Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mad aetherist on 30/10/2018 01:36:39

Title: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?
Post by: mad aetherist on 30/10/2018 01:36:39
I recently found an article by Paul Marmet showing that if Einstein’s principle of equivalence is valid then the deflection of light near the Sun must be 0.875 arcsec, not Einstein's 1.75 arcsec.  Marmet calculated the 0.875 arcsec of bending in a novel way by considering that it is the massless Sun that is accelerated & that the light travels in a straight line without any gravitational field.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Marmet – Incompatibility between Einstein's general relativity and the principle of equivalence (last checked 17march2017).     https://newtonphysics.on.ca/equivalence/index.html
Abstract --   This paper reports an analysis of Einstein's principle of equivalence between inertial and gravitational acceleration and its consequences on general relativity. It is shown that the simple application of that principle to photons moving in the Sun's gravitational potential leads to an equation which is not compatible with the one predicting the deflection of light by the Sun. Therefore, the principle of equivalence is not compatible with general relativity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with much of this. I will have a think & comment later.
Title: Re: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?
Post by: opportunity on 30/10/2018 10:06:13
This is a good question.

I do note though that Einstein wasn't entirely familiar with the idea of quantum entanglement, and highly disputed its proposition. The idea, Q-E, suggests that light is only ultimately half expressed in a grand consideration of relativity, which would require a halving of calculated arcsec perhaps?
Title: Re: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?
Post by: opportunity on 30/10/2018 10:16:17
I'm hoping my response is well-considered. I also noted in time that Einstein's equations couldn't properly accommodate for quantum entanglement, so I thought it useful (check website icon) to use an algorithm for time as the golden ratio algorithm that could act as an abraxas (for want of a better term, until the idea were to be properly considered by science) for Q-E, and in doing so make certain equations more "linked".
Title: Re: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?
Post by: mad aetherist on 30/10/2018 11:21:27
This is a good question. I do note though that Einstein wasn't entirely familiar with the idea of quantum entanglement, and highly disputed its proposition. The idea, Q-E, suggests that light is only ultimately half expressed in a grand consideration of relativity, which would require a halving of calculated arcsec perhaps?
I found say 5 articles re Einsteinian bending that showed that a proper Einsteinian method gives only 0.87 arcsec, or less. But i am going to vizit my own calculations of 2017 & early 2018 & i will report back.
Title: Re: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?
Post by: opportunity on 30/10/2018 11:41:25
Send me a PM if this thread falls by the wayside, I think you've raised a good point.
Title: Re: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?
Post by: guest4091 on 01/11/2018 17:28:06
From the moment that Einstein recognized the equivalence between gravity and accelerated frames, he realized that gravity would affect the trajectory of light. In 1911, he determined that the deflection of a light ray grazing the Sun should be 0.875 arcseconds [4].
In November of 1915, armed with the full theory of general relativity, Einstein realized that the predicted deflection was double his earlier value. From a modern perspective we understand that there was no flaw or error in his original 1911 derivation. It is equivalent to the deflection that would be calculated using Newtonian theory for a particle moving at the speed of light. This “Newtonian deflection” was first calculated by Henry Cavendish around 1784, and by Johann von Soldner in 1803 [5]. The doubling comes about because the Newtonian deflection must be augmented by the bending of locally straight lines relative to straight lines very far from the Sun, a result of spatial curvature. The fact that the two effects have the same size is a feature of general relativity; in alternative metric theories of gravity, the Newtonian effect is the same, but the space curvature effect may differ from theory to theory.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/32/12/124001/ampdf
Title: Re: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?
Post by: mad aetherist on 02/11/2018 01:04:40
From the moment that Einstein recognized the equivalence between gravity and accelerated frames, he realized that gravity would affect the trajectory of light.
I reckon that Einstein had no equivalence to recognize -- we now know that there is an equivalence in at least one respect -- but Einstein had no good reason for postulating more than that one -- that one being of course true because Einstein's definition of equivalence made it true -- merely a circular argument -- no science here folks, please moov along.
I reckon that he did not & could not realize that gravity would affect the traject, for a number of reasons. Firstly he had no good reason why it should. Secondly even today we still dont know for sure how the bending happens (i sort of know). Thirdly strictly speaking we karnt really say that it is gravity, it might merely be that the bending of light is due to the same thing that causes gravity (see what i mean?)(& i believe this, that they merely have a common cause)(aether causes both)(this stuff is not just silly semantics).
In 1911, he determined that the deflection of a light ray grazing the Sun should be 0.875 arcseconds [4]. In November of 1915, armed with the full theory of general relativity, Einstein realized that the predicted deflection was double his earlier value.
He couldnt have realized because to realize u have to have a good reason, & he had no good reason (just a silly flawed reason).
In addition his manner of use of both space (radial LC) & time (TD)(ticking dilation), & his use of Huygens principle, was all flawed in a number of ways.
From a modern perspective we understand that there was no flaw or error in his original 1911 derivation. It is equivalent to the deflection that would be calculated using Newtonian theory for a particle moving at the speed of light. This “Newtonian deflection” was first calculated by Henry Cavendish around 1784, and by Johann von Soldner in 1803 [5].
Einstein's 1911 derivation & Soldner's 1804 (& i suppose Cavendish's) were totally flawed & erroneous -- there are many reason why light cannot have a ballistic bending -- & if the bending of light happens to nearnuff equal the ballistic bending then that is merely what is called an equivalence (ie the correct answer but for the wrong reasons).
The doubling comes about because the Newtonian deflection must be augmented by the bending of locally straight lines relative to straight lines very far from the Sun, a result of spatial curvature.
The postulates relating to Newtonian deflection are all wrong for many reasons. The postulates relating to spatial curvature etc are all wrong for many reasons.
The fact that the two effects have the same size is a feature of general relativity; in alternative metric theories of gravity, the Newtonian effect is the same, but the space curvature effect may differ from theory to theory.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/32/12/124001/ampdf
Yes Einstein's (flawed i reckon) space-bending gives the same bending as his time-bending if calculated from infinity to infinity -- & of course these two bendings are not equal if the observer is at Earth's orbit (likewise Newtonian bending).
Yes i think that Einstein's (flawed) space curvature effect does indeed differ from theory to theory. For example -- Charles Lane Poor -- The Relativity Deflection of Light -- 1927 -- calculates that due to Einstein's Theory Einstein's 1911 number of 0.83 arcsec increases by only 0.27 arcsec to give a total bending of only 1.10 arcsec.

I have done a ballistic calculation using Excel & i indeed found that Soldner's (Newtonian?) 0.83 arcsec (0.875 arcsec nowadays using modern G & M & c)(likewize Einstein's values in 1911 & 1915) is correct for a say bullet initially mooving at c at infinity & then falling past the Sun & going to the opposite infinity -- the bullet accelerating to over c during approach -- the actual bending being a little different of course for an observer at Earth's orbit (ie not at infinity).
My Excel calculation uses a simple iteration of the simple Newtonian attraction, the accuracy of the calculation depending on how many thousands of lines u choose to use (i use at least 2000, but here i used 19000 lines, & i think Excel limits u to 100,000 lines or something). This iteration-numerical-arithmetical method avoids the need for complex integration & math but gives the same answers to say 10 decimal places (depending on how many lines of iteration u choose).

But i also did an Excel calculation for a "proper" application of elevator equivalence -- which gave a bending of only 0.13 arcsec at Earth's orbit (ie not 1.745 arcsec) -- & it gave a bending of 0.00 arcsec at infinity (ie not 1.750 arcsec) -- & i will say some more re that in my next posting here (or i might even start a new thread).
[EDIT 27march2019][THIS STATEMENT IS WRONG. THE 0.13 ARCSEC REFERS TO A DIFFERENT KIND OF BENDING BASED ON AETHER INFLOW. IN #8 BELOW I MENTION THAT A PROPER APPLICATION OF ELEVATOR EQUIVALENCE GIVES 0.87 ARCSEC & NOT 1.75 ARCSEC].
Title: Re: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?
Post by: mad aetherist on 02/11/2018 02:12:03
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/32/12/124001/ampdf
The 1919 measurement of the deflection of light. Clifford M. Will.
Abstract. The measurement of the deflection of starlight during a total solar eclipse on May 29, 1919 was the first verification of general relativity by an external team of scientists, brought Einstein and his theory to the attention of the general public, and left a legacy of experimental testing that continues today. The discovery of gravitational lenses turned Einstein’s deflection into an important tool for astronomy and cosmology. This article reviews the history of the 1919 measurement and other eclipse measurements, describes modern measurements of the effect using radio astronomy, and of its cousin, the Shapiro time delay, and discusses the discovery and impact of gravitational lenses.

This article trumpets the usual Einsteinian krapp.

To reach high precision at optical wavelengths requires observations from space. The Hipparcos optical astrometry satellite yielded a measurement of the deflection at the level of 0.2 percent [22]. GAIA, a high-precision astrometric orbiting telescope launched by ESA in 2013 [23] possesses astrometric capability ranging from 10 to a few hundred microarcseconds, plus the ability measure the locations of a billion stars down to 20th magnitude; it could measure the light-deflection and γ to the 10−6 level [24]. Complementary to the deflection of light is the Shapiro time delay, an additional non-Newtonian delay in the round-trip travel time of a signal sent, say, from the Earth.
I am ok with most of that.
References to Shapiro delay & very long baseline interferometry being able to measure bending to umpteen decimal places is complete krapp -- VLBI cannot measure angles better than perhaps a degree or two -- their quoted angles are based on calculations & further postulates (unlike the actual bending of visible light measured directly by the Hipparcos satellite).

6. The gravitational lens: Einstein’s gift to astronomy..
What krapp. Einstein's gift. Lensing would be there even if Einstein had never been born.
Why didnt Will say for example -- gravity, Einstein's gift to humanity.
Title: Re: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?
Post by: mad aetherist on 26/03/2019 00:27:01
I recently found an article by Paul Marmet showing that if Einstein’s principle of equivalence is valid then the deflection of light near the Sun must be 0.875 arcsec, not Einstein's 1.75 arcsec.  Marmet calculated the 0.875 arcsec of bending in a novel way by considering that it is the massless Sun that is accelerated & that the light travels in a straight line without any gravitational field.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Marmet – Incompatibility between Einstein's general relativity and the principle of equivalence (last checked 17march2017).     https://newtonphysics.on.ca/equivalence/index.html
Abstract --   This paper reports an analysis of Einstein's principle of equivalence between inertial and gravitational acceleration and its consequences on general relativity. It is shown that the simple application of that principle to photons moving in the Sun's gravitational potential leads to an equation which is not compatible with the one predicting the deflection of light by the Sun. Therefore, the principle of equivalence is not compatible with general relativity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with much of this. I will have a think & comment later.
I couldnt find the Excel that i did a year or so ago re the bending of light based on Einstein's Elevator (Chest actually) ThortX.  So i made a new Excel calculation from scratch.  As Marmet said, the EETX leads to a bending of 0.875 arcsec not 1.75 arcsec.

In my new Excel calculation i simply considered a photon travelling from 1 billion km to the Sun tangentially at c kmps.  The photon starts along the xx axis, with yy equal to the radius of the Sun, & the traject gradually bends due to the elevator's yy acceleration along yy due to the yy vector component of the Sun's gravitational attraction (the full vector being towards the Sun's center)(the xx acceleration being ignored).

In effect the photon passes throo 900 elevators each 1 million km wide, then throo 900 each 100,000 km wide, then 900 each 10,000 km wide, then 900 each 1,000 km wide , then 900 each 100 km  wide, then 900 each 10 km wide, then finally 1000 each by 1 km wide, adding to 1 billion km of width of elevator.
The photon goes straight horizontally all the way, but the observers in the 6,400 accelerating elevators each see & measure a bent traject, the Excel calculation giving a progressive summation.

yy started at 695,508 km (the Sun's radius), & then yy lost 1.480 km when it reached the Sun (xx = zero km).
The angle of the photon's trajekt at xx = 00 km was 0.439 arcsec.
If u double 0.439 u get 0.878 arcsec for the total bending if the photon was allowed to go another 1 billion km.
My Excel calculation wasnt very exact, if i had used many more elevators & narrower elevators i would have gotten 0.437 arcsec & 0.875 arcsec.

Strictly speaking i should also have deducted 0.000 005 arcsec from the 0.878 arcsec (ie the 0.875 arcsec) to get the true bending at Earth's orbit (ie at 149,600,000 km), but this doesnt much affect the result.

Anyhow, as Marmet said, the EETX yields 0.87 arcsec not 1.75 arcsec. Hencely Einstein has made a mistake somewhere in his logic or equations or calculations.

The optical measurements of Hipparcos have shown that the correct number is indeed 1.75 arcsec, ie double the so called Newtonian ballistic bending.  But Einstein's elevator thortX does not yield the double ballistic arcsec, it yields only the single ballistic arcsec.

Where is Einstein's error?  His bending was in effect the addition of two bendings, firstly the ballistic bending, & secondly bending due to the GR slowing of light near mass (here the Sun), the slowing producing a Huygens bending effect (a kind of gravitational refraction). 

The GR part i think was in effect the addition of two relativity effects, firstly the slowing of time due to the nearness of mass (the time in spacetime), & secondly the contraction of radial dimensions due to the nearness of mass (the space in spacetime).

It is now obvious that the supposed equivalence of acceleration & gravity re the bending of a ray of light in Einstein's elevator (chest) thortX does not yield the predicted GR bending.  It appears that Einstein had no good basis for adding the bendings.  He used a double dose of bending, but shouldnt have.

One possible answer is that Einstein's invoking of Huygen's bending (Huygen's bending is a refraction effect due to the slowing of light in a medium such as air water glass) to apply it to the pseudo-medium of the slowing of light near mass is not a valid use of Huygens. The slowing of light near mass has been shown to be real (Shapiro), but there is no good logic saying that it can be considered to be a Huygen's medium.

Hencely we are left with no good explanation for the doubled bending. Worse than that, there is no good explanation for any bending, ie for the simple single bending, if it exists (which might be called ballistic bending, or Newtonian bending).  So, there is no good explanation for any such bending of light near the Sun (except bending due to simple refraction due to the corona), certainly there is no good Einsteinian explanation.
But i will come back & provide some possible explanations later.
Title: Re: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?
Post by: A-wal on 26/03/2019 00:58:06
"Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?"

I don't believe so. The argument is that a gravitationally accelerating observer feels no force whereas an observer accelerating under their own power does but that's erroneous in my opinion. A gravitationally accelerated observer feels tidal force - the difference in gravitational strength over the length of the observer. That's exactly what an observer accelerating under their own power feels, if their entire length of the observer (in their direction of motion) were accelerated evenly they would feel no force.
Title: Re: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?
Post by: mad aetherist on 26/03/2019 01:13:24
"Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?"

I don't believe so. The argument is that a gravitationally accelerating observer feels no force whereas an observer accelerating under their own power does but that's erroneous in my opinion. A gravitationally accelerated observer feels tidal force - the difference in gravitational strength over the length of the observer. That's exactly what an observer accelerating under their own power feels, if their entire length of the observer (in their direction of motion) were accelerated evenly they would feel no force.
Yes there are lots of ways that elevator (chest) equivalence is rubbish. If u do a search in New Theories for elevator u will get 30 results, one of them is the link below which mentions one such non-equivalence in an elevator.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75670.0

But in the present thread i was targeting the bit of Einstein's thortX dealing with the bending of light. In particular in my latest comments i said that the elevator thortX is complete rubbish in every way. Plus even if it were taken seriously a proper extension of what it claims gives the bending near the Sun of no more that the old fashioned single ballistic bending or equivalent, it dont give the famous trumpeted doubled bending.