Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!!

On Jul 1, 6:36 pm, Darwin123 wrote:
On Jul 1, 1:21 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:

False. It is true that gravity is not acceleration, but that does not
"contradict" or "undermine" the foundations of GR. Equivalence is not
equality.

So, when did you become a lawyer? I thought you are a professor of
physics at IIT associated with the Fermi Lab?

This isn't law, this is reality. If you don't use words precisely,
you can't describe physical reality precisely.

So, you are advocating there is a difference between equivalence and
equality under the laws of physics. So, the words “contradict” and
“undermine” have their special meanings in physics. You must be
delusional to allow the special interpretation of these words to
describe reality. This is physics and not some bible interpretation
class that we are discussing. <shrug>

Gravity and acceleration are equivalent because for any local
measurement, one can not determine which is which. General relativity
says gravitational acceleration and kinematic acceleration are
equivalent for local measurements.

It depends on what you mean by General Relativity. As far as I am
concerned, General Relativity is the set of the Einstein field
equations. In your terminology of General Relativity, do you mean one
of the interpretations to these field equations?

Gravity and acceleration are not
equal because one can separate them with nonlocal measurements.

Thus, it fails the principle of equivalence. That is unless you
liberally interpret the principle of equivalence into whatever your
own fantasy is. <shrug>

In that famous elevator of Einstein's, one can't tell the
difference between gravity and acceleration from a measurement made
only within the elevator.

Yes, Galileo had already pointed that out almost 300 years before
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did his claim.
<shrug>

However, lets examine the case of nonlocal measurements. If a
window were open on the floor of the elevator, and one had a good
telescope, one may see a planet by the reflected light of the sun.
This is a nonlocal measurement. one may see objects orbiting the
planet, some at distances comparable to the distance between planet
and elevator. One measures the relative acceleration of planet and
orbiting bodies relative to the elevator, one looks at the tidal bulge
of the planets oceans due to the heavier orbiting bodies. One may even
send out a projectile from the elevator to the planet, with a
Cavendish type apparatus to determine the precise mass of the body.
All of these are nonlocal measurements. With this extra data,
you go "who, this is a heavy planet. My apparent weight comes from the
planet. Because it comes from a large mass like this planet, I will
call it gravity not acceleration.

One may try to put words in my mouth, but I remain my ground of the
principle of relativity as Galileo had described it that allowed
Newton to formulate the law of gravity.

Kepler's Laws were determined with nonlocal measurements. It
would be impossible to determine the planets orbited the sun in
Keplerian orbits without taking looking across the solar system at the
distant planets and the sun.

Yes, this is so obvious. <shrug>

That is why “Enwurf” went nowhere. It was the cooperation of Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar and his more capable
classmate Grossman. It was heavily indulged in coordinate
transformation where the usage of the local coordinate did not go
anywhere. <shrug>

The field equations agree with Newton. In order to understand
gravitation, you must observe how an object behaves under the
gravitational influence and not like what Grossmann and Einstein did
by imagining themselves in free fall. As Professor Roberts had
pointed out, free falling would only intercept the ground in a tragic
end. <shrug> Some self-proclaimed wise guy would claim in-orbit does
not achieve that tragedy in the near future. However, if one is
allowed to take time into eons, Professor Roberts’ claim certainly
comes true. <shrug>

The tides are a nonlocal phenomenon. It
would be impossible to tell the tides were caused by the moon unless
one looked at the moon and correlated its rise times with the cycle of
the tides.

Tides are more complex than you can imagine. <shrug>

The determination of which is gravity and which is
acceleration is, and was even before Einstein, a matter of nonlocal
measurements.

This determination was done long ago by Galileo. He discovered there
is no difference between gravity and acceleration. <shrug>

Even Newton would probably agree.

Of course, Newton did. How else would the law of gravity ever come
about?

One specific type of nonlocal measurement, the measurement of
tidal force, makes it especially clear.

Now, we are back to tidal force which is more complicated than you are
describing. <shrug>

If the reference frame is
accelerating, there is no tidal force.

There is no special frame of reference allowed by Special Relativity.
Remember?

By tidal force I mean
differential weight, not just the earth-moon-sun tides.

Yes, even tidal force can be subject to many different
interpretations. <shrug>

If the elevator is very big, bigger than the planet, with water
on the floor, the surface of the water will be flat.

This is called common sense and should not be construed as super
intelligent deduction. <shrug>

Acceleration of a
reference frame doesn't cause tides, since all measuring instruments
in the reference frame have to be accelerated equally.

As I said, the tidal force is more complicated than you can imagine.
<shrug>

However, the
floor of the elevator may be larger than the planet. The edge of the
elevator far from the planet edge will show a lower tide than the
middle of the elevator. Water will bunch up near the center of the
elevator. This is a type of tide in the general sense. This would
indicate gravity.

So, your 2-cents is finally over. Thank ____ (**) for that.

** ____ allows you to fill in the blank to indicate whatever your
favorite god is at this moment.

The bottom line is that gravity is not acceleration under General
Relativity. This, of course, is a gross violation of the principle of
equivalence. Gravity manifests acceleration as well as time dilation
while non-gravitational acceleration has been observed to not manifest
any time dilation. This does not bode well for Special Relativity to
resolve the twin’s paradox in case if your inquisitive mind has not
figured out yet.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proper Time v. Absolute Motion.
    ... Twin A shows 200 days less ... Remember it is locally equivalent to gravity. ... > of the engine that was powering the acceleration which would be ... a good-sized planet and cut a spherical chamber out of the center. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Proper Time v. Absolute Motion.
    ... Remember it is locally equivalent to gravity. ... >> of the engine that was powering the acceleration which would be ... > relativity, and I was assuming zero gravity throughout. ... > a good-sized planet and cut a spherical chamber out of the center. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!!
    ... namely that gravity is not acceleration and acceleration is not ... lets examine the case of nonlocal measurements. ... one may see a planet by the reflected light of the sun. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Extra force needed for additional accellaration within a gravitational field
    ... From a height 15 km above the surface of the planet ... a spaceship (it's own mass and grav to be ignored) wants to ... The acceleration due to gravity alone at the surface ... We can create a function to give the acceleration due ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: "Is There a Force of Gravity?"
    ... acceleration, you obtain an acceleration. ... The world is NOT Newtonian, ... By claiming gravity not a force, you tried to elevate GR beyond ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading