Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained

Heliyummm wrote:
[snip crap]

I dont have any sources to cite except my own gut instincts

idiot

that this
is why the Equivalence Principle is in fact a principle, but certainly
you cannot _prove_ whether you are accelerating in a ship or standing
in a G-field.
[snip more crap]

You sure as Hell can simply by tidal forces. Three orthogonal circles
of marbles in free fall will not only detect orbital vs. inertial free
fall, they will supply all the elements necessary to calculate your
orbit (or show there is none). "LOCALITY" You miss the point
entirely. You could not miss it more if you were competent and tried.

(Weak) Equivalence Principle: the world line of a body immersed in a
gravitational field is independent of its composition and structure.
All local centers of mass vacuum free fall along identical (parallel
displaced) minimum action trajectories.

NOBODY in physics has tested for structure, for that is chemistry. It
is trivially shown that metaphoric left and right shoes need not obey
the EP. Macroscopically and chemically identical, solid single
crystal spheres of quartz in enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21 and
P3(2)21 need not obey the Equivalence Principle. No prior observation
in any venue at any scale is contradicted if there is an EP parity
violation only in the massed sector.

Nobody has looked. Parity Eotvos experiment decides it in 90 days to
5x10^(-14) relative sensitivity. Parity calorimetry experiment
decides it in two days to 3x10^(-18) relative sensitivity.

Separation of gravitation from inertia elicits teleparallel
gravitation. This additionally describes EP = false with gravitation
connected through torsion, a chiral anisotropic vacuum background ONLY
in the massed sector,

"Does a tensorial energy-momentum density for gravitation exist?",
arxiv:0812.0034

"Gravitation: in search of the missing torsion", arxiv:0801.4148

"Double Binary Pulsar Test of Dynamical Chern-Simons Modified
Gravity", arXiv:0810.5541

There, stooopid, you need not contaminate yourself by visiting an
academic library. It's all on-line. Learn something. (s***)

It cannot be proved and it's not intended to be.

idiot

NOTHING can be proven except in mathematics - but math is not
empirical. The sciences validate or falsify prediction vs.
observation. Validation is necessary but only falsification is
sufficient.

The EP is massively validated from tests dating back to the mid-1500s,
now sensitive to 5x10^(-14) difference/average in the lab. Do you
know what "difference/average" means? You are clueless and you have
read ZERO refereed literature. The EP is massively validated from
astronomic observations, the Nordvedt effect to PSR J1903+0327,

"The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment",
Living. Rev. Rel. 9, 3 2005; arxiv:gr-qc/0510072v2

"An Eccentric Binary Millisecond Pulsar in the Galactic Plane",
arxiv.org:0805.2396.

idiot

Even spoon-fed you are an idiot,

"Laboratory tests of gravity", New J. Phys. 7, 205 (2005),
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/7/1/205/njp5_1_205.html

"Torsion balance experiments: a low-energy frontier of particle
physics", Part. Nucl. Phys. 62, 102 (2009)
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/lowfrontier2.pdf

"Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a Rotating Torsion Balance",
Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041101 (2008),
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/schlamminger08.pdf

It's
just like randomness in that respect. Eerie - eh ?
[snip more crap]

idiot

My opinion of course -

boring ignorant ineducable perseverative empirical idiot

You aren't even professionally stooopid like a Christ-besotted wretch,
an Enviro-whiner, or Benjamin "Bull***" Bernanke. You are amateur
stooopid, Special Olympics stooopid, nursing home warehousing the
elderly living dead stooopid.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.

Quantcast