On the Weak Principle of Equivalence



Don't get duped by such a useless game of words!

As I said before, Relativity, for its supporters, is like a sacred book of old traditions; and anything, which goes in it at one time or another would never be updated or taken out of it no matter how erroneous that thing is.

As a matter of fact, this so-called 'Weak Principle of Equivalence' is the least tenable and the most sterile of all the given definitions. At least, Einstein's 1916 Principle of Equivalence makes one contact with physical reality through the equal rates of fall and helps in deriving and making some sense of the so-called 'Gravitational Red Shift' and the 'Bending' of the trajectories of light rays upon traversing gravitational fields.

By contrast, the key words of 'non-rotating & locally indistinguishable', in the Weak Principle, means nothing more than an indefinite retreat, in the face of anomalous experimental data, into the abstract world of the infinitesimals.

It is not a retreat!

It is a basic requirement for quantifying the qualitative statements of the Equivalence of principle and for the mathematical treatment of the space-time continuum of general relativity according to the rules of calculus.

Here is what Einstein wrote in this regard in the 1916 paper:

"3. The Space-Time Continuum. Requirement of General Co-Variance for the Equations Expressing General Laws of Nature
IN classical mechanics, as well as in the special theory of relativity, the co-ordinates of space and time have a direct physical meaning. To say that a point-event has the X₁ co-ordinate x₁ means that the projection of the point-event on the axis of X¹, determined by rigid rods and in accordance with the rules of Euclidean geometry, is obtained by measuring off a given rod (the unit of length) x₁ times from the origin of co-ordinates along the axis of X₁. To say that a point-event has the X₄ co-ordinate x₄=t, means that a standard clock, made to measure time in a definite unit period, and which is stationary relatively to the system of co-ordinates and practically coincident in space with the point-event, will have measured off x₄>=t periods at the occurrence of the event. This view of space and time has always been in the minds of physicists, even if, as a rule, they have been unconscious of it. This is clear from the part which these concepts play in physical measurements; it must also have underlain the reader's reflexions on the preceding paragraph for him to connect any meaning with what he there read. But we shall now show that we must put it aside and replace it by a more general view, in order to be able to carry through the postulate of general relativity, if the special theory of relativity applies to the special case of the absence of a gravitational field".
http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/gtext3.html

The following points can be made about the above quoted paragraph of Einstein:

[1] It is not true that Einstein's Special Relativity is consistent with the rules of Euclidean geometry. Since it's obvious that the elasticity of the space co-ordinates, in this theory, violates the basic axioms of Euclid's geometry.

[2] Elasticity of time, in Einstein's Special Relativity, violates the rules of logic and plays havoc with the integrity of physical measurements.

[3] The treatment of time, in Einstein's Special Relativity, as a geometrical co-ordinate, is misguided and fallacious and must lead to contradictions and paradoxes and absurdities.

[4] At this juncture of his 1916 Paper, Einstein is poised to do away with the straightness of the space co-ordinates and the linear flow of time and to make that the hallmark of his General Relativity.

Someone has to dispose of Einstein's Fountain of Absurdities; and the twenty-first century is the right time for doing it!

So far, you've said nothing about the true principle of Equivalence.

This is the modern definition of the Equivalence principle:

(1) Non-rotating free fall is equivalent to uniform inertial motion.

(2) Uniform acceleration relative to an inertial frame of reference is equivalent to the state of rest in a uniform gravitational field.

"Non-rotating free fall is locally indistinguishable from uniform motion absent gravitation. Linear acceleration relative to an inertial frame in Special Relativity is locally identical to being at rest in a gravitational field. A local reference frame always exists in which gravitation vanishes".
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm

I've disposed, once and for all, of this so-called 'Mainstream Principle of Equivalence' of General Relativity right at the start of this discussion.

Let me remind you of that scientific and dogma shattering DISPROOF once again!

[1] Non-rotating free fall is not equivalent to uniform inertial motion, because the velocity profile, in the two cases, is very different:

(A) In the case of uniform inertial motion, all bodies in the direction of motion appear to approach the uniformly moving system with the same constant and global velocity; i.e. the actual velocity of the uniformly moving system. By contrast, all bodies in the opposite direction appear to recede from the uniformly moving system with the same constant and global velocity; i.e. the actual velocity of the uniformly moving system.

(B) In the case of non-rotating free fall, all bodies in the direction of free fall appear to approach the free falling system with the same variable and global velocity; i.e. the actual variable velocity of the free falling system. By contrast, all bodies in the opposite direction appear to recede from the free falling system with the same variable and global velocity; i.e. the actual variable velocity of the free falling system.

[2] Uniform acceleration relative to an inertial frame of reference is not equivalent to the state of rest in a uniform gravitational field:

(A) In a uniformly accelerating system, all free falling bodies are reflected at various rates by the trailing part of the system (e.g. the floor) in inverse proportion to the mass of the free falling body.

(B) In a system at rest in a uniform a gravitational field, all free falling bodies are reflected at the same rate by the trailing part of the system (e.g. the floor) regardless of mass and physical composition.

The Mainstream Principle of Equivalence, therefore, is false.

I still maintain that the following statement of the Equivalence principle is true:

At the local level, non-rotating free fall is equivalent to uniform inertial motion.

That is because, no experiment at the local level can distinguish between non-rotating free fall and uniform inertial motion.

Problem exactly is in how much "local" you, Einstein or anybody else nowdays from the "Cathedral" mean!? Only "in the point" you cannot see a difference (geodetic deviation), and trying to make any kind of experiment "in the point" is pretty much meaningless, don't you think?

All in all, that PE ("weak" or "strong" whatsoever)is not a physical principle at all; it is a quite bad mind play only.

However, one still can accept mathematical construct of the so-called GTR but that is an entirely different storry. Sad one, I'm afraid.

Hi Rebis:

Local frames of reference are very important for establishing the validity of Special relativity within the framework of General relativity. That is because Special relativity is only a special case. It assumes that spacetime is flat. That is, it assumes that the structure of Minkowski space and the Minkowski metric tensor is constant throughout. In General relativity, Einstein showed that this is not true. The structure of spacetime is modified by the presence of matter. Specifically, the distance formula is no longer generally valid except in space free from mass. However, just like a curved surface can be considered flat in the infinitesimal limit of calculus, a curved spacetime can be considered flat at a small scale. This means that the Minkowski metric written in the differential form is generally valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity

You missed the point, I am afraid. Behaving like Markov machine is not good enough when this kind of reasoning and arguments are in question. And the reason I raised is quite original and deadly one for any kind of PE.

As you know, the PE was Einstein’s motive to justify the incorporation of curved metric into physics (of G-field). But please read again my first reply. It leads to the “paradox”: PE holds only VERY locally (in-the-point) and any kind of realistic physical effect (i.e. “experiment”) simply must be conducted out of that “limit” (Physicists also are “voluminous beings”, you know). Òherefore, Einstein “reasoning” was deeply erroneous regarding any kind of PE, or should I say, regarding any “metric theory of gravity”.

In fact, all that reveals a great confusion in the head of that guy which was later proclaimed as a “deep, genial physical intuition”. One head more less, but that way few generations of so-called scientists, cosmologists, students, media, popular and sci-fi literature were poisoned with the same confusion. Sad story, as I said.

Dear Rebis,

I would like to argue that it is possible to imagine that one can drill a hole into the surface of the Earth and arrange the led masses around it so that the gravitational field in a reasonable length, say 100 meters, will be constant (by an accurate measurement). I claim that in that field when you fall, you will not feel any gravity and also no tidal forces. So, it is possible to replace the gravity with acceleration. This, however, does not prove that the inertial mass and the gravitational mass must be the same.

Also, in differential geometry the points are considered to be infinitesimal neighborhoods. That is how the differentiation works. So, the geometry cannot shrink to a point with no size.

Jerry

Jerry,

Please be aware that I am fully aware of any reason one “mainstreamer” can raise regarding SR or GR.

So no matter how “neighborhood” is “inifinitesimal” you instantly must have a non- inifinitesimal geodetic deviation which means one does can make a difference between the two “g” and “a” IN PRINCIPLE. There is no spherically symmetric “a”, you know. Or in other words, “metric” has nothing to do with “physics”.

This is far of being only deadly argument but it’s quite enough for that SR/GR misleading confusion. Try to forget it.

I searched for the 'Markov machine'; and the first thing I got is this somewhat high on jargon explanation:

"Let A be a finite set of letters, and A* be the set of all strings on A. Let N be a nonnegative integer and let Q be the set of all (sigma,j), where sigma is in A* and j is in integer, 0 <= j <= N. Let I be the subset of Q with j=0 and let Omega be the subset with j=N. If Theta and sigma are strings in A*, we say that Theta occurs in sigma if sigma has the form "alpha Theta omega" for strings alpha and omega. Let f be a function defined by the strings Theta-sub-j, phi-sub-j, and the integers a-sub-j, b-sub-j for 0 <= j < N. f((sigma, j)) = (sigma,a-sub-j) if Theta-sub-j does not occur in sigma. f((sigma, j)) = (alpha phi-sub-j omega, b-sub-j) if alpha is the shortest possible string for sigma = alpha Theta-sub-j omega. f((sigma, j)) = (sigma, N)".
http://superhappydevhouse.org/The+Markov+Machine


Rebis;

The challenge to you and to AAF and to bob s and to Curt and to all other 'prophets of doom' out there is quite simple:

Show us the goods!

Use your splendid talents constructively and help civilization to advance forward.

Come up with one experiment, just one experiment, to falsify even slightly this unassailable statement of science:

At the local level, non-rotating free fall is equivalent to uniform inertial motion. That is because, no experiment at the local level can distinguish between non-rotating free fall and uniform inertial motion.

Thanks Jerry for standing up for science...

In re: "The challenge to you and to AAF and to bob s and to Curt and to all other 'prophets of doom' out there is quite simple:"

You want proof? First you show me a picture of a triangle whose angles sum to less than, or more than, 180 degrees.

bob s MD

Bob s

measure any half of an orange peel. Do not lay it flat on the table though, since only a flat triangle angles sum to 180, and you will have more than 180.

Jerry

Bob s,

I know that you will not believe this, but it is an experimental fact.

If you form a triangle with the vortex in our eye or a telescope and two suitably located stars, then you will agree that this triangle has sum of the angles equal to 180.

However, when the Sun moves between these stars and we can see them during an eclipse, then the stars moved away from each other. The light moves along the "straigth" lines, but the base of the triangle got somehow longer, so it appears to us so. In actuallity the base must remained the same. So, the sum of the angles must now be more than 180 don't you think so?

Here is the evidence for you. Do not claim that light got bent, since I do not have any other reference for straightnes or flatness of space, just light.

Jerry

bob s:

It's as easy as pie!

This is the triangle:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTriangle.html

And this is the Java applet for it:
http://www.walter-fendt.de/m14e/sphertriangle.htm

Re: Jerry, “On the Weak Principle of Equivalence April 16 2008, 8:56 PM “

Bob s
However, when the Sun moves between these stars and we can see them during an eclipse, then the stars moved away from each other. The light moves along the "straigth" lines, but the base of the triangle got somehow longer, so it appears to us so. In actuallity the base must remained the same. So, the sum of the angles must now be more than 180 don't you think so?

Jerry,
Thank you for your input. First off, I don’t agree that gravitational mass bends light but to address your suggestion I will assume the change in the position of stars as they might appear behind an eclipse. If, as you say, the base of your triangle increases their vertical angles would decrease but the angle of the point star would increase so the angle sum would remain the same 180 degrees.

As to your orange peel concept; and Stanley 16, this is for you also. Let me start with a bold statement but please, do read what I write carefully; 1. a triangle can not be inscribed on a sphere, 2. A square can not be inscribed on a sphere and 3. (This is my most favorite) a circle can not be inscribed on a sphere. All of which apply to any geometric shape. Stanley has provided a link,
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTriangle.html (I am not able to copy the image) of what he thinks is a picture of a triangle whose sum equal more than 180 degrees, it is not! The picture shows a triangular form whose angles equal more than 180 degrees which may be true but; the they are compound angles. The angles of the triangular form AND the angles across the sphere. Which is quite variable depending on where the angle measurement is taken. If you read further down the link it will help to define spherical excess and spherical defect.

And Stanley, read carefully, if you were to “rotate” your triangular form one full turn it would be 360 degrees, not more, and not less. And Stanley, as to your “it’s as easy as pie” remark, you can’t call a cookie a pie just because it is round just as you can not call a “spherical triangle” a triangle just because it is triangular. The former is form, the latter is shape. You did not provide me what I asked for only what you thought you could slip past me; we “prophets of doom” are not easily misled. How prophetic is that? Thank you.

bob s
ps: Stanley 16, f.y.i. standing next to a (quote)genius(unquote) does not make you a genius once removed.

Bob s,

You are a tough one to argue with, but I will give it one more shot.
1. If you define “triangles” only on the flat surface, then you are correct. However, small 2D ants living on the sphere might not agree with you. The problem here is that you can see the 2D space immersed in the 3D flat space. The 2D ants will define their straight lines to be the great circles and angles the same way as we do.
2. Since there are 2D curved spaces, you should contemplate the existence of the 3D curved spaces. So, we might be 3D ants living on the 3D curved surface don’t you think so. We should first make a test that this is so, not assume that our 3D space is flat. One way to do that is by looking at the stars during the eclipse.
I am disappointed that you do not believe that the stars move their position behind the Sun during the eclipse. However, there is more data on such a thing using also our artificial satellites like Casini space probe, gravitational lensig images etc. You are, of course, not correct that the angle is still 180 during the eclipse. As you know the stars cannot move in space so suddenly when the Sun moves between them, so the triangle base did not get longer, only our perception of it did. So, this means that the viewing angle from our telescope has enlarged and the sum of the angles is no longer 180, it is larger.

Jerry

Hi bob s:


The story of the starlight bending by the sun is a textbook example of how to cheat in science and get away with it!

At first, Albert Einstein used his Principle of Equivalence to compute the bending in the starlight only for the second half of its hyperbolic trajectory from the sun to the earth orbit, and got the half of the expected result.

Later on, he realized or someone else tipped him off that an 18-century astronomer named 'Soldner' calculated the bending of the light corpuscles of the old Newton's theory, and obtained twice the amount predicted by the new theory.

So, Einstein went back to the blackboard and calculated the amount of bending in the first half for the starlight upon entering the Solar System from the sun side, and got the same result that Soldner had got before him.

Nowadays, those historically sensitive Relativists turns the real story on its head and tell their students that Soldner had made a mathematical mistake and that Einstein's calculation is the correct one:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath622/kmath622.htm

Re: Jerry, On the Weak Principle of Equivalence April 17 2008, 4:34 PM

You are a tough one to argue with, but I will give it one more shot.
I hope I do not appear the antagonist, I am not contrary by nature but I don’t just rollover on my concepts, I hope you can appreciate that.

1. If you define “triangles” only on the flat surface, then you are correct.
A triangle is a geometric shape that can only be defined on a flat surface. If, for example, a triangle shape is transferred to a sphere it is no longer has the shape of a triangle; it becomes a triangular form because the curvature of the sphere adds the extra dimension ie: it changes from a triangle shape to a spherical triangular form. The link I gave you that Stanley provided explained the spherical excess and spherical defect of the angles. If you were to calculate the inverse of the pictured spherical triangle it would null the excess back to the original 180 degrees. What I think is happening, and I could be wrong, is that you are trying to define Euclidian Geometry in Spherical Geometry space or vice versa; each are separate maths.

At this point Jerry, you are changing from Euclidian/Spherical Geometry to Philosophical Geometry. I don’t necessarily disagree but why do they have to be ants and why small? But I am going to jump ahead to the eclipse.

One way to do that is by looking at the stars during the eclipse. I am disappointed that you do not believe that the stars move their position behind the Sun during the eclipse. However, there is more data on such a thing using also our artificial satellites like Casini space probe, gravitational lensig images etc.
Take a picture of an eclipse and pick any three stars behind the Sun that form your triangle; how then do you take a picture of the same three stars without the Sun in eclipse? It requires that the second picture be taken on the opposite side of the orbit from the same angle in space and exactly six months later in time which is 186 million miles closer to the stars. Natural aberration dictates that the stars will only ”appear” to be closer to the Sun during the eclipse because the camera is further away from the stars. If starlight is refracted as it passes close to the Sun it is because of the atmosphere of the Sun, not its gravity.

You are, of course, not correct that the angle is still 180 during the eclipse. As you know the stars cannot move in space so suddenly when the Sun moves between them, so the triangle base did not get longer, only our perception of it did. So, this means that the viewing angle from our telescope has enlarged and the sum of the angles is no longer 180, it is larger.
The sum of a triangle of stars is 180 degrees before, during and after an eclipse regardless of the increase or decrease of the “perception of it” (your words). You offer an interesting argument but not compelling enough for me to change my argument. If you should choose to end our discussion allow me to say thank you now, it has been pleasant.

bob s

Re: AAF, On the Weak Principle of Equivalence April 17 2008, 5:20 PM

AAF, That is an interesting story about Einstein and his bending light. I will check out the story but I have no doubt it is true.

I have considered that somewhere around the turn of the 19th century the science of maths had counted and calculated just about all there was to count and calculate and other than teach there was little else to do. When the establishment read Einstein’s work about time dilation and then curved space all they had to do was fudge the 1919 eclipse, elevate Einstein to saint hood, and then open up a whole new era of abstract maths QM, String et al. We, and true science, have been paying for it ever since. The uncertainty principle and the equivalency principle are good examples of misguided or misdirected science. Thank you.

bob s:

Bob s

thanks for the response. About the eclipse: I think that you do not understand what the point is. Chose only two stars behind the Sun, not tree. The triangle is between three points, your eye, and the two stars behind the Sun at a great distance. So, during the eclipse the distance between the stars, the base of the triangle does not change in reality, only in our perception of it, so the angle of view from our eye has increased.

Of course, ants living on the 2D surface of the sphere do not see the thrid dimmension, just like we do not see the fourth, fifth, etc, so they have the right to define the triangle by having their three points and three lines don't you think so? How would they know that they are only 2D beings living on the sphere? They need to do measurement and look at the distant stars. Only we see that it is on the surface of the sphere. But, you are right the Euclidean geometry triangles are defined only on the flat surface. However, to move the theory forward, some generalizations are necessary, so the generalized triangle is formed by three points and three "straight" (minimal distance that light is using for getting from point to point) lines in a curved space.

Jerry

bob s;

It is all verifiable by primary sources of the highest quality, except "he realized or someone else tipped him off…", which, of course, can be inferred, but there is no historical documentation of it.

It's absolutely certain that the following definition of the Equivalence Principle is false:

"At the local level, non-rotating free fall is equivalent to uniform inertial motion".

That is because the absence of feeling on the part of the observer, in the two cases, is the only similarity between non-rotating free fall and uniform inertial motion. And by using light received by any observer at any local level, this is the decisive disproof:

In uniform inertial motion, all bodies in the direction of motion appear to approach the uniformly moving system with the same constant and systematic velocity; i.e. the actual velocity of the uniformly moving system. At the same time, all bodies in the opposite direction appear to recede from the uniformly moving system with the same constant and systematic velocity; i.e. the actual velocity of the uniformly moving system.

By contrast, in non-rotating free fall, all bodies in the direction of free fall appear to approach the free falling system with the same variable and collective velocity; i.e. the actual variable velocity of the free falling system. By contrast, all bodies in the opposite direction appear to recede from the free falling system with the same variable and collective velocity; i.e. the actual variable velocity of the free falling system.

Re: Jerry, On the Weak Principle of Equivalence April 18 2008, 7:40 AM

thanks for the response. About the eclipse: I think that you do not understand what the point is.
I understood your point quite well thank you. You made no point, you drew a conclusion based on an assumption which was base on one observation. I tried to make a point for you which, I did not expect you to agree with but I felt you would at least acknowledge it. The choice of the three points of the triangulation does nothing that would change either your conclusion, your assumption or your observation. It is you who chose to miss and/or ignore my point.

Again with the Philosophical Geometry. Evidently you chose to miss and/or ignore my point. I acknowledged your “ants” problem but I chose to pass on responding, not because I do not appreciate philosophy but because it becomes very abstract when being discussed on a message board and when philosophy is intermingle with physics points are REALLY missed, tempers flare, ad hominem attacks ensue, babies begin to cry, women scream, my coffee gets cold and I usually start smoking again; but here goes.

I am going to restate that part of your April 17, 2008, 4:34 PM post.
1. If you define “triangles” only on the flat surface, then you are correct. However, small 2D ants living on the sphere might not agree with you. The problem here is that you can see the 2D space immersed in the 3D flat space. The 2D ants will define their straight lines to be the great circles and angles the same way as we do.
2. Since there are 2D curved spaces, you should contemplate the existence of the 3D curved spaces. So, we might be 3D ants living on the 3D curved surface don’t you think so. We should first make a test that this is so, not assume that our 3D space is flat. One way to do that is by looking at the stars during the eclipse.
And in the current post you have the ant’s living on a 2D sphere. Of course, ants living on the 2D surface of the sphere...
It you are going to take the liberty of making assumptions then I doubt you will deny me an equal right to make my own assumptions; right? First off I assume that 2D ant’s have no more conception of what a triangle is any more than our 3D ant’s. Next, if I had first hand knowledge that a 2D ant disagreed with me I would certainly invite said ant to a chocolate dipping party. Then, I assume a 2D sphere to be cubed, only with rounded edges...hey, it’s my assumption. Their Great Circle would of course be diagonal to the curved square, but Great none the less. I then assume that the 2D ant’s living on a 2D squared sphere exist in a single body universe and are unable to observe stars because...well, there ain’t none to observe. I would then assume that a 2D ant would lack the manual dexterity that our 3D ant’s have and would be incapable of constructing a telescope even if they knew what it was used for. No Jerry, the only concern a 2D ant would have is foraging for food and avoid falling off of their 2D sphere (the edges were rounded so they wouldn’t trip) into their 0D space.

However, to move the theory forward, some generalizations are necessary, so the generalized triangle is formed by three points and three "straight" (minimal distance that light is using for getting from point to point) lines in a curved space.
As I said before Jerry, I do not accept curved space it (curved space) it is an assumption base on faulty observations and abstract math.

For our next discussion let’s decide whether a person in free fall inside a closed elevator can decide whether they are falling up or falling down, OK. Best and thank you.

bob s

Dear Bob s

It looks like that your sarcasm is very strong. You must have a lot of practice with it. Let’s forget about ants and consider only 2D and 3D spaces. Do you think that you can find out with only two coordinate functions in 2D space internally without submersing such a space into a higher dimension if that space is flat or curved?

After you find such a procedure, then use it on our 3D space.

About the elevator: there is no up and down if there is no gravity in it and you do not look outside. Did I pass your test?

Jerry

Re: Jerry, On the Weak Principle of Equivalence April 19 2008, 12:08 AM

It looks like that your sarcasm is very strong. You must have a lot of practice with it.

Jerry,
I tried to offset the appearance of sarcasm with humor but 2D ant’s was just too much to pass up, sorry.

Let’s forget about ants and consider only 2D and 3D spaces. Do you think that you can find out with only two coordinate functions in 2D space internally without submersing such a space into a higher dimension if that space is flat or curved?
If Space were to be curved it would require that each point in Space would be curved into and away from every other point in Space which would, in effect, null any curvature if it existed. To answer your question; there is no credible evidence to support a curved Space so I see no reason to devise an experiment to prove that it is flat, it is flat by default.

About the elevator: there is no up and down if there is no gravity in it and you do not look outside. Did I pass your test?
It was not a test but a subject for discussion, I thought I said that. It should be assumed that a body in free fall is in a gravitational field. I was curious if that person in free fall could tell which direction s/he was falling without visual aid. Thank you.

bob s

Dear Bob s,

You are tough. If space consists of only points then it has no volume, since points have zero size. So, it does not matter how many you have, you will not have anything. I still claim that you need neighborhoods to make a space not only points. This is called I think the property or theorem of compactness or something like that. Perhaps we need to start at the difference between the rational numbers and the real numbers, the meaning of limit and the hypothesis of continuity etc. I forgot most of this stuff since my school days. Anyway, the space with isolated points only does not make sense to me.

Jerry

Re: Jerry, On the Weak Principle of Equivalence April 19 2008, 4:39 AM

If space consists of only points then it has no volume, since points have zero size.
What you say is very true, although there no points ‘of’ Space, there are points ‘in’ Space. Space is void but it is not devoid, it has objects in it that occupy the void, it is those objects that define the points. The points themselves do not exist only the objects that occupy those points do. Take two objects, the Earth and the Moon, each occupies a point ‘in’ Space but they do not occupy a point ‘of’ Space. The distinction being; like I said, Space is void, if the objects occupied a point ‘of’ Space then there would have to be a displacement ‘of’ Space but since Space is void there is not something there that can be displaced. I hope I have made my distinction between ‘of’ Space as opposed to ‘in’ Space.

Do we agree that Space is void?
Do we agree that objects occupy points in Space and not of Space?
Do we agree that objects can not displace the void of Space?
Do we agree that a point in Space can only be defined by the objects that occupy that point?

It is important to know on which points we do or do not agree on. Thank you.

bob s

Dear Bob s,

I think that we found a topic for discussion now. However, all this has already been worked out by many smart people before, so it is a matter of learning only. I do not presumes that you have new concepts in this area also.

1. Is space void? What does it mean? Does this mean that there are no points between the points? If so, what is there? How do you measure or detect the voidness? I suggest that we start using the ages worked out concept of metric spaces. This is very close to what is going on in reality, a reasonable model of it. This means that in addition to points of the space we also define distances in space. The distances must satisfy certain rules such as: a) be always positive, b) distance from A to B is the same as from B to A, c) distance from A to B and to C is always larger than from A to C directly.
2. Objects occupy points in space not of Space. Hmm, this is also a puzzle to me. What is object? If object occupies points, it has no size, since points have no size, void has no size, I am guessing this according what you imply. It would be better again to use metric and say that object has a certain size.
3. Object cannot displace void of Space. Same as above. If object is from points of zero size and void has no size, object cannot be located in void.
4. Space can only be defined by objects: Here I would agree with you if you define what the object is. If it is as you say made of points and cannot occupy or displace void, then it has no size and cannot define anything. Again it is better to use metric. Then distances and sizes of objects are clear.

So, again I claim that space made of points and voids does not make sense to me. We need points and distances to form metric spaces where something can be measured or at least compared in size as in affine spaces.

Jerry

Re: Jerry, On the Weak Principle of Equivalence April 19 2008, 1:49 PM

Jerry,
I have read every word of your post as follows;

Dear Bob s,

I think that we found a topic for discussion now. However, all this has already been worked out by many smart people before, so it is a matter of learning only. I do not presumes that you have new concepts in this area also.

1. Is space void? What does it mean? Does this mean that there are no points between the points? If so, what is there? How do you measure or detect the voidness? I suggest that we start using the ages worked out concept of metric spaces. This is very close to what is going on in reality, a reasonable model of it. This means that in addition to points of the space we also define distances in space. The distances must satisfy certain rules such as: a) be always positive, b) distance from A to B is the same as from B to A, c) distance from A to B and to C is always larger than from A to C directly.
2. Objects occupy points in space not of Space. Hmm, this is also a puzzle to me. What is object? If object occupies points, it has no size, since points have no size, void has no size, I am guessing this according what you imply. It would be better again to use metric and say that object has a certain size.
3. Object cannot displace void of Space. Same as above. If object is from points of zero size and void has no size, object cannot be located in void.
4. Space can only be defined by objects: Here I would agree with you if you define what the object is. If it is as you say made of points and cannot occupy or displace void, then it has no size and cannot define anything. Again it is better to use metric. Then distances and sizes of objects are clear.

So, again I claim that space made of points and voids does not make sense to me. We need points and distances to form metric spaces where something can be measured or at least compared in size as in affine spaces.
Jerry

Now you should understand what I had said about discussing philosophy on a message board, it becomes very long and complicated. I think you are obfuscating my questions to avoid the conclusion I would have if you did agree with them. So, I am going to restate my questions and pose them as statements.

1. Do we agree that Space is void? Is changed to; Space is void.

2. Do we agree that objects occupy points in Space and not of Space? Is changed to; an object in Space is a point in Space not a point of Space.

3. Do we agree that objects can not displace the void of Space? Is changed to; If Space is void then objects that occupy a point in Space define that point, not Space.

4. Do we agree that a point in Space can only be defined by the objects that occupy that point? Is changed to; Space can only be defined by the objects that occupy Space, because Space is void it has no property by which it can be defined.

I choose my words very carefully and I don’t ask trick questions. The statements that I have made and the questions I have asked stand on their own, so if you do not understand the meaning of one or more words I have used then I suggest you consult a dictionary. If you think I am being hard again...well, I guess so because the questions that I asked only required only a yes or no answer. So I will pose a new question; do you deny my statements? If you should choose to deny that question I ask for no explanation as to why, the explanation will be self evident.

Disagreement on concepts is one thing, haggling over the meaning of simple words like, void, objects or points is completely different. I would ask that you reconsider my previous post and your response to it.

Your opening statement of April 19 2008, 4:39 AM, If space consists of only points then it has no volume, since points have zero size. So, it does not matter how many you have, you will not have anything. tells me that you very well understand what “void” means. Thank you.

bob s

Dear Bob s,

Let’s simplify this a bit and focus first on the term void. This is a new entity to me, since I do not know it from math or physics. So, define it for me a bit more accurately. Does it have size? Can you add two voids together to make a bigger void? How many dimensions does it have? Do you have line voids, planar voids, or only 3D voids? How do you detect it so you do not place one on top of another? Can something move through it such as points of space? When is the void full and no more points can be paced in it? Etc. Etc. I think that void does not do it for me. If I understand you correctly it is something that does not have any physical property. It is undetectable with no size and no dimension, so for all practical purposes it does not exist yet. Maybe in future we can construct the void detector and detect it if you think that it exists.

Jerry

Re: Jerry, On the Weak Principle of Equivalence April 19 2008, 4:25 PM

Let’s simplify this a bit and focus first on the term void.
Ok Jerry, let’s just do that..................I’m done focusing of the term void so I’ll move on.

This is a new entity to me,
Jerry, this is This; This, this is Jerry, I am sure you two will become fast friends.

[S]ince I do not know it from math or physics.
That’s an odd thing to say Jerry; strange odd, not funny odd.

So, define it for me a bit more accurately.
Try this place, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it .

Does it have size?
Yes, it has size.

Can you add two voids together to make a bigger void?
Yes I can, if I wait long enough I am able to make one really big void.

How many dimensions does it have?
Normally 2 but if you were to construct it out of wood or plastic, or something like that it would then have 3 dimensions.

Do you have line voids, planar voids, or only 3D voids?
Only 3D voids.

How do you detect it so you do not place one on top of another?
Why would I want to place one it on top of another it?

Can something move through it such as points of space?
It moves through Space not Space through it, Space do not move.

When is the void full and no more points can be paced in it?
Oh, when the void is full you will know it.

Etc. Etc.
OK?

I think that void does not do it for me.
A good void could do you wonders.

If I understand you correctly it is something that does not have any physical property.
I don’t recall defining it before but I could never say that it has no physical properties.

It is undetectable with no size and no dimension,
It comes in many different sizes, mine range from 6pt to 72pt but I am sure that other peoples its can be larger or smaller.

...so for all practical purposes it does not exist yet.
It has a very practical purpose without it how would we ever be able to refer to what it was that we were referring to in the first place.

Maybe in future we can construct the void detector and detect it if you think that it exists.
What do you mean “we”? A “void detector”? Do you mean a ‘detector of void’? My detector of void works quite well and I have no reason to construct another.

I am hopeful that I have been helpful.
bob s

Dear bob s,

I am hopeful that I have been helpful.
bob s

You’ve been very helpful, thanks it was fun. Please write a book on the physics of void. I am sure that many people will enjoy reading it and you may even make some money on it. Another name for the book could be "sex and void" this would be even better.

Good luck Jerry.

Dear Bob s,

Lok what I found.
http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/features/2000-2009/2005/08/nparticle-82w-fqr-2cd

Cheers, Jerry

Re: Jerry, On the Weak Principle of Equivalence April 19 2008, 9:50 PM

Dear Bob s,
Lok what I found.
http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/features/2000-2009/2005/08/nparticle-82w-fqr-2cd>

Thanks for the link Jerry, from which I read; Quantum theory tells a different story and states that the void is definitely a ‘something’. It is a seething mass of ‘virtual’ particles that fleetingly appear into and then disappear from our observable universe. No miracles in that concept, right Jerry? Any ideas as to where those “virtual particles” disappear into Jerry? Are the particles that appear the same ones that disappeared? How can we be sure? Maybe there is a vast virtual room there, where those missing virtual particles are recharged and sent back! Are there virtual beings that plug our virtual particles into virtual particle chargers? Do they send us a virtual bill? Maybe Jerry just maybe, those virtual beings are stealing our good virtual particles and sending back their uncharged virtual particles. Is there a virtual police we can contact and file a virtual complaint. But how then could we prove which virtual particles are ours? Do we have any virtual proof? Is there a virtual Court? How big is virtual? How small is virtual? What shape does virtual take? Does virtual have color? What color would virtual have? Can a virtual change its color? How?

Wait a minute Jerry, I just thought of something...did you ask those professors what they meant by “virtual”? I somehow think that you accept what they say without question. You’re right Jerry it has been fun.

bob s

Dear Bob s.

I have just realized that you may be a British person. They seem to use Void instead of Vacuum. This may put our previous conversation in a different perspective. However, I still cannot imagine pure Vacuum without space.

Jerry

Stanley16:
***********************
Rebis;

The challenge to you and to all other 'prophets of doom' out there is quite simple:

Show us the goods!
************************

If Albert E. (and related “circle of persons”) was trying to incorporate (or to justify) “metric” into “physics” (firstly regarding “gravity” and later in general) “they” were doing it all wrong from the very beginning with the whole their tensorial magic.

In fact, if it would be, at least “locally” in “neighborhood”, that Newton’s and his a = g holds then, because “a” cannot be spherically symmetric, this inertial “a” hast to be a consequence of motion around HYPERBOLIC PLANE. Or in other words, in that sense “gravity” MUST BE a HYPERBOLIC ROTATION, which is in a deep contrast to SR/GR’s Ptolemaic geometry (physics) of “fields”.

So, “spin” and “radiation” are the Secret might be too much for this forum and “secret eyes” around.

bob s

I voided my tear ducts reading your response to Jerry. Sarcasm, one of the many services you provide. In fact I feel weak myself, after that.
all the best to both of ya.
Curt