Re: Simple Question About GR And Uniform Acceleration

On 21 Nov 2005 16:24:26 -0800, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On 21 Nov 2005 12:21:15 -0800, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >Tom SR does NOT exist, except as a SPECIAL CASE in GR
>> >where UNIFORM VELOCITY is specified, it's kook bait as you
>> >demonstrate.
>>
>> But any rigid rectilinear reference frame can be translated,
>> assume the velocity is just changing on one axis only.
>> This is much different than gravity, where there are no
>> rigid rectilinear reference frames.
>
>Well, when you apply EP ( Equivalence Principle), and use an
>accelerating elevator, the "rigid rectilinears" get all bent, so the
>the use of "rigid" isn't possible in the accelerating elevator.

I was wrong to ever use the word "elevator" when talking
about the EPoE, too many people assume it is in the gravitational
"field of the Earth.

Wasn't this thread about a rocket?

Aren't you one of those that have told me the EPoE is
a two dimensional surface accelerating, and that it doesn't
represent gravity?

>> >See Eq(2) and read it this time. <shrug>.
>> >Ken
>>
>> Why perpetrate a misconception, almost all graduate
>> level texts specify that SR can handle acceleration, but not
>> gravity.
>
>Sir, read GR's Eq.(2), Simple Relativity is fine, that's what I posted.

Why read GR when the problem is about simple acceleration,
not about gravity?

>> Have you read the Physics Faq?
>>
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
>
>Baez is mathyl, and out of boredom, without due respect to
>physics, shot from the hip, and posted a lot of junk.

Well, that section of the Faq was written by Phillip Gibbs, I think.

>It's typical that math guy's think they can fly into physics and
>suddenly provide relevations, with non-coordinated logic.

I agree, but this isn't about math guys, it is a Newtonian
problem that may have to be treated differently to do any type
of SR proofing.

I know nothing about SR, I know nothing about math,
but it seems the problem is simple one of different increments
of velocity.

I don't like all the confusion connected with the different
model's treatment of freefal and surface gravity, I don't like
the confusion connected with statements like gravity is
identical to acceleration and aceleration is like gravity.

Gravity is like acceleration, but acceleration is nothing
but a change in velocity.

So surface gravity can be an acceleration, but there
is no way that an acceleration can ever be identical to
gravity.

A rocket accelerating produces a linear motion of
the reference frame, so the frame itself does not bend or
warp, it simply moves.

There is no reason that the frame of a rocket could
not be treated with a rotatiom or acceleration. The question
is moot in regard to uniform velocity, because there is no
difference between uniform velocity and "at rest" in space.

That should be enough to suggest that SR can treat
accelerated objects and frames, any discussion of any velocity
that can be achieved with a rocket does not need SR.

Doing a transformation of uniform velocity seems to
me to be a waste of time, another math exercise just for the
sake of math, with no application to physical problems, if
the velocity is a small percentage of c, which is then only
an observer's opinion.


I don't understand how there can be so many different
opinions and fixations about relativity theory, it is like opinions
are indexed to IQ, but that can't be true. :-)

Maybe it is conspiracy to prevent any outsiders from
achieving a clear understanding of physics so that only the
degreed can win all the Nobel prizes. :-)

Joe Fischer

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where Angels Fear to Fall
    ... Kinetic Energy Formula Disproved, ... could be brought about either by Earth's velocity component, ... equal to g is indistinguishable from gravity. ... you can't tell the difference, then, gravity and acceleration must BE ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Where Angels Fear to Fall
    ... Gravity is energy source / ... could be brought about either by Earth's velocity component, ... equal to g is indistinguishable from gravity. ... you can't tell the difference, then, gravity and acceleration must BE ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Where Angels Fear to Fall
    ... Gravity is energy source / ... could be brought about either by Earth's velocity component, ... equal to g is indistinguishable from gravity. ... you can't tell the difference, then, gravity and acceleration must BE ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Where Angels Fear to Fall
    ... energy source / dropped masses, and can only add E at a uniform rate- ... could be brought about either by Earth's velocity component, ... equal to g is indistinguishable from gravity. ... you can't tell the difference, then, gravity and acceleration must BE ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Where Angels Fear to Fall
    ... Gravity is energy source / ... could be brought about either by Earth's velocity component, ... equal to g is indistinguishable from gravity. ... you can't tell the difference, then, gravity and acceleration must BE ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading