Re: Many writers fail to emphasis important facts about gravity theory

On Sun, "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Joe Fischer" wrote:
>> On Sat, "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>>"Joe Fischer" wrote:
>>>>Bill wrote:
>>>>>There is no difference - they are the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand how you can say that, why would Einstein have
>>>> made such a big deal out of something that was known for at least 200
>>>> years at the time.
>>>
>>>That was part of his genius.
>>
>> I am afraid that anyone who does not realize the difference between
>> the age old equivalence principle [which only concerns a comparison of
>> the value quantity of gravitational mass and inertial mass], and Einstein's
>> Principle of Equivalence of surface gravity and acceleration, cannot
>> possibly read all the relevant papers and understood what he was
>> trying to convey.
>
>Let us examine your tactic.

I don't have a "tactic", I know the Principle of Equivalence,
as described in the 1911 paper, and touched on in the 1907 paper.

> You claim there is a difference. I claim there is not.

For goodness sakes, I searched for the 1907 paper for
40 years because it was mentioned in the 1911 paper, and
could not find it until about 10 years ago.

> And what is your response - not to cite references or anything like
>that

The 1911 paper is not a reference? Gosh, if you don't
know how to find it, just a second I will get a google link.....

Most writers don't use two different names for the two
different concepts, which is probably why you and many/most
people don't see the difference.

This direct quote expresses the essence;

[Quote]
....with respect to all physical processes, that is, unless the laws of nature with respect to K are
in entire agreement with those with respect to K'. By assuming this to be so, we arrive at a
principle which, if it is really true, has great heuristic importance. For by theoretical
consideration of processes which take place relatively to a system of reference with uniform
acceleration, we obtain information as to the career of processes in a homogeneous gravitational
field." (Einstein, 1911)
[Unquote]

Taken from;

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Equivalence_principle

Do you see where he said "great heuristic importance"?

Many writers do identify the two by saying "Einsteins PoE",
which alone should suggest strongly that they are "not the same".

>- simply to state - again without any backing -
>
>>' I am afraid that anyone who does not realize the difference between the
>>age old equivalence principle [which only concerns a comparison of the value
>>quantity of gravitational mass and inertial mass], and Einstein's Principle
>>of Equivalence of surface gravity and acceleration, cannot possibly [have]
>> read all the relevant papers and understood what he was trying to convey.'

In the age of google and you obviously have a PPP connection,
why would I need to provide backing for widely distributed quotes?
Sorry, I just noticed I left out an important word, which I put
in square brackets above.

> As is
>typical you simply pull rubbish out of thin air and claim it as fact beyond
>question.

No, I have argued this endlessly, without changing any
of the facts. There are phrases he wrote, like "makes equal
falling of all objects a matter of course" which may not convey
the extreme significance of the thought.

> The fact of the matter is Newtonian gravity adheres to the
>equivalence principle - also called the principle of exivilance

Yes, I know, which is exactly my point, and most writers
either don't see the difference, or don't spend any time explaining
the difference.

>- and such
>had been known since the time of Newton.

I said that, and it all changed in 1911, with the postulate
of a different thought, but without providing a distinctive name
for it.

> It took Einstein's genius to base
>his theory of gravity on it.

He was human, and made many mistakes originally
accepting classical concepts, but he certainly originated
the concept of a chest in space pulled by a rope, and
that has nothing to do with what mass is called.

The other thing that most writers seem to fail to
understand is, knowing about the equivalence of
gravitational and inertial mass is not the same as
producing a thought experiment that produces a
situation where they absolutely must be the same
attribute of matter, by called by different names.


>His genius lies in realizing its fundamental
>importance - not in discovering something not already known.

Please read what I wrote/write and study the various
sites that google links, and watch for the difference I talk about,
and you should begin to see that there are some physicists who
understand what he did. Not all writers on the subject are
physicists, they may be journalists or even mathemagicans.

>>>> I believe he even said gravitational mass and inertial mass
>>>> are two terms for the same attribute of matter.
>>>
>>>If the equivalence principle is true then of course they must be.
>>>Bill
>>
>> So then you haven't read the many sayings by the greats
>> that gravitational mass _could_ have any value, yet it is always
>> proportional to inertial mass?
>>
>If the equivalence principle is true it is trivially obvious that
>gravitational mass and inertial mass must be the same - forces of
>acceleration depend on inertial mass.

But gravitational mass could have a different value from
inertial mass, I am not making that up, many physicists have
written it.

>> Which is much different than surface gravity being
>> indistinguishable from acceleration.
>
>That is not what the equivalence principle says - you left out the very
>important locally.

It is only locally for a 2-dimensional surface and Newtonian
coordinates.
It would have been a mistake to not keep certain Newtonian
references because the applied physicist needs them.

>> While Einstein may not have used the words "surface
>> gravity", that is exactly what he meant.
>>
>> And there is a big difference between the two terms
>> being proportional in value, and being two terms for the
>> same attribute of matter.
>
>If they were proportional then they are the same because a simple
>redefinition of units would make them the same.

Not hardly, an object massing 1 kg could exert 2kg
on a scale on the surface of Earth, or any other value.

>> There may be some confusion and possibly a need
>> for more discussion of the subject because the constant
>> little g refers to a nominal surface value on Earth.
>> But the difference between the Euclidean/Newtonian
>> equivalence principle and Einstein's Principle of Equivalence
>> of surface gravity and acceleration is HUGE.
>
>There is no difference. If you believe otherwise cite a reference.

I can't think of a better reference than the 1911 paper,
but I will be looking for some.

>> I realize not everybody is going to spend the money
>> on the complete papers volumes, but the 1911 and 1915
>> papers are in the $10 Dover paperback "Relativity" by
>> Einstein, Lorentz, Minkowski and Weyl.
>
>You should learn to crawl before attempting walking. Previous posts
>indicate Boyles law is beyond you - understand it before attempting GR.
>Bill

What does Boyles law hve to do with this?

I have read everything I could find by Einstein up until
1914, and he sure wrote about more things than Boyle.
I think he is not recognized enough for his contribution
to the understanding of heat and energy.

If there is anything pertinent to this newgroup,
it is the understanding of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence
of surface gravity and an accelerating room in space far
from gravity and other matter.

So I will be looking for well expressed references
that support what I know to be fact.

Joe Fischer

.

Relevant Pages

  • Zielinskis and Puthoffs gravity theories refuted
    ... [BTW this is covered in great detail in *Gravitation & Inertia* ... equivalence principle but also the strong equivalence principle. ... non-tensor inertial force - GCT tensor real gravity force, ... gravitational field, either from the motion of test particles, as in the ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Zielinskis and Puthoffs gravity theories refuted
    ... [BTW this is covered in great detail in *Gravitation & Inertia* ... equivalence principle but also the strong equivalence principle. ... non-tensor inertial force - GCT tensor real gravity force, ... gravitational field, either from the motion of test particles, as in the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Many writers fail to emphasis important facts about gravity theory
    ... age old equivalence principle [which only concerns a comparison of the value ... quantity of gravitational mass and inertial mass], ... of Equivalence of surface gravity and acceleration, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained
    ... Consider an observer in a freely falling elevator, objects released from rest relative to the elevator cabin remain floating 'weightless' in the cabin. ... In another words, gravitational mass and inertial mass is equal, this is the famous principle called the Weak Equivalence Principle or WEP. ... If we consider the elevator cabin over a short time period and that it is spatially small, then a freely falling elevator resembles a Cartesian inertial frame of reference, the laws of special relativity hold inside the elevator. ... We thus see that WEP states that since it is impossible to detect gravity from local region, one could came with an idea that local laws of physics reduces to special relativity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Should GRT be amended?
    ... The Einstein equivalence principle states that TO LOWEST ORDER a ... gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerated system. ... I think, though, if you have NO curvature effects; ... gravity throughout an infinite region; ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast