The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity

nakayama
nakayama

December 10th, 2011, 1:24 am #21

An elevator cabin is at a standstill in non-gravitational field. On the side wall (supposed to be the left wall), there are five holes (at regular intervals ; vertically). The sun light is coming from the just left and is passing through the holes. Then, on the right wall, there are five projections (spot-lights ; don't move). But, if this elevator cabin begins free fall (downward), projections will move upward. Equivalence principle will be wrong.
In non-gravitational field, there is a space ship (mother ship). Now, two probes separate from the mother ship and begin an accelerated motion to opposite direction (at 2g and 1g. by gas jet). No gravitational field will occur on the mother ship.
Reply
Share

Rebis
Rebis

December 11th, 2011, 12:14 am #22


The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity



So far, you've demonstrated nothing and debunked nothing.
You just keep saying the 'accelerated & non-accelerated' frames of reference are not equivalent' over and over without really demonstrating anything.

So let me give you a head start to enlighten you!

When a system of reference undergoes uniform acceleration, distant masses in the front of it must appear to accelerate towards it at the same uniform acceleration. By contrast, distant masses behind this same system of reference must appear to accelerate away from it at the same uniform acceleration.

Since there is no privileged system of reference in general relativity, an observer at rest with respect to this accelerated system is entitled to consider his system at rest and that the distant masses are undergoing the acceleration in question. And hence, he must conclude that the entire "space-time territory in question is under the sway of a gravitational field".

Look more closely at the profile of this equivalent gravitational field. All distant masses in the forward direction are accelerating towards the system of reference at the same uniform rate; while all distant masses in the backward direction are accelerating away from this same system at the same uniform rate. And this means that the source of this gravitational field must be located somewhere beyond the accelerating-away masses.

I hope, now, you're enlightened, and can see very clearly that acceleration and gravitation are indeed equivalent in every respect and exactly as Einstein concludes in his 1916-groundbreaking paper.

Turanyanin: For example (and I already stated this several times before): let us conduct Pound-Rebka under free falling circumstances (e.g., craft in outer Space)! My claim is: red-shift would be found which would mean EP is false, i.e. the very basis of each and every metric theory of gravity is lost. And if so, photon again simple has to be massive. Even more important, static G-potential is in form of exp(-k/r) which means new mathematics without singularities.

As last but not least, and assuming the above IDENTITY, it becomes clear that well known G and c are not real natural constants at all. One can ask: what combination of those two could be the constant? It seems that Nature rejects all other possibilities but Hea, i.e.

Hea = G/c^2 = 7.4E-28 m/kg

which is signalized through recent experience of all gravitomagnetic phenomena and so-called mass etalon decaying. Gravity is not geometry, that is the point. And it is acceleration even less. We are talking here about most fundamental change (of paradigm) possible.
************************************

Interesting set of conclusions here. However, present confusion is not a bit less comparing to this 2008 post. Also, where are concrete evidences for your claims from say Gravity Probe-B or similar set-ups? Is there any chance for your "Pound-Rebka under free falling circumstances (e.g., craft in outer Space)"?

And if "gravity" is neither geometry nor acceleration what it would have to be then - some, as of yet, unknown dynamics of Space? Or set of cosmic interconnections on the very basic point like 0D level? Or both? What would be a realistic relation of electricity and gravity then; or if You assume vector fields for both, what is fundamental relation between mass and charge? To the bottom line, what mass, charge and Planck h really are?

Finally, can you in any way connect this very strong ideas of yours (say that about Hea = G/c^2 = 7.4E-28 m/kg constant) with recent LHC neutrino experiment?


Blessings
Reply
Share

nakayama
nakayama

June 15th, 2012, 1:28 am #23


The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity



So far, you've demonstrated nothing and debunked nothing.
You just keep saying the 'accelerated & non-accelerated' frames of reference are not equivalent' over and over without really demonstrating anything.

So let me give you a head start to enlighten you!

When a system of reference undergoes uniform acceleration, distant masses in the front of it must appear to accelerate towards it at the same uniform acceleration. By contrast, distant masses behind this same system of reference must appear to accelerate away from it at the same uniform acceleration.

Since there is no privileged system of reference in general relativity, an observer at rest with respect to this accelerated system is entitled to consider his system at rest and that the distant masses are undergoing the acceleration in question. And hence, he must conclude that the entire "space-time territory in question is under the sway of a gravitational field".

Look more closely at the profile of this equivalent gravitational field. All distant masses in the forward direction are accelerating towards the system of reference at the same uniform rate; while all distant masses in the backward direction are accelerating away from this same system at the same uniform rate. And this means that the source of this gravitational field must be located somewhere beyond the accelerating-away masses.

I hope, now, you're enlightened, and can see very clearly that acceleration and gravitation are indeed equivalent in every respect and exactly as Einstein concludes in his 1916-groundbreaking paper.

A tall elevator cabin is in free fall. In this cabin, pressure of gaseous body is different (because value g is different). Equivalence principle will be wrong.

An elevator cabin is accelerating upward. With the roof, a small body collided (came vertically). And after 10 seconds, a second body (the same mass) collided (came vertically also). This situation will not be the same to an elevator in gravitational field (at a standstill).
- P.S.- Some books today say that accelerated motion is not relative.
Reply
Share

nakayama
nakayama

June 24th, 2012, 12:14 am #24


The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity



So far, you've demonstrated nothing and debunked nothing.
You just keep saying the 'accelerated & non-accelerated' frames of reference are not equivalent' over and over without really demonstrating anything.

So let me give you a head start to enlighten you!

When a system of reference undergoes uniform acceleration, distant masses in the front of it must appear to accelerate towards it at the same uniform acceleration. By contrast, distant masses behind this same system of reference must appear to accelerate away from it at the same uniform acceleration.

Since there is no privileged system of reference in general relativity, an observer at rest with respect to this accelerated system is entitled to consider his system at rest and that the distant masses are undergoing the acceleration in question. And hence, he must conclude that the entire "space-time territory in question is under the sway of a gravitational field".

Look more closely at the profile of this equivalent gravitational field. All distant masses in the forward direction are accelerating towards the system of reference at the same uniform rate; while all distant masses in the backward direction are accelerating away from this same system at the same uniform rate. And this means that the source of this gravitational field must be located somewhere beyond the accelerating-away masses.

I hope, now, you're enlightened, and can see very clearly that acceleration and gravitation are indeed equivalent in every respect and exactly as Einstein concludes in his 1916-groundbreaking paper.

"Accelerated motion is not relative". Its a subheading of a book (in Japanese). Yes, time dilation in gravitational field is written to be real (one sided ; not relative). But in many books, it seems to be written that "accelerated motion is relative"
Reply
Share

nakayama
nakayama

July 14th, 2012, 12:06 am #25


The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity



So far, you've demonstrated nothing and debunked nothing.
You just keep saying the 'accelerated & non-accelerated' frames of reference are not equivalent' over and over without really demonstrating anything.

So let me give you a head start to enlighten you!

When a system of reference undergoes uniform acceleration, distant masses in the front of it must appear to accelerate towards it at the same uniform acceleration. By contrast, distant masses behind this same system of reference must appear to accelerate away from it at the same uniform acceleration.

Since there is no privileged system of reference in general relativity, an observer at rest with respect to this accelerated system is entitled to consider his system at rest and that the distant masses are undergoing the acceleration in question. And hence, he must conclude that the entire "space-time territory in question is under the sway of a gravitational field".

Look more closely at the profile of this equivalent gravitational field. All distant masses in the forward direction are accelerating towards the system of reference at the same uniform rate; while all distant masses in the backward direction are accelerating away from this same system at the same uniform rate. And this means that the source of this gravitational field must be located somewhere beyond the accelerating-away masses.

I hope, now, you're enlightened, and can see very clearly that acceleration and gravitation are indeed equivalent in every respect and exactly as Einstein concludes in his 1916-groundbreaking paper.

On a point mass, inertial force acts only in one direction always. Gravity isnt so. Equivalence principle will be wrong.

Under every situation, the law of universal gravitation will act.
Reply
Share

nakayama
nakayama

January 18th, 2013, 3:53 am #26


The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity



So far, you've demonstrated nothing and debunked nothing.
You just keep saying the 'accelerated & non-accelerated' frames of reference are not equivalent' over and over without really demonstrating anything.

So let me give you a head start to enlighten you!

When a system of reference undergoes uniform acceleration, distant masses in the front of it must appear to accelerate towards it at the same uniform acceleration. By contrast, distant masses behind this same system of reference must appear to accelerate away from it at the same uniform acceleration.

Since there is no privileged system of reference in general relativity, an observer at rest with respect to this accelerated system is entitled to consider his system at rest and that the distant masses are undergoing the acceleration in question. And hence, he must conclude that the entire "space-time territory in question is under the sway of a gravitational field".

Look more closely at the profile of this equivalent gravitational field. All distant masses in the forward direction are accelerating towards the system of reference at the same uniform rate; while all distant masses in the backward direction are accelerating away from this same system at the same uniform rate. And this means that the source of this gravitational field must be located somewhere beyond the accelerating-away masses.

I hope, now, you're enlightened, and can see very clearly that acceleration and gravitation are indeed equivalent in every respect and exactly as Einstein concludes in his 1916-groundbreaking paper.

A disk is rotating. According to the equivalence principle, as the center of the disk recedes, gravity increases. Unthinkable !!
Reply
Share

nakayama
nakayama

November 18th, 2016, 4:49 am #27

Some books say, an accelerated motion is not relative. It will be true. And the followings will be possible to state (so, equivalence principle will not stand up).

(1) Inertial force occurs as a vector on one body (and measurable). (2) A vector of an inertial force is equivalent only to a vector of the accelerated motion. None can have an effect on this. Namely, vector of gravity and inertial force are nonintervention. (3) In the frame of space, gravity comes from many directions. Vector of inertial force occurs in one direction only. (4) When the same accelerated motion continue, change of the circumstances is inevitable. Gravity is not so.
Reply
Share

nakayama
nakayama

November 19th, 2016, 3:26 am #28


The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity



So far, you've demonstrated nothing and debunked nothing.
You just keep saying the 'accelerated & non-accelerated' frames of reference are not equivalent' over and over without really demonstrating anything.

So let me give you a head start to enlighten you!

When a system of reference undergoes uniform acceleration, distant masses in the front of it must appear to accelerate towards it at the same uniform acceleration. By contrast, distant masses behind this same system of reference must appear to accelerate away from it at the same uniform acceleration.

Since there is no privileged system of reference in general relativity, an observer at rest with respect to this accelerated system is entitled to consider his system at rest and that the distant masses are undergoing the acceleration in question. And hence, he must conclude that the entire "space-time territory in question is under the sway of a gravitational field".

Look more closely at the profile of this equivalent gravitational field. All distant masses in the forward direction are accelerating towards the system of reference at the same uniform rate; while all distant masses in the backward direction are accelerating away from this same system at the same uniform rate. And this means that the source of this gravitational field must be located somewhere beyond the accelerating-away masses.

I hope, now, you're enlightened, and can see very clearly that acceleration and gravitation are indeed equivalent in every respect and exactly as Einstein concludes in his 1916-groundbreaking paper.

On a plane horizontal (inertial frame), a body is moving in various motions. Inertial force is equivalent to (as vector) accelerated motions. Suppose, this plane stands vertically. Gravity is acting from below. Inertial force and gravity will be noninterference.
Reply
Share

nakayama
nakayama

November 20th, 2016, 2:23 am #29


The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity



So far, you've demonstrated nothing and debunked nothing.
You just keep saying the 'accelerated & non-accelerated' frames of reference are not equivalent' over and over without really demonstrating anything.

So let me give you a head start to enlighten you!

When a system of reference undergoes uniform acceleration, distant masses in the front of it must appear to accelerate towards it at the same uniform acceleration. By contrast, distant masses behind this same system of reference must appear to accelerate away from it at the same uniform acceleration.

Since there is no privileged system of reference in general relativity, an observer at rest with respect to this accelerated system is entitled to consider his system at rest and that the distant masses are undergoing the acceleration in question. And hence, he must conclude that the entire "space-time territory in question is under the sway of a gravitational field".

Look more closely at the profile of this equivalent gravitational field. All distant masses in the forward direction are accelerating towards the system of reference at the same uniform rate; while all distant masses in the backward direction are accelerating away from this same system at the same uniform rate. And this means that the source of this gravitational field must be located somewhere beyond the accelerating-away masses.

I hope, now, you're enlightened, and can see very clearly that acceleration and gravitation are indeed equivalent in every respect and exactly as Einstein concludes in his 1916-groundbreaking paper.

On a plane vertical (shown in above post), the body is moving in determined pattern. Suppose that strength of gravity (g) varies. But inertial force acts on the body does not vary. Inertial force and gravity will be noninterference. Free fall will not be zero gravity.
Reply
Share

nakayama
nakayama

November 21st, 2016, 1:29 am #30


The Equivalence of Acceleration and Gravitation in General Relativity



So far, you've demonstrated nothing and debunked nothing.
You just keep saying the 'accelerated & non-accelerated' frames of reference are not equivalent' over and over without really demonstrating anything.

So let me give you a head start to enlighten you!

When a system of reference undergoes uniform acceleration, distant masses in the front of it must appear to accelerate towards it at the same uniform acceleration. By contrast, distant masses behind this same system of reference must appear to accelerate away from it at the same uniform acceleration.

Since there is no privileged system of reference in general relativity, an observer at rest with respect to this accelerated system is entitled to consider his system at rest and that the distant masses are undergoing the acceleration in question. And hence, he must conclude that the entire "space-time territory in question is under the sway of a gravitational field".

Look more closely at the profile of this equivalent gravitational field. All distant masses in the forward direction are accelerating towards the system of reference at the same uniform rate; while all distant masses in the backward direction are accelerating away from this same system at the same uniform rate. And this means that the source of this gravitational field must be located somewhere beyond the accelerating-away masses.

I hope, now, you're enlightened, and can see very clearly that acceleration and gravitation are indeed equivalent in every respect and exactly as Einstein concludes in his 1916-groundbreaking paper.

Two elevator cabins are in free fall. The two are connected with a rope like a Chinese character “呂”. On the rope, tension is working. As the gravitational source approaches, tension increase. Principally, value of tension is possible to calculate. It will be impossible to say that the two are in zero gravity.
Reply
Share