Re: A Forgotten Prediction of Einstein


"sal" <pragmatist@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.26.03.12.50.6471@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:57:10 +0000, John Kennaugh wrote:
>
>> Harry wrote:
>>>
>>>"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:Y8zuruDG$qyDFwnz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>>> >> If the sphere is rotating and the
>>>> >> clock with it then it is subject to constant acceleration. I was
>>>> >> under the impression that the basis of relativity was that constant
>>>> >> acceleration and gravity are equivalent.
>>>> >
>>>> >That is GRT, not SRT.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is that is what I am asking. I know what SR says. It says
>>>> there is an SR component dependent only on speed and independent of the
>>>> radius of the circle. It is the same whether the clock moves in a
>>>> straight line or whether it goes in a circle.
>>>
>>>GRT was designed to give the same predictions as SRT.
>>
>> Then how can the GR correction cancel out the SR correction
>
> Fascinating! Acceleration "fields" behave the same as gravitational
> "fields" so if we could figure out how to model the Earth's gravity as an
> "acceleration field" we should get the GR prediction in this case.

How utterly imbecilic. Having invented the acceleration field, you are now
about to invent anit-gravity I presume. What are you going to do,
place a minus sign in front of m and then claim the math predicts it?
Has anyone ever told you what science is?


> Of
> course, Einstein couldn't see how to fit gravity into SR as a well-behaved
> vector field, so I doubt I could, either, but it's still something to
> think about.

Aren't you suppose to plonk me by now so that you can bury
your dumb head in the sand and don't have to read my heresy?

Have a physics insight.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm

> In this case the SR "correction" ignored the gravitational
> field completely, which is why the result is different from GR.

In the mean time, Sagnac ignored SR's coordinate system completely,
drooling idiot.

>
> In the mean time, while we wonder how to model a spherically
> symmetric central gravitational "field" as a (necessarily flat) uniform
> acceleration "field" (and neither one's really a "field", hence the
> quotes), it's worth recalling that there is a simple, intuitive
> justification for concluding that clocks run at exactly the same rate
> everywhere on the geoid.
>
> The ocean defines an "equipotential" surface -- going from the pole to the
> equator or back you don't gain or lose energy on this surface. If you
> did, the water would "slosh" in the downhill direction until it was
> equalized.

Have you joined the Flat Earth Society yet?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.JPG


>
> Coat the Earth with a friction-free surface (floating on the surface of
> the ocean).

It already has one, it never heats up the aether or the spacetime.


> Slide a hockey puck from the pole to the equator along this
> smooth surface. By the assumption that the geoid is just that, the puck
> must neither gain nor lose energy on its trip (but you do need to guide
> it with a perpendicular force to overcome the Coriolis effect, of course).

No longer friction free.

>
> At the Equator turn the puck into light, and send the beam back to the
> pole. At the pole, turn the light back into a puck.
>
> If energy is to be conserved the final mass must be equal to the original
> mass, which, since the puck didn't gain or lose energy on its trip,
> implies that the light must not have been red or blue shifted on _its_
> trip.
>
> And that's that.

Idiot.
Androcles.


>
> (Tom Roberts, if he's following this, will no doubt interject that energy
> isn't necessarily conserved in this case because the Earth is rotating
> and the field is non-static. By the same token this is no "proof" but it's
> a mighty strong _suggestion_ that time should go at the same rate all over
> the Earth's surface. First-law violations in closed-loop situations are
> highly unappealing.)
>
>
> --
> Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
> I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Forgotten Prediction of Einstein
    ... Einstein couldn't see how to fit gravity into SR as a well-behaved ... equator or back you don't gain or lose energy on this surface. ... Slide a hockey puck from the pole to the equator along this ... must neither gain nor lose energy on its trip (but you do need to guide ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Forgotten Prediction of Einstein
    ... >> Then how can the GR correction cancel out the SR correction ... Einstein couldn't see how to fit gravity into SR as a well-behaved ... > equator or back you don't gain or lose energy on this surface. ... Slide a hockey puck from the pole to the equator along this ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Gravity Energy Muddle
    ... That is the whole point of the 1918 papers on the GR "energy ... > What is the objective Difftensor Matter? ... So you now seem to have left the Einstein camp on the vacuum ... > tuv(Matter-Gravity) is NOT the energy of gravity in any sense! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Source of Gravitational Energy
    ... When one applies the correct relativistic transformations to the ... the source of gravitational energy becomes apparent. ... gravity are: ... If we accept that the Principle of Relativity applies, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
    ... 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check ... Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed. ... but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the observation. ... We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. ...
    (sci.physics)