Re: Acceleration With and Without Rate
From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 03/11/05
- Next message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: ? Measuring eigenvalues"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- In reply to: Nick: "Acceleration With and Without Rate"
- Next in thread: Nick: "Re: Acceleration With and Without Rate"
- Reply: Nick: "Re: Acceleration With and Without Rate"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:53:58 -0500
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110514105.366035.224730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Strength of gravity can be defined by weight.
> The strength of gravity in weight is an acceleration - without any rate
> - multiplied by mass.
> There is no motion or change in motion in gravity's weight.
> So if there are no changes there can be no rate - to no change.
>
> When you remove the rate from the Equivalence Principle you are left
> with a more general definition of acceleration. Without the rate you
> only have a limited acceleration. It happens to be the constant we know
> as the speed of light. The limit is less than a light speed change.
>
> The Equivalence Principle must become in this way more general -
> a more general definition of acceleration.
> The strength of gravity in weight is thus limited.
>
> The other side of the Equivalence Principle applies to
> an accelerating frame which changes velocity in space.
> The rate of change applies here.
>
> But in gravity the acceleration equivalence for weight is
> timeless. Timeless acceleration.
> If all accelerations were the same we wouldn't need a principle.
> It is only because they are not exactly the same that
> we have a principle relating accelerating frames to
> unmoving frames having weight in gravity.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
> -- Time moves --
>
Mitch wrote:
<< There is no motion or change in motion in gravity's weight.
So if there are no changes there can be no rate - to no change. >>
The configuration of charges in matter is constantly changing.
This change is manfest by the phenomena we know as magnetism.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nmr+mri+esr+&btnG=Google+Search
Our inability to similarly associate a changing entity with the
phenomena we know as gravity is hardly basis to say:
"no change is occuring". A critical read of Einstein's photoelectric
paper will give insight to one of his worst liabilites:
He assumed that any mechanism that he could not concive of
could not exist.... and he wasn't a very sucessful inventor.
It is pure folly to *assume* that the equivalent of a "gravity wind"
does not exist when we clearly see it blow vibrating masses to
diagonal courses and we see it pin an apple to the ground
beneath a tree.
Plenty of things are in motion. We simply don't know how
to draw the lines of force yet.
Sue...
<< the acceleration which represents the actual dynamics of a
moving body, but may also be contaminated by components
of earth's gravity which may also be sensed. >>
http://www.motusbioengineering.com/accelerometer-limitations.htm
http://www.mines.edu/fs_home/jmoss/MEL1notes/LabNotes/6B.htm
- Next message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: ? Measuring eigenvalues"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- In reply to: Nick: "Acceleration With and Without Rate"
- Next in thread: Nick: "Re: Acceleration With and Without Rate"
- Reply: Nick: "Re: Acceleration With and Without Rate"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|