Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[Dubbelosix]

Let's put this to rest... mind the pun.

 

[math]E = mc^2[/math]

 

is fine in approximate sense for rest mass. If you want relativistic mass description, then the full equation is

 

[math]E = \sqrt{m^2c^4 + p^2c^2}[/math]

 

So there is no need for this discussion about whether it is right or wrong. The fact is, we have the physics that makes both right, just in different and special circumstances.

[rhertz]

LightStorm 205;

 

From the 1920 lecture at Lieden:

"The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field. This theory therefore satisfies the conditions of the special theory of relativity, but when viewed from the latter it acquires a novel aspect. For if K be a system of coordinates relatively to which the Lorentzian ether is at rest, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are valid primarily with reference to K. But by the special theory of relativity the same equations without any change of meaning also hold in relation to any new system of co-ordinates K' which is moving in uniform translation relatively to K. Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable.

….

More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."

 

[This is another example of Einstein's ability to analyze ideas for redundancy or usefulness. He easily discarded anything that served no purpose. Action at a distance is rejected, but space as a medium could still be useful.]

[My comments on inertia involve the equivalence principle, which states inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same. The perception of the person in the enclosed box, cannot distinguish between acceleration of 1g by gravity or 1g upward by some other means.]

[in SR, perceptions are reciprocal, like time dilation and length contraction. In GR, rotation is considered absolute motion, i.e. without reciprocal perceptions. The skater can spin with outstretched arms, which can be explained as centrifugal force, resulting from angular momentum of hands and arms, a local behavior. A reciprocal state would have the skater standing still with the same configuration, and all other objects in the universe rotating in the opposite sense. The distant stars would be moving at multiples of light speed c (a case for removal of c restriction). For the skater, her perception begins the instant she spins. The most distant objects would start rotation first, followed by closer objects, in order to produce the simultaneous motion as perceived by the skater. I.e. the 'fixed' stars, which haven't moved since humanity appeared, would have to move with all the objects beyond 100 ly, before the skater was born. The universe would have to magically spin on an axis at the skaters location. The skater can stop and start at will, but this could not be conveyed instantly to the distant objects. Now add a second skater within sight of the first, who spins simultaneously with her, but in the opposite sense, one cw, the other ccw. There seems to be more questions than answers!]

 

I highlighted the text about the "equivalence principle" on Einstein's GTR.  It's widely known that if this equivalence fails, the entire construction

of the general theory of relativity collapses and nothing of value is left.

 

I've read so many "proofs" about the validity of this CONJECTURE that makes me to be ashamed for sharing the same DNA as the GTR worshippers.

 

Einstein was a master shophist, the king of fallacies and also a charlatan who didn't known a thing about gravity and human physiology.

 

If GTR has to be true, it has to pass not only tests derived from instruments, but by human senses also.

 

Humans, and most of mammals, have an extremely accuraty sensorial system for motion, acceleration and spatial location.

 

It's called the Vestibular System, which works with differential values and has precision beyond the current technology (learn about

CIA's funded General Dynamics robots).

 

Either standing on the enclosure, or being sat at a chair, a human can easily differentiate between both instances. So, for humans (something

that Einstein forgot to include) the "equivalence principle" is absolutely false.

 

And so, the general theory of relativity.

 

 

I put the simplest link here, so anyone can learn more about this absolutely incredible system.

This system is the nightmare of neurologists, because its failures can't be easily differentiated

from neurological diseases and causes dizziness, falling over, vertigo and many more problems

that transform a person's life into a living hell.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibular_system

[LightStorm]

[My comments on inertia involve the equivalence principle, which states inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same. The perception of the person in the enclosed box, cannot distinguish between acceleration of 1g by gravity or 1g upward by some other means.]

 

 

The equivalence principle is wrong. In an enclosed box that is accelerating, the force felt by the box is the same at every point in the box. Whereas on a real planet, the force of gravity at the feet is stronger than at the head. That's how you can tell you're on a real planet or if you're in a box that is accelerating. 

[OceanBreeze]

The equivalence principle is wrong. In an enclosed box that is accelerating, the force felt by the box is the same at every point in the box. Whereas on a real planet, the force of gravity at the feet is stronger than at the head. That's how you can tell you're on a real planet or if you're in a box that is accelerating. 

 

So, you have never been in an elevator or taken a ride at an amusement park?

[LightStorm]

The most distant objects would start rotation first, followed by closer objects, in order to produce the simultaneous motion as perceived by the skater. I.e. the 'fixed' stars, which haven't moved since humanity appeared, would have to move with all the objects beyond 100 ly, before the skater was born. The universe would have to magically spin on an axis at the skaters location. The skater can stop and start at will, but this could not be conveyed instantly to the distant objects. Now add a second skater within sight of the first, who spins simultaneously with her, but in the opposite sense, one cw, the other ccw. There seems to be more questions than answers!]

 

The universe isn't spinning. It's the skater that is spinning. Her arms fly outward because of centrifugal force. Rotations are absolute. not relative. Newton's bucket experiment proves this. What you are saying above makes no sense to me. 

[LightStorm]

So, you have never been in an elevator or taken a ride at an amusement park?

 

I have. Did you miss the part where I said, the force of acceleration in an enclosed box is the same at every point in it? Whereas on a planet the force of gravity is stronger at the feet than it is at the head.

[OceanBreeze]

I have. Did you miss the part where I said, the force of acceleration in an enclosed box is the same at every point in it? Whereas on a planet the force of gravity is stronger at the feet than it is at the head.

 

I didn't miss it. It is wrong.

[LightStorm]

I didn't miss it. It is wrong.

 

Are you kidding me?

[LightStorm]

Ocean, the force felt in an accelerating elevator (in deep space) is the same at every point in it. Whereas on a real planet the force of gravity is stronger at bottom of the elevator and gets weaker by the time you get to the top. Force of gravity depends on distance. 

[OceanBreeze]

Are you kidding me?

[OceanBreeze]

Do you own a car and are allowed to drive?

 

Try accelerating on a deserted street.

 

You get pushed backwards in the seat. You feel the force of the seat back pushing against you.

 

That is the force of acceleration.

 

Nobody has ever found any difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass.

Edited May 8, 2019 by OceanBreeze

[fahrquad]

Do you own a car and are allowed to drive?

 

Try accelerating on a deserted street.

 

You get pushed backwards in the seat. You feel the force of the seat back pushing against you.

 

That is the force of acceleration.

 

Nobody has ever found any difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass.

 

Considering how feeble the acceleration is in most cars, perhaps a roller coaster would be a better example.

[OceanBreeze]

Considering how feeble the acceleration is in most cars, perhaps a roller coaster would be a better example.

 

 

What are you driving, a horse and buggy?

 

Anyway, I wasn't quite correct about there being "no difference". You can detect a difference between a gravity field and an acceleration if you drop two objects. In the gravity field, if they are separated tangentially, they will move closer together as they fall due to the difference between the "parallel" acceleration field and the "spherical" gravitational field. That is a tidal effect. But, a change in acceleration with height, is not a tidal effect. There will not be any difference measured with height between the gravitational field on earth or the acceleration field in an elevator that is accelerating at 1 g. That is, the acceleration force will change with height in the same way as the gravitational force, at least locally.

I have to qualify the locally part since he will come back with an elevator that is one light year long and say "see".

[LightStorm]

I have to qualify the locally part since he will come back with an elevator that is one light year long and say "see".

 

It does not matter how long the elevator is. One can distinguish between a real gravitational field vs an accelerating elevator because gravity depends on distance and changes at every point in the elevator. Whereas in an accelerating elevator the amount of force felt is the same at all points in the elevator, top or bottom. This is why I said equivalence principle is wrong.

[OceanBreeze]

It does not matter how long the elevator is. One can distinguish between a real gravitational field vs an accelerating elevator because gravity depends on distance and changes at every point in the elevator. Whereas in an accelerating elevator the amount of force felt is the same at all points in the elevator, top or bottom. This is why I said equivalence principle is wrong.

 

 

I suggest you read the title of this thread again.

 

Now read the rules of the forum about backing up your claim.

 

I am willing to do just that. Are you?

 

 

 

There is no experiment observers can perform to distinguish whether an acceleration arises because of a gravitational force or because their reference frame is accelerating.

Douglas C. Giancoli, Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, p. 155.

 

 

In fact, this quote isn't entirely accurate once you consider tidal forces, which as I said earlier, do not cause the change in gravity or acceleration force with height but tend to squeeze two separate objects towards one another, due to gravity from a spherical source, such as the earth.

 

So, please provide a reliable source to support your claim that "One can distinguish between a real gravitational field vs an accelerating elevator" and show that Einstein got it all wrong.

 

That seems to be a favorite theme on this forum at the moment!

 

I am betting on Einstein!

 

 

 

[LightStorm]

So, please provide a reliable source to support your claim that "One can distinguish between a real gravitational field vs an accelerating elevator" and show that Einstein got it all wrong.

 

I already stated it. Gravity depends on distance where as acceleration felt in an elevator is the same at all points inside it. I am amused that you are not able to follow.

[OceanBreeze]

I already stated it. Gravity depends on distance where as acceleration felt in an elevator is the same at all points inside it. I am amused that you are not able to follow.

 

So, you are unable to cite a reliable source. I understand.

Edited May 8, 2019 by OceanBreeze