 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Special Relativity not compatible with General... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| DSeppala... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In General Relativity, Einstein equates gravity and acceleration.
However, a simple experiment shows that gravity and acceleration
cannot be the same if the space-time concepts of Special Relativity
are applied.
Consider an inertial reference frame which I'll call the rest
frame. If two objects are placed on the x axis a distance L apart,
and they simultaneously undergo identical accelerations along the x-
axis, all measured in the rest frame, the two objects will remain a
distance L apart. If a box or chest is being accelerated by being
pulled by a rope, as time goes on, this length of this box will
shorten in the direction of the acceleration, as measured in the
original inertial rest frame. Thus if two objects are in an enclosed
box, all being accelerated at the same rate (with the box being pulled
by a rope), since the distance as measured in the rest frame between
two accelerated objects remains constant and the box continually is
measured to shorten as a function of time, eventually one of the
objects must hit one of the sides of the box.
So here's the experiment that gives conflicting results. In
explaining General Relativity Einstein says that a person with
measuring apparatus in an enclosed chest cannot determine whether he
is at rest in a gravitational field or is far removed from
gravitational sources and is simply being accelerated by a rope
pulling the chest. So we place this enclosed chest at rest in a
uniform gravitational field, and we place two objects at distance L
apart in the direction of the gravitational force. We let the two
objects accelerate with a force equal and opposite to the
gravitational force so that the two objects hover within this enclosed
chest with no movement in any direction. As time goes on the position
of the two objects does not change.
Now we do the same experiment in a chest that is far removed from
gravitational sources and is being accelerated by being pulled by a
rope. As stated previously from special relativity the distance
between the two objects remains constant but the the length of the
chest becomes smaller in the direction of acceleration as measured by
some inertial reference frame, and therefore as stated before one of
the objects must eventually crash into the chest. So if one observer
sees the object crash into the boundary of the chest, all observers
must observe the same thing. But this does not occur if the chest is
suspended in a gravitational field. It only occurs if the chest is
being accelerated. Therefore you cannot claim that there is an
equivalence between gravity and acceleration.
David Seppala
Bastrop TX |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:12 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3407
|
On Nov 5, 5:52am, DSeppala <dsepp... at (no spam) austin.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]In General Relativity, Einstein equates gravity and acceleration.
However, a simple experiment shows that gravity and acceleration
cannot be the same if the space-time concepts of Special Relativity
are applied.
Consider an inertial reference frame which I'll call the rest
frame. If two objects are placed on the x axis a distance L apart,
and they simultaneously undergo identical accelerations along the x-
axis, all measured in the rest frame, the two objects will remain a
distance L apart. If a box or chest is being accelerated by being
pulled by a rope, as time goes on, this length of this box will
shorten in the direction of the acceleration, as measured in the
original inertial rest frame. Thus if two objects are in an enclosed
box, all being accelerated at the same rate (with the box being pulled
by a rope), since the distance as measured in the rest frame between
two accelerated objects remains constant and the box continually is
measured to shorten as a function of time, eventually one of the
objects must hit one of the sides of the box.
So here's the experiment that gives conflicting results. In
explaining General Relativity Einstein says that a person with
measuring apparatus in an enclosed chest cannot determine whether he
is at rest in a gravitational field or is far removed from
gravitational sources and is simply being accelerated by a rope
pulling the chest. So we place this enclosed chest at rest in a
uniform gravitational field, and we place two objects at distance L
apart in the direction of the gravitational force. We let the two
objects accelerate with a force equal and opposite to the
gravitational force so that the two objects hover within this enclosed
chest with no movement in any direction. As time goes on the position
of the two objects does not change.
Now we do the same experiment in a chest that is far removed from
gravitational sources and is being accelerated by being pulled by a
rope. As stated previously from special relativity the distance
between the two objects remains constant but the the length of the
chest becomes smaller in the direction of acceleration as measured by
some inertial reference frame, and therefore as stated before one of
the objects must eventually crash into the chest. So if one observer
sees the object crash into the boundary of the chest, all observers
must observe the same thing. But this does not occur if the chest is
suspended in a gravitational field. It only occurs if the chest is
being accelerated. Therefore you cannot claim that there is an
equivalence between gravity and acceleration.
David Seppala
Bastrop TX
[/quote]
GR violates the SR motion laws in the extreme of GR theory or a black
hole. Matter cannot reach light speed or go beyond.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 7:52am, DSeppala <dsepp... at (no spam) austin.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]In General Relativity, Einstein equates gravity and acceleration.
[/quote]
Actually Einstein makes no such equivalence. Several comic books do.
You need to look at tidal effects to see where gravity really comes
in. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:17 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3407
|
On Nov 5, 11:06am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 7:52am, DSeppala <dsepp... at (no spam) austin.rr.com> wrote:
In General Relativity, Einstein equates gravity and acceleration.
Actually Einstein makes no such equivalence. Several comic books do.
You need to look at tidal effects to see where gravity really comes
in.
[/quote]
If an elliptical orbit could become circular the acceleration would go
away all together. This means there is less acceleration in an ellipse
than in falling straight down.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Roberts... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A. SR is the local limit of GR in any manifold.
B. Globally, SR is a specific solution of the equations of GR, one in
which the manifold is devoid of any mass large enough to affect the
geometry significantly, and which has the topology of R^4.
So SR is NECESSARILY and INHERENTLY compatible with GR. Indeed, in the
original derivation of GR, the local validity of SR was assumed.
DSeppala wrote:
[quote]As stated previously from special relativity the distance
between the two objects remains constant but the the length of the
chest becomes smaller in the direction of acceleration as measured by
some inertial reference frame, and therefore as stated before one of
the objects must eventually crash into the chest.
[/quote]
This is just plain wrong, and SR says no such thing. You REALLY need to
learn what SR actually says, and how to apply it correctly.
HINT1: think of the top and bottom of the chest as
two more objects accelerated by the same constant
acceleration (from the rope). They therefore MUST
behave the same as the two suspended objects.
HINT2: the "length contraction" you attempted to
apply to the chest only applies to an INERTIAL object
-- it inherently depends on measuring the length
SIMULTANEOUSLY IN AN INERTIAL FRAME, and the chest is
not at rest in any inertial frame. Had you tried to
apply "length contraction" to the suspended objects,
you would have obtained the same wrong answer, but
come to the correct conclusion that the objects have
an unchanging relationship to the top and bottom.
A correct application of SR to your situation shows no difference
between the two cases that is measurable from within the chest. Note
however, that the assumption of a perfectly uniform gravitational field
is problematic.... It is also unnecessary, as one can use a nonuniform
field whose non-uniformity is small enough to be unmeasurable from
within the chest (this inherently requires a time limit on the measurement).
You repeatedly post claims of problems or incompatibilities in
relativity, based on elementary mistakes. It is not possible to learn
anything via such a "20 questions" approach. You need to get a good
textbook and STUDY.
Tom Roberts |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DSeppala wrote:
[snip all, unread]
Are you working through the list of things you do not understand, or is
there a greater agenda here? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137 at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WrSdnb5fScv0dW_XRVn_vwA at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]A. SR is the local limit of GR in any manifold.
B. Globally, SR is a specific solution of the equations of GR, one in
which the manifold is devoid of any mass large enough to affect the
geometry significantly, and which has the topology of R^4.
[/quote]
R^3 describes a volume with extents from -x to the origin to +x, -y to
the origin to +y, -z to the origin to +z. A negative velocity will take
you a negative distance in a positive duration.
What is the topology of R^4, Roberts, and how do you travel
to a negative time in a positive duration, you babbling crank? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DSeppala wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:52:49 -0800:
[quote]In General Relativity, Einstein equates gravity and acceleration.
[/quote]
No really.
[quote]However, a simple experiment shows that gravity and acceleration cannot
be the same if the space-time concepts of Special Relativity are
applied.
[/quote]
Why do not study GR? There is excellent textbooks at hand!
[quote]Consider an inertial reference frame which I'll call the rest
frame. If two objects are placed on the x axis a distance L apart, and
they simultaneously undergo identical accelerations along the x- axis,
all measured in the rest frame, the two objects will remain a distance L
apart. If a box or chest is being accelerated by being pulled by a
rope, as time goes on, this length of this box will shorten in the
direction of the acceleration, as measured in the original inertial rest
frame. Thus if two objects are in an enclosed box, all being
accelerated at the same rate (with the box being pulled by a rope),
since the distance as measured in the rest frame between two accelerated
objects remains constant and the box continually is measured to shorten
as a function of time, eventually one of the objects must hit one of the
sides of the box.
So here's the experiment that gives conflicting results. In
explaining General Relativity Einstein says that a person with measuring
apparatus in an enclosed chest cannot determine whether he is at rest in
a gravitational field or is far removed from gravitational sources and
is simply being accelerated by a rope pulling the chest. So we place
this enclosed chest at rest in a uniform gravitational field, and we
place two objects at distance L apart in the direction of the
gravitational force. We let the two objects accelerate with a force
equal and opposite to the gravitational force so that the two objects
hover within this enclosed chest with no movement in any direction. As
time goes on the position of the two objects does not change.
Now we do the same experiment in a chest that is far removed from
gravitational sources and is being accelerated by being pulled by a
rope. As stated previously from special relativity the distance between
the two objects remains constant but the the length of the chest becomes
smaller in the direction of acceleration as measured by some inertial
reference frame, and therefore as stated before one of the objects must
eventually crash into the chest. So if one observer sees the object
crash into the boundary of the chest, all observers must observe the
same thing. But this does not occur if the chest is suspended in a
gravitational field. It only occurs if the chest is being accelerated.
Therefore you cannot claim that there is an equivalence between gravity
and acceleration. David Seppala
Bastrop TX
[/quote]
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DSeppala... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 8:59am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]A. SR is the local limit of GR in any manifold.
B. Globally, SR is a specific solution of the equations of GR, one in
which the manifold is devoid of any mass large enough to affect the
geometry significantly, and which has the topology of R^4.
So SR is NECESSARILY and INHERENTLY compatible with GR. Indeed, in the
original derivation of GR, the local validity of SR was assumed.
DSeppala wrote:
As stated previously from special relativity the distance
between the two objects remains constant but the the length of the
chest becomes smaller in the direction of acceleration as measured by
some inertial reference frame, and therefore as stated before one of
the objects must eventually crash into the chest.
This is just plain wrong, and SR says no such thing. You REALLY need to
learn what SR actually says, and how to apply it correctly.
HINT1: think of the top and bottom of the chest as
two more objects accelerated by the same constant
acceleration (from the rope). They therefore MUST
behave the same as the two suspended objects.
HINT2: the "length contraction" you attempted to
apply to the chest only applies to an INERTIAL object
-- it inherently depends on measuring the length
SIMULTANEOUSLY IN AN INERTIAL FRAME, and the chest is
not at rest in any inertial frame. Had you tried to
apply "length contraction" to the suspended objects,
you would have obtained the same wrong answer, but
come to the correct conclusion that the objects have
an unchanging relationship to the top and bottom.
The two objects inside the box are not suspended. They are being[/quote]
accelerated on their own as if they were rockets, just as in the
gravitational case where they are hovering.
David
[quote]A correct application of SR to your situation shows no difference
between the two cases that is measurable from within the chest. Note
however, that the assumption of a perfectly uniform gravitational field
is problematic.... It is also unnecessary, as one can use a nonuniform
field whose non-uniformity is small enough to be unmeasurable from
within the chest (this inherently requires a time limit on the measurement).
You repeatedly post claims of problems or incompatibilities in
relativity, based on elementary mistakes. It is not possible to learn
anything via such a "20 questions" approach. You need to get a good
textbook and STUDY.
Tom Roberts[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DSeppala... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 2:50pm, "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
<juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[quote]DSeppala wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:52:49 -0800:
In General Relativity, Einstein equates gravity and acceleration.
No really.
However, a simple experiment shows that gravity and acceleration cannot
be the same if the space-time concepts of Special Relativity are
applied.
Why do not study GR? There is excellent textbooks at hand!
Actually, I got the example from Einstein's book (Relativity: The[/quote]
Special and General Theory) where he is talking about being in a
spacious chest that is at rest in a gravitational field versus being
in a spacious chest that is being accelerated by being pulled by a
rope. In that book he said:
"... we must rather admit that his mode of grasping the situation
violates neither reason nor known mechanical laws. Even though it is
being accelerated with respect to the "Galileian space" first
considered, we can nevertheless regard the chest as being at rest. We
have thus good grounds for extending the principle of relativity to
include bodies of reference which are accelerated with respect to each
other, and as a result we have gained a powerful argument for a
generalised postulate of relativity."
But this simple experiment does show a difference between the two,
so Einstein's view that "the situation violates neither reason nor
known mechanical laws" is incorrect if the space-time notions of
special relativity are valid.
David
[quote]
Consider an inertial reference frame which I'll call the rest
frame. If two objects are placed on the x axis a distance L apart, and
they simultaneously undergo identical accelerations along the x- axis,
all measured in the rest frame, the two objects will remain a distance L
apart. If a box or chest is being accelerated by being pulled by a
rope, as time goes on, this length of this box will shorten in the
direction of the acceleration, as measured in the original inertial rest
frame. Thus if two objects are in an enclosed box, all being
accelerated at the same rate (with the box being pulled by a rope),
since the distance as measured in the rest frame between two accelerated
objects remains constant and the box continually is measured to shorten
as a function of time, eventually one of the objects must hit one of the
sides of the box.
So here's the experiment that gives conflicting results. In
explaining General Relativity Einstein says that a person with measuring
apparatus in an enclosed chest cannot determine whether he is at rest in
a gravitational field or is far removed from gravitational sources and
is simply being accelerated by a rope pulling the chest. So we place
this enclosed chest at rest in a uniform gravitational field, and we
place two objects at distance L apart in the direction of the
gravitational force. We let the two objects accelerate with a force
equal and opposite to the gravitational force so that the two objects
hover within this enclosed chest with no movement in any direction. As
time goes on the position of the two objects does not change.
Now we do the same experiment in a chest that is far removed from
gravitational sources and is being accelerated by being pulled by a
rope. As stated previously from special relativity the distance between
the two objects remains constant but the the length of the chest becomes
smaller in the direction of acceleration as measured by some inertial
reference frame, and therefore as stated before one of the objects must
eventually crash into the chest. So if one observer sees the object
crash into the boundary of the chest, all observers must observe the
same thing. But this does not occur if the chest is suspended in a
gravitational field. It only occurs if the chest is being accelerated.
Therefore you cannot claim that there is an equivalence between gravity
and acceleration. David Seppala
Bastrop TX
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DW... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 8:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 7:52 am, DSeppala <dsepp... at (no spam) austin.rr.com> wrote:
In General Relativity, Einstein equates gravity and acceleration.
Actually Einstein makes no such equivalence. Several comic books do.
You need to look at tidal effects to see where gravity really comes
in.
[/quote]
in this case you must be able to explain tidals,
in order for him to prove that that also happens
under mass acceleration, which is force, which
is the same as tidal effects |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DSeppala wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:16:36 -0800:
[quote]On Nov 5, 2:50 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
DSeppala wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:52:49 -0800:
In General Relativity, Einstein equates gravity and acceleration.
No really.
However, a simple experiment shows that gravity and acceleration
cannot be the same if the space-time concepts of Special Relativity
are applied.
Why do not study GR? There is excellent textbooks at hand!
Actually, I got the example from Einstein's book (Relativity: The
Special and General Theory)
[/quote]
Einstein's book is not a good textbook. Today it has more historical than
educative interest.
[quote]where he is talking about being in a
spacious chest that is at rest in a gravitational field versus being in
a spacious chest that is being accelerated by being pulled by a rope.
In that book he said:
"... we must rather admit that his mode of grasping the situation
violates neither reason nor known mechanical laws. Even though it is
being accelerated with respect to the "Galileian space" first
considered, we can nevertheless regard the chest as being at rest. We
have thus good grounds for extending the principle of relativity to
include bodies of reference which are accelerated with respect to each
other, and as a result we have gained a powerful argument for a
generalised postulate of relativity."
But this simple experiment does show a difference between the two,
so Einstein's view that "the situation violates neither reason nor known
mechanical laws" is incorrect if the space-time notions of special
relativity are valid.
David
Consider an inertial reference frame which I'll call the rest
frame. If two objects are placed on the x axis a distance L apart,
and they simultaneously undergo identical accelerations along the x-
axis, all measured in the rest frame, the two objects will remain a
distance L apart. If a box or chest is being accelerated by being
pulled by a rope, as time goes on, this length of this box will
shorten in the direction of the acceleration, as measured in the
original inertial rest frame. Thus if two objects are in an enclosed
box, all being accelerated at the same rate (with the box being
pulled by a rope), since the distance as measured in the rest frame
between two accelerated objects remains constant and the box
continually is measured to shorten as a function of time, eventually
one of the objects must hit one of the sides of the box.
So here's the experiment that gives conflicting results. In
explaining General Relativity Einstein says that a person with
measuring apparatus in an enclosed chest cannot determine whether he
is at rest in a gravitational field or is far removed from
gravitational sources and is simply being accelerated by a rope
pulling the chest. So we place this enclosed chest at rest in a
uniform gravitational field, and we place two objects at distance L
apart in the direction of the gravitational force. We let the two
objects accelerate with a force equal and opposite to the
gravitational force so that the two objects hover within this
enclosed chest with no movement in any direction. As time goes on
the position of the two objects does not change.
Now we do the same experiment in a chest that is far removed
from
gravitational sources and is being accelerated by being pulled by a
rope. As stated previously from special relativity the distance
between the two objects remains constant but the the length of the
chest becomes smaller in the direction of acceleration as measured by
some inertial reference frame, and therefore as stated before one of
the objects must eventually crash into the chest. So if one observer
sees the object crash into the boundary of the chest, all observers
must observe the same thing. But this does not occur if the chest is
suspended in a gravitational field. It only occurs if the chest is
being accelerated. Therefore you cannot claim that there is an
equivalence between gravity and acceleration. David Seppala
Bastrop TX
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DSeppala... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 5:00am, "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
<juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[quote]DSeppala wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:16:36 -0800:
On Nov 5, 2:50pm, "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
DSeppala wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:52:49 -0800:
In General Relativity, Einstein equates gravity and acceleration.
No really.
However, a simple experiment shows that gravity and acceleration
cannot be the same if the space-time concepts of Special Relativity
are applied.
Why do not study GR? There is excellent textbooks at hand!
Actually, I got the example from Einstein's book (Relativity: The
Special and General Theory)
Einstein's book is not a good textbook. Today it has more historical than
educative interest.
where he is talking about being in a
spacious chest that is at rest in a gravitational field versus being in
a spacious chest that is being accelerated by being pulled by a rope.
In that book he said:
"... we must rather admit that his mode of grasping the situation
violates neither reason nor known mechanical laws. Even though it is
being accelerated with respect to the "Galileian space" first
considered, we can nevertheless regard the chest as being at rest. We
have thus good grounds for extending the principle of relativity to
include bodies of reference which are accelerated with respect to each
other, and as a result we have gained a powerful argument for a
generalised postulate of relativity."
But this simple experiment does show a difference between the two,
so Einstein's view that "the situation violates neither reason nor known
mechanical laws" is incorrect if the space-time notions of special
relativity are valid.
David
Consider an inertial reference frame which I'll call the rest
frame. If two objects are placed on the x axis a distance L apart,
and they simultaneously undergo identical accelerations along the x-
axis, all measured in the rest frame, the two objects will remain a
distance L apart. If a box or chest is being accelerated by being
pulled by a rope, as time goes on, this length of this box will
shorten in the direction of the acceleration, as measured in the
original inertial rest frame. Thus if two objects are in an enclosed
box, all being accelerated at the same rate (with the box being
pulled by a rope), since the distance as measured in the rest frame
between two accelerated objects remains constant and the box
continually is measured to shorten as a function of time, eventually
one of the objects must hit one of the sides of the box.
So here's the experiment that gives conflicting results. In
explaining General Relativity Einstein says that a person with
measuring apparatus in an enclosed chest cannot determine whether he
is at rest in a gravitational field or is far removed from
gravitational sources and is simply being accelerated by a rope
pulling the chest. So we place this enclosed chest at rest in a
uniform gravitational field, and we place two objects at distance L
apart in the direction of the gravitational force. We let the two
objects accelerate with a force equal and opposite to the
gravitational force so that the two objects hover within this
enclosed chest with no movement in any direction. As time goes on
the position of the two objects does not change.
Now we do the same experiment in a chest that is far removed
from
gravitational sources and is being accelerated by being pulled by a
rope. As stated previously from special relativity the distance
between the two objects remains constant but the the length of the
chest becomes smaller in the direction of acceleration as measured by
some inertial reference frame, and therefore as stated before one of
the objects must eventually crash into the chest. So if one observer
sees the object crash into the boundary of the chest, all observers
must observe the same thing. But this does not occur if the chest is
suspended in a gravitational field. It only occurs if the chest is
being accelerated. Therefore you cannot claim that there is an
equivalence between gravity and acceleration. David Seppala
Bastrop TX
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Which textbook do you recommend that explains the enclosed spacious
chest that Einstein describes?
Thanks!
David |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DSeppala... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 1:06pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 7:52am, DSeppala <dsepp... at (no spam) austin.rr.com> wrote:
In General Relativity, Einstein equates gravity and acceleration.
Actually Einstein makes no such equivalence. Several comic books do.
You need to look at tidal effects to see where gravity really comes
in.
[/quote]
Actually, Einstein did make such an equavalence. Have you ever read
Einstein's paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"?
In it Einstein states:
Does this permit an observer at rest relatively to K' to infer that
he is on a "really" accelerated system of reference? The answer is in
the negative; for the above-mentioned relation of freely movavlble
masses to K' may be interpreted equally well in the following way. The
system of reference K' is unaccelerated, but the space-time territory
in question is under the sway of a gravitational field, which
generates the accelerated motion of the bodies relative to K'
David |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:53 pm
|
|