and 1g. by gas jet). No gravitational field will occur on the mother ship.

 
 
Rebis

paradigm shift

December 10 2011, 8:14 PM 

Turanyanin: For example (and I already stated this several times before): let us conduct Pound-Rebka under free falling circumstances (e.g., craft in outer Space)! My claim is: red-shift would be found which would mean EP is false, i.e. the very basis of each and every metric theory of gravity is lost. And if so, photon again simple has to be massive. Even more important, static G-potential is in form of exp(-k/r) which means new mathematics without singularities.

As last but not least, and assuming the above IDENTITY, it becomes clear that well known G and c are not real natural constants at all. One can ask: what combination of those two could be the constant? It seems that Nature rejects all other possibilities but Hea, i.e.

Hea = G/c^2 = 7.4E-28 m/kg

which is signalized through recent experience of all gravitomagnetic phenomena and so-called mass etalon decaying. Gravity is not geometry, that is the point. And it is acceleration even less. We are talking here about most fundamental change (of paradigm) possible.
************************************

Interesting set of conclusions here. However, present confusion is not a bit less comparing to this 2008 post. Also, where are concrete evidences for your claims from say Gravity Probe-B or similar set-ups? Is there any chance for your "Pound-Rebka under free falling circumstances (e.g., craft in outer Space)"?

And if "gravity" is neither geometry nor acceleration what it would have to be then - some, as of yet, unknown dynamics of Space? Or set of cosmic interconnections on the very basic point like 0D level? Or both? What would be a realistic relation of electricity and gravity then; or if You assume vector fields for both, what is fundamental relation between mass and charge? To the bottom line, what mass, charge and Planck h really are?

Finally, can you in any way connect this very strong ideas of yours (say that about Hea = G/c^2 = 7.4E-28 m/kg constant) with recent LHC neutrino experiment?


Blessings

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

June 14 2012, 10:28 PM 

A tall elevator cabin is in free fall. In this cabin, pressure of gaseous body is different (because value g is different). Equivalence principle will be wrong.

An elevator cabin is accelerating upward. With the roof, a small body collided (came vertically). And after 10 seconds, a second body (the same mass) collided (came vertically also). This situation will not be the same to an elevator in gravitational field (at a standstill).
- P.S.- Some books today say that accelerated motion is not relative.

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

June 23 2012, 9:14 PM 

"Accelerated motion is not relative". Its a subheading of a book (in Japanese). Yes, time dilation in gravitational field is written to be real (one sided ; not relative). But in many books, it seems to be written that "accelerated motion is relative"

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

July 13 2012, 9:06 PM 

On a point mass, inertial force acts only in one direction always. Gravity isnt so. Equivalence principle will be wrong.

Under every situation, the law of universal gravitation will act.

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

January 17 2013, 11:53 PM 

A disk is rotating. According to the equivalence principle, as the center of the disk recedes, gravity increases. Unthinkable !!

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 18 2016, 12:49 AM 

Some books say, an accelerated motion is not relative. It will be true. And the followings will be possible to state (so, equivalence principle will not stand up).

(1) Inertial force occurs as a vector on one body (and measurable). (2) A vector of an inertial force is equivalent only to a vector of the accelerated motion. None can have an effect on this. Namely, vector of gravity and inertial force are nonintervention. (3) In the frame of space, gravity comes from many directions. Vector of inertial force occurs in one direction only. (4) When the same accelerated motion continue, change of the circumstances is inevitable. Gravity is not so.

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 18 2016, 11:26 PM 

On a plane horizontal (inertial frame), a body is moving in various motions. Inertial force is equivalent to (as vector) accelerated motions. Suppose, this plane stands vertically. Gravity is acting from below. Inertial force and gravity will be noninterference.

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 19 2016, 10:23 PM 

On a plane vertical (shown in above post), the body is moving in determined pattern. Suppose that strength of gravity (g) varies. But inertial force acts on the body does not vary. Inertial force and gravity will be noninterference. Free fall will not be zero gravity.

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 20 2016, 9:29 PM 

Two elevator cabins are in free fall. The two are connected with a rope like a Chinese character “呂”. On the rope, tension is working. As the gravitational source approaches, tension increase. Principally, value of tension is possible to calculate. It will be impossible to say that the two are in zero gravity.

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 22 2016, 9:58 PM 

P.S. (to above post : November 20) An accelerated motion of the two elevator cabins is the same. So, inertial force is the same. On the other hand, strength of gravity acting on the two is different. Now, imagine a certain moment. The difference of gravity acting on the two is the same to the difference when the two were hung by a crane. In both, gravity is acting on every point (with a certain value).

But on earth, why accelerated motion continues ? Because of gravity, will be.

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 24 2016, 1:01 AM 

An elevator is in free fall. Gravity and inertial force acting on each point of the cabin is nearly the same, but both take certain exact value (not 0 : calculable). Vanishing of gravity will be only appearance. In physics, “0 vs 0“ and “a vs b (nearly a)” will not be the same.

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 25 2016, 12:55 AM 

Allow me to rewrite previous posts (Nov 18, Nov 19).

On the ground (inertial frame), a disk is rotating horizontally. Centrifugal force (inertial force) is the same in all direction. The second disk is rotating vertically. Centrifugal force (inertial force) will be the same in all direction also. Gravity and inertial force each will be noninterference. On the ground (inertial frame), a disk is rotating vertically. Suppose that strength of gravity (g) varies. But no variation will be seen on centrifugal force (inertial force). Gravity and inertial force each will be noninterference. Free fall will not be zero gravity.

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 25 2016, 9:16 PM 

In outer space, there is an elevator cabin. A ray of Sirius (a star of the first magnitude) is passing through a small hole on the left wall and on the right wall, a light spot is projected. When the cabin is floating in non-gravitational field, the light spot does not move. But in free fall, the light spot moves. When the above cabin is moving in an accelerated motion (upward), the light spot moves. But when it stays on the surface of the moon, the light spot does not move (by g).

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 27 2016, 12:50 AM 

A passenger car is moving to the right in an accelerated motion (at 1/100 g). In the car, a body is moving to the right in an accelerated motion (at 2/100 g). All can be explained with inertial force. For gravity, there will be no room for acceptance.

P.S. Gravity seems to be field and is said to be wave (??). The two will be oil and water.

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 27 2016, 11:09 PM 

An observer is moving to the left at a uniform speed. Free fall of an elevator cabin begins. The cabin draws a parabola. The second observer is moving downward at a uniform speed in addition to the motion to the left. The second observer will see the same parabola (that of the beginning of free fall). In free fall, gravity acts also. Equivalence principle will be wrong.

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 28 2016, 1:15 AM 

P.S. The second observer sees the parabola at lower position of the beginning.

 
 
jaquecustto

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 28 2016, 4:50 AM 

If gravity does not exist, there is no gravitational mass, there is only inertial mass. Now, just know what inertia is. Is inertia absolute or relativistic?

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

November 29 2016, 10:20 PM 

There is a structure. On it, rails are lied. The structure slants (to the left) at a 10 and a 20 degree angle. At the right end of the rails, there is a sled and by slanting, the sled slides down to the left. The rails are no friction. Forces act on the sliding sled are gravity, normal reaction and inertial force. Each value is concrete and calculable. It will be the same on a 80 degree angle. So, explanation on a 90 degree angle written in books must be replaced with D’Alember’s principle.

P.S. Settings of the structure are the same to the above. The sled is at the left end and is pulled from the upper right with a string extends along the rails. Tension is 1.2 mg. Forces act on the accelerating sled are gravity, normal reaction, tension and inertial force. Each value is concrete and calculable. It will be the same on a 80 degree angle. So, explanation on a 90 degree angle written in books must be revised.

 
 
nakayama

Re: The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

December 1 2016, 1:10 AM 

Two elevator cabins are hung by cranes. One is at a standstill and at the side of it, the other is moving upward in an accelerated motion. Each instrument shows value 1g and 1.2g. Equivalence principle is difficult to accept.

 
 
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 56 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement