0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 22:17:23So what if we go back to Einstein's wordages & every time he mentions his elevator stuff we change the wording to say that it is an elevator with zero width & zero length & zero height (or re his box or whatever in the original).The box can be any size you like if the field is actually uniform, and if the acceleration is actually continuous. All the tests you have suggested are just detecting the nonuniformity of the field, which violates the equivalence principle that continuous uniform acceleration and a uniform gravitational field are indistinguishable from inside a box.
So what if we go back to Einstein's wordages & every time he mentions his elevator stuff we change the wording to say that it is an elevator with zero width & zero length & zero height (or re his box or whatever in the original).
Yes i am now happy with a uniform gravity field, & a uniform acceleration inertial field.
No. Think it throo. In the inertial case the photon retains its heading at all times.
Quote from: HalcThe accelerating box is not inertial.No i dont agree. But praps my inertial is different to your inertial.
The accelerating box is not inertial.
I dont understand. There is only one frame inside the elevator.
Yes i agree. Measuring the ticking rate is easy, measuring true time is usually a problem.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 23:43:40Quote from: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 21:46:37Just as an aside last month i learnt that nearer the central iron core the value of g increases with depth (after decreasing with depth nearer Earth's surface.Quote from: HalcI find this hard to believe. With each new meter of depth, an incredible amount of mass is put above you that was below before. That should decrease g, not increase it. The force has to decrease to zero at the center after all.Yes, thats what i thort, but iron is double the density of rock.OK, I'll buy it. The density change is quite abrupt going from lower mantle (about 5g/cc) to outer core (9,9g/cc).Found a graph of g vs depth:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/EarthGravityPREM.svg/300px-EarthGravityPREM.svg.pngAcceleration is 9.8m/secĀ² at the surface, quickly rising to 10, and holding that for a long way in, then increasing to 10.7 at a radius of about 3400 km, and dropping off sharply only from there on in to the center. Interesting stuff.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 21:46:37Just as an aside last month i learnt that nearer the central iron core the value of g increases with depth (after decreasing with depth nearer Earth's surface.Quote from: HalcI find this hard to believe. With each new meter of depth, an incredible amount of mass is put above you that was below before. That should decrease g, not increase it. The force has to decrease to zero at the center after all.Yes, thats what i thort, but iron is double the density of rock.
Just as an aside last month i learnt that nearer the central iron core the value of g increases with depth (after decreasing with depth nearer Earth's surface.
I find this hard to believe. With each new meter of depth, an incredible amount of mass is put above you that was below before. That should decrease g, not increase it. The force has to decrease to zero at the center after all.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 23:59:16Aetherists believe in an absolute time, which is universal. And that ticking depends on the aetherwind. However i am happy to accept the possibility that gravitational potential can affect ticking (ie in addition to aetherwind effect).Yes, they believe that. Yet none of them set up a clock that is actually tuned to actual time, a simple task if they could just compute the dilation factor of local clocks. Somebody has probably attempted it, but I've not seen any dilation factor published, let alone a consistent one.
Aetherists believe in an absolute time, which is universal. And that ticking depends on the aetherwind. However i am happy to accept the possibility that gravitational potential can affect ticking (ie in addition to aetherwind effect).
Quote from: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 23:51:02Quote from: Halc on 12/12/2018 23:25:57The box can be any size you like if the field is actually uniform, and if the acceleration is actually continuous. All the tests you have suggested are just detecting the nonuniformity of the field, which violates the equivalence principle that continuous uniform acceleration and a uniform gravitational field are indistinguishable from inside a box.No i think that u do not need to worry about some sort of uniform gravity field. What u mean is of course a constant gravity field, eg in an elevator standing still on Earth.Don't tell me what I mean. I mean uniform. Constant means it doesn't change over time, and I don't mean that.Uniform means all the plumb lines are parallel, just like they would be in the accelerating elevator. Hypothetically possible, but not practical.Strangely, uniform does not mean that force is identical at different heights, just like it isn't in the elevator. I may have mistakenly said otherwise.
Quote from: Halc on 12/12/2018 23:25:57The box can be any size you like if the field is actually uniform, and if the acceleration is actually continuous. All the tests you have suggested are just detecting the nonuniformity of the field, which violates the equivalence principle that continuous uniform acceleration and a uniform gravitational field are indistinguishable from inside a box.No i think that u do not need to worry about some sort of uniform gravity field. What u mean is of course a constant gravity field, eg in an elevator standing still on Earth.
The box can be any size you like if the field is actually uniform, and if the acceleration is actually continuous. All the tests you have suggested are just detecting the nonuniformity of the field, which violates the equivalence principle that continuous uniform acceleration and a uniform gravitational field are indistinguishable from inside a box.
QuoteStrangely, according to aether theory the gravity g near an infinite plate is zero. Believe it or knot. What that means is that there is no gravity field, hencely one cant talk of a uniform gravity field near the infinite plate.Sounds like a mark against your aether theory.
Strangely, according to aether theory the gravity g near an infinite plate is zero. Believe it or knot. What that means is that there is no gravity field, hencely one cant talk of a uniform gravity field near the infinite plate.
In aether theory gravity is due to the acceleration of aether into matter -- in effect the acceleration is due to the convergence of the inflow streamlines.
For Earth the streamlines converge in 2 dimensions, hencely a 1/RR force field. For an infinitely long wire the streamlines converge in one dimension, hencely a 1/R force field. For an infinite plate there is no convergence, hencely a 0/R or 0/RR force field (ie no force field).
One spin-off is that the gravity field for a flattish spiral galaxy varies per 1/R. Hencely no need for dark matter. Sounds like a mark for my aether theory.Let me explain. If u take a thin slice of a thick infinite wire, & remove the rest of the wire, then a test particle in the plane of the slice will not notice that the rest of the wire has been removed, it will still think that the field is a 1/R field. A spiral galaxy acts much the same as this slice of wire.
But when they do their computer simulations they automatically plug in the Newtonian 1/RR for each star. And then they have to invent dark matter to fill their hole.
The spherical cavity results in zero weight everywhere, the equivalent to an inertial frame, but still in a gravity well.
Quote from: HalcYou (an admitted non-scientist) made that up. There is no way Ranzan or some other hero said "0/R or 0/RR".In fact, it should be for all 3: 1/Rd where d is the number of convergence dimensions.Thems 0/R & 0/RR are just some sillyness. If there is no force field for an infinite plate then i cant illustrate it with any equation, or, i can, & that equation is GF=0. ...Aether theory shows zero convergence of inflow streamlines, ie GF=0.
You (an admitted non-scientist) made that up. There is no way Ranzan or some other hero said "0/R or 0/RR".In fact, it should be for all 3: 1/Rd where d is the number of convergence dimensions.
None of my wordage infers an infinite L in one dimension for a spiral galaxy. I said a thin slice of a thick wire, in which case i am talking about a circular disc,
There is a "how gravity works in a spiral galaxy" thread running at present in New Theories. But that is overflowing with sillyness.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 11/12/2018 23:13:25In trying to support this contention, he imagined a large closed chest which was first at rest on the surface of a large body like the Earth, and then later removed to a great distance from other matter where it was pulled by a rope until its acceleration was g . No experiment made inside could, he claimed, detect the difference in the two cases. Einstein imagined a small chest, not a large one. He asserted that no local experiment could detect the difference. Putting two plumb lines a foot apart with instruments sufficiently sensitive to detect the angle constitutes a non-local test.
In trying to support this contention, he imagined a large closed chest which was first at rest on the surface of a large body like the Earth, and then later removed to a great distance from other matter where it was pulled by a rope until its acceleration was g . No experiment made inside could, he claimed, detect the difference in the two cases.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 14/12/2018 02:38:13Alby said (English translation)........ As reference-body let us imagine a spacious chest resembling a room with an observer inside who is equipped with apparatus.So he did. For proper equivalence, let us put the room with the gravity in a chamber underground, as Evan suggests. Then your plumb-line test isn't going to be able to tell the difference. The room can be as large as you like now.
Alby said (English translation)........ As reference-body let us imagine a spacious chest resembling a room with an observer inside who is equipped with apparatus.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 14/12/2018 07:37:24But nonetheless a pair of strings spaced a small distance apart & well away from side-walls will hang down non-parallelWhat am i missing?No they won't. Each string will be more attracted to the more nearby mass on it's own side, and this outward pull will bring the two plumb lines back into parallel.
But nonetheless a pair of strings spaced a small distance apart & well away from side-walls will hang down non-parallelWhat am i missing?
QuoteIf there is a depth where the geoid becomes flat then in fact the geoid would have a fuzzy surface.No idea what you mean by it having a fuzzy surface.
If there is a depth where the geoid becomes flat then in fact the geoid would have a fuzzy surface.
Quote from: phyti on 14/12/2018 16:03:06Gravitational force depends on the distribution of mass. In the case of a sphere, it's equivalent to the mass being concentrated at the center. As one test mass moves away from the other around the sphere the g-force direction always points to the center, thus the angle between the string supports must increase as they separate.Take it up with Colin2B, from post 42 where this was pointed out.Mass of a perfect sphere is concentrated nowhere. It is assumed to be a uniform density sphere, which of course the Earth is not. It is neither uniform density nor an actual sphere. We're talking about an ideal scenario here.A hollow shell will behave from the outside as a point-mass centered on the sphere, but from inside that hollow, the field is unform, and a plumb-line hung from anywhere will have no force at all on it. Put the hollow off-center, and the force now appears, but still uniform/parallel.
Gravitational force depends on the distribution of mass. In the case of a sphere, it's equivalent to the mass being concentrated at the center. As one test mass moves away from the other around the sphere the g-force direction always points to the center, thus the angle between the string supports must increase as they separate.
Quote from: Halc on 14/12/2018 12:01:17Quote from: mad aetherist on 14/12/2018 07:37:24But nonetheless a pair of strings spaced a small distance apart & well away from side-walls will hang down non-parallelWhat am i missing?No they won't. Each string will be more attracted to the more nearby mass on it's own side, and this outward pull will bring the two plumb lines back into parallel.Gravitational force depends on the distribution of mass. In the case of a sphere, it's equivalent to the mass being concentrated at the center. As one test mass moves away from the other around the sphere the g-force direction always points to the center, thus the angle between the string supports must increase as they separate.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 14/12/2018 20:31:41For example i can disprove equivalence by simply considering a test or two in an elevator in freefall in a gravity field versus an elevator in freefall in zero gravity.Without designing an experiment that detects non-uniformity of the gravitational field? That's effectively looking out of the window, and nobody claims you can't tell if there is a window. Have at it, so I can take it apart.
For example i can disprove equivalence by simply considering a test or two in an elevator in freefall in a gravity field versus an elevator in freefall in zero gravity.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 15/12/2018 02:35:36Anyhow i reckon that in an elevator in free fall..(1) In free-fall in deep outer space a beam of light from a distant star entering a small hole would remain straight (& hit the far wall). This is based on this being a ballistic Newtonian bending (which cancels the bending due to free-fall).Not a local test. You're looking out of the window.
Anyhow i reckon that in an elevator in free fall..(1) In free-fall in deep outer space a beam of light from a distant star entering a small hole would remain straight (& hit the far wall). This is based on this being a ballistic Newtonian bending (which cancels the bending due to free-fall).
Quote(2) In free-fall in a gravity field (near a planet) the beam would curve (& hit the far wall). This is based on an Einsteinian bending which is twice the Newtonian.So here the observer would be able to tell whether in a gravity field based on there being a curve or not. A legit test, but both should be straight. So where do you get this "Einsteinian bending which is twice the Newtonian"?
(2) In free-fall in a gravity field (near a planet) the beam would curve (& hit the far wall). This is based on an Einsteinian bending which is twice the Newtonian.So here the observer would be able to tell whether in a gravity field based on there being a curve or not.
QuoteIf the Einsteinian bending = the Newtonian bending then the beam might be straight in both (2) &(1).But in (1) the individual photons would remain pointing in line with the beam at all times, whilst in (2) the photons would gradually yaw (in the vertical plane) & would be crabbing along the line of the beam & would be pointing on a different vertical angle to the beam especially at the end (the curved beam being their traject).I'm sorry, but the English is so poor here, I cannot parse this. No idea what 'crabbing' is, or what it would mean for a photon to 'yaw' or 'point', or for that matter what you think would cause it to do so. Photons get measured when the interact with something. Yaw means that the thing twists sideways while moving, but without changing trajectory, sort of like a car sliding sideways on the ice.
If the Einsteinian bending = the Newtonian bending then the beam might be straight in both (2) &(1).But in (1) the individual photons would remain pointing in line with the beam at all times, whilst in (2) the photons would gradually yaw (in the vertical plane) & would be crabbing along the line of the beam & would be pointing on a different vertical angle to the beam especially at the end (the curved beam being their traject).
QuoteRe yawing & pointing, there is no real need to insist on having any beam curving in some sort of vertical plane (there is no vertical in free-fall anyhow), the curving yawing pointing can be allowed to happen in any plane, doesnt really matter. I just mentioned the vertical because yawing is usually associated with the horizontal plane, but if there is any curving then the yawing & pointing will occur in the plane of the curving.No matter which plane it is. I claim any beam appears to be straight for both observers.If there is a gravity field, I suppose that defines which way is vertical even in free fall, even if the observer cannot detect it. You are free to talk about it.If the observer can determine which way is vertical with a local test, that's something the guy in space cannot do, so that would be a distinction.
Re yawing & pointing, there is no real need to insist on having any beam curving in some sort of vertical plane (there is no vertical in free-fall anyhow), the curving yawing pointing can be allowed to happen in any plane, doesnt really matter. I just mentioned the vertical because yawing is usually associated with the horizontal plane, but if there is any curving then the yawing & pointing will occur in the plane of the curving.
If u like u can shine a light beam from wall to wall inside. Possibly the same thing.
I thort that Einsteinians all agreed that the bending at the Sun is 1.75 arcsec whilst the Newtonian ballistic prediction is 0.875 arcsec, which is in effect 2:1.
But i am surprised that u consider that both should be straight, i would have thort that Einsteinians would insist that both be curved.
Yes yaw is a rudder thing. If one considers that a photon is shaped like a bullet then in (1) the bullet follows a straight traject & at all times the bullet maintains its initial "aim" or "heading", ie it points in the same direction all the way, ie in this case it points exactly along its straight traject all the way, whilst in (2) the bullet follows a straight traject but the bullet as u say slides sideways (crabs), the crabbing getting worse & worse & being at a max when it hits the wall.
If the beam is straight then if the photon-bullet is at all times in line with the beam then that indicates no gravity field -- or if the photon-bullet is crabbing-skidding then that indicates the presence of a gravity field