Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mad aetherist on 11/12/2018 23:13:25

Title: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 11/12/2018 23:13:25
G Burniston Brown blows another hole in Einstein's silly elevator equivalence thort-X.
https://www.big-lies.org/modern-physics-a-fraud/modern-physics.html#relativity

To overcome the physical difficulty that acceleration produces forces (inertial) whereas uniform velocity does not, Einstein was led to assert that these forces cannot be distinguished from ordinary gravitational force, and are therefore not an absolute test of acceleration. This contention Einstein called the principle of equivalence. 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.

But in this he was mistaken, as I have shown (Brown 1960). In the first case, if two simple pendulums were suspended with their threads a foot apart, the threads would not be parallel but point towards the centre of mass of the Earth (or a point somewhat nearer allowing for their mutual attraction). The angle between them would, in principle, be detectable by the Mount Palomar telescope.
When accelerated by a rope, the threads would be parallel if it were not for the small mutual attraction.
If now, the threads were moved so as to be further apart, the angle between them would increase in the first case, but in the second case the threads would become more parallel so that the angle would therefore decrease.
The principle of equivalence is therefore untenable.

It is gratifying to find one theoretician who states that the principle is false (Synge 1960):
“In Einstein’s theory there is a gravitational field or there is none, according as the Riemann tensor does or does not vanish. This is an absolute property: it has nothing to do with the observer’s world-line.”

The principle of equivalence is made plausible by the use of the expression ‘gravitational field’, overlooking the fact that this is a useful conception but cannot be demonstrated. All we can do is place a test particle at the point in question and measure the force on it. This might be action-at-a-distance.

As soon as the term ‘field’ is dropped and we talk about the gravitational force between bodies at rest, we realize that the force is centripetal, whereas the force of inertia is not. This is an important difference obscured by the use of the word ‘field’. Relativists now admit that the principle of equivalence only holds at a point; but then, of course, we have left physics for geometry – experiments cannot be made at a point.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/12/2018 23:50:47
The equivalence principle is only an approximation. It's well known that sufficiently precise equipment (or a sufficiently large elevator) can reveal whether you are at rest on a planet or in an accelerating elevator.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 00:50:01
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.
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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/12/2018 05:45:22
I thougt the idea was you do not know you are accelerating unless there is an external gravity field acting on you ?  Whether you hit and feel the source of the field is not relevant really.

An elevatir shaft  through the centre of the earth higher than the atmosphere, if you pass the earth over an elevatort, the elevator would be attracted to the central gravitational point, chaseing  the centre until escaping from the gravitational attraction. It would not feel any resistance.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 09:02:35
The equivalence principle is only an approximation. It's well known that sufficiently precise equipment (or a sufficiently large elevator) can reveal whether you are at rest on a planet or in an accelerating elevator.
Yes the equivalence principle is only an approximation. The non-approximation corollary is that an accurate experiment  can show that there is no equivalence. So, naturally, Alby & friends were happy to put all logic aside & go for "yes" -- their only difficulty was re what to call this nearly allmost nearnuff case of sort of equivalence, what do u call something that is patently nontrue -- why, of course, call it a principle -- when at the same time knowing that non-equivalence was the truth, Alby & friends simply ignored the true non-equivalence -- & by ignoring it, well, no name needed (hey everybody look over there at that blackhole).

14Dec2018-- i see that Alby actually called it a law...............
          We must note carefully that the possibility of this mode of interpretation rests on the fundamental property of the gravitational field of giving all bodies the same acceleration, or, what comes to the same thing, on the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. If this natural law did not exist, the man in the accelerated chest would not be able to interpret the behaviour of the bodies around him on the supposition of a gravitational field, and he would not be justified on the grounds of experience in supposing his reference-body to be “at rest.”
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 09:12:35
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.
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.
Yes. Einsteinians were frantic, what to do, everyone could see that the elevator thort-X was complete krapp -- & then a masterstroke, why, of course, Alby meant at a point, ah, problem solved, that should keep skoolkids happy for a while untill they grow up, at which time we will invent some other pseudo excuse.

So, u are not allowed to have an experiment that has width. What this really means is that u are not allowed to have an elevator that has width. So, Einstein's equivalence principle only applies to elevators with no width or width. And, if u come up with an experiment that involves height, well, no problem, we will simply extend that to include that an elevator must not have any widths, nor any height. Ok now what can u come up with -- can u come up with an experiment that has no widths & not height -- no, oh, poor poor anti-relativist -- better luck next time (hey everyone look over there, a black hole).

Re plumb lines on Earth -- look up Tamarack Mine -- lots of stuff re this stuff.
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow1.htm
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/alumni/history/DMGPlumbLines.pdf
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62189.0
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 09:28:50
I thought the idea was you do not know you are accelerating unless there is an external gravity field acting on you ?  Whether you hit and feel the source of the field is not relevant really.
No i think that equivalence means that it is difficult to know whether the force on your feet-legs is due to gravity (& zero acceleration of the elevator) or due to inertia (due to acceleration of the elevator). Which is nearnuff true, but aint exactly true, so, not being exactly true Alby & mates decided to call it a Principle. If it were exactly true then they would hav kum in their undies, & would have had a sticky time looking for a good enuff word. Lemmesee now, what is better than Principle -- praps Law -- no, not good enuff -- they would want something heavenly -- yes, i know, if equivalence were true then they would have called it a Commandment -- the Equivalence Commandment -- that would make it Commandment 16 i think -- or in the Jewish Bible it would be No 170 or something (hey everybody, look, whats that over there, i think its a blackhole).
An elevator shaft  through the centre of the earth higher than the atmosphere, if you pass the earth over an elevator, the elevator would be attracted to the central gravitational point, chasing  the centre until escaping from the gravitational attraction. It would not feel any resistance.
I aint an expert, but i reckon that looking at elevators near or inside Earth is a problem -- u have to look out for spinning & orbiting centrifugal effects etc.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: set fair on 12/12/2018 11:24:38




But in this he was mistaken, as I have shown (Brown 1960). In the first case, if two simple pendulums were suspended with their threads a foot apart, the threads would not be parallel but point towards the centre of mass of the Earth (or a point somewhat nearer allowing for their mutual attraction). The angle between them would, in principle, be detectable by the Mount Palomar telescope.


Are you sure about this? Gravity would be stronger at the bottom of the pendulum (~ space more curved and time slowed down). So whether you used a ruler or a light to measure the separation the threads may still appear parallel.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 12:03:00
So, u are not allowed to have an experiment that has width.
Local, so no significant depth either.  If your experiment relies on a field difference over a distance, it is not a local test.  The restriction is lifted for a uniform gravitational field.  A uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from acceleration at any size box.

General relativity is a local theory, as is it derived from special relativity, which says that nothing can move faster than c inside a box.  Things can move faster outside it.

Quote
And, if u come up with an experiment that involves height
Like detection of tides.  There are no tidal forces in a uniform gravitational field.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 12:57:22
So, u are not allowed to have an experiment that has width.
Local, so no significant depth either.  If your experiment relies on a field difference over a distance, it is not a local test.  The restriction is lifted for a uniform gravitational field.  A uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from acceleration at any size box.
Ok SR is trumped by GR, but uniform gravitation is impossible, which opens up another avenue for non-equivalence (alltho i suppose that that is where Brown was anyhow).
How about if we shine a light across the elevator. The light beam bends down. In a gravitational field the photons hitting the far wall will be aiming-progressing on a downward angle. In an inertial field the photons will at all times be aiming horizontally, but progressing on a downward angle.
General relativity is a local theory, as is it derived from special relativity, which says that nothing can move faster than c inside a box.  Things can move faster outside it.
I reckon that a one-way (DeWitte) speed of light experiment would show anisotropy. And an MMX would show anisotropy. For both a gravitational field & an inertial field. The anisotropy would not be equivalent, but there would not be any surefire way of determining which kind of field it was -- depending on the specified circumstances -- partly because the anisotropy must change with time in both cases.
Quote
And, if u come up with an experiment that involves height
Like detection of tides.  There are no tidal forces in a uniform gravitational field.
The only height issue that i can think of is that in a gravity field a clock near the ceiling might tick faster than a clock near the floor, whilst in the inertial case the ticking would be the same.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Colin2B on 12/12/2018 13:02:09
Are you sure about this? Gravity would be stronger at the bottom of the pendulum (~ space more curved and time slowed down). So whether you used a ruler or a light to measure the separation the threads may still appear parallel.
You would also be hard pushed to find a place (or two) where the plumb lines definitely point towards the centre of the earth.
As @Halc said, we can only rely on local measurements.

PS @Halc you say “but uniform gravitation is impossible”. It can be done, look up spherical cavity in a solid uniform sphere. I agree that it is tricky to achieve  ;D
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 13:20:14
Are you sure about this? Gravity would be stronger at the bottom of the pendulum (~ space more curved and time slowed down). So whether you used a ruler or a light to measure the separation the threads may still appear parallel.
You would also be hard pushed to find a place (or two) where the plumb lines definitely point towards the centre of the earth. As @Halc said, we can only rely on local measurements.
If u had lots of pairs of lines on various horizontal angles then one of thems pairs will be nearnuff pointing to center of Earth (the others will be pointing off center due to centrifugal force). But anyhow all i have to do is specify that the massive body is not rotating or spinning or orbiting.
PS @Halc you say “but uniform gravitation is impossible”. It can be done, look up spherical cavity in a solid uniform sphere. I agree that it is tricky to achieve  ;D
Yes but once again that is a special case. Equivalence is not proven simply because a relativist can find one special case where relativists & anti-relativists all agree that there must be equivalence in that particular case. Conversely all that anti-relativists need do is find one case of any kind where there is or might be no equivalence.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 13:48:20
Ok SR is trumped by GR, but uniform gravitation is impossible, which opens up another avenue for non-equivalence
Yea, well continuous acceleration is similarly impossible, so we could violate locality by a test that extends the temporal size of our box.  Wait to see if the acceleration stops.  That's a non-local test to distinguish between the two.

Quote
How about if we shine a light across the elevator. The light beam bends down. In a gravitational field the photons hitting the far wall will be aiming-progressing on a downward angle. In an inertial field the photons will at all times be aiming horizontally, but progressing on a downward angle.
But no difference in an accelerating box.  Both beams bend down.  Using the equivalence principle is how they made the prediction that gravity would bend light.

Quote
The only height issue that i can think of is that in a gravity field a clock near the ceiling might tick faster than a clock near the floor, whilst in the inertial case the ticking would be the same.
But an accelerating box is not inertial.  So the clock at the top of the box ticks faster than the one at the bottom.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 13:52:52
But in this he was mistaken, as I have shown (Brown 1960). In the first case, if two simple pendulums were suspended with their threads a foot apart, the threads would not be parallel but point towards the centre of mass of the Earth (or a point somewhat nearer allowing for their mutual attraction). The angle between them would, in principle, be detectable by the Mount Palomar telescope.
Are you sure about this? Gravity would be stronger at the bottom of the pendulum (~ space more curved and time slowed down). So whether you used a ruler or a light to measure the separation the threads may still appear parallel.
My gut feeling is that the true angle & the perceived angle of radial plumb threads are not affected by gravity. If gravity were not stronger at the bottom of the line then the thread would not point, it would just float around. If the gravity is stronger at the bottom of the thread then that there gravity cant on one hand give the thread an angle & on the other hand change that angle.

The use of light to measure separation is complicated. My gut feeling is that light would give the impression that the separation at the bottom is larger than it is, & the threads might appear or at least be measured to be parallel.
But a solid rod would not be affected as much as is light. It would show that the threads are not parallel. According to GR the length of rods is only affected in the radial direction, hencely the length of a straight rod would be slightly affected when moved from top to bottom of the pair of threads, & so would not be a perfect measure, it would rob the true angle just a little (ie praps it would measure 0.999999 of the true angle)(base on say Earthly numbers).

I have a problem with the general argument here anyhow. I think that Popper would not entirely approve. If an anti-relativist describes a situation where the elevator thort-X equivalence principle is violated, then Popper might choke on his sandwich if a relativist uses a prediction based on the elevator thort-X to defend the elevator thort-X equivalence principle. 
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 14:06:55
PS @Halc you say “but uniform gravitation is impossible”. It can be done, look up spherical cavity in a solid uniform sphere. I agree that it is tricky to achieve  ;D
I meant the equivalent of an accelerating box, where your weight is identical anywhere in the box.  The spherical cavity results in zero weight everywhere, the equivalent to an inertial frame, but still in a gravity well.

Not sure how that can be done with gravity.  You can however get arbitrarily close.  On Earth at 1g of acceleration, my weight drops off by 4/100th of a percent if I move up one meter.  But if I am held stationary at a point near Sgr-A where the gravity is similarly 1g, a 1-meter movement results in an undetectable difference in weight.  The force is the same there, but the field far more uniform.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 14:13:58
Ok SR is trumped by GR, but uniform gravitation is impossible, which opens up another avenue for non-equivalence
Yea, well continuous acceleration is similarly impossible, so we could violate locality by a test that extends the temporal size of our box.  Wait to see if the acceleration stops.  That's a non-local test to distinguish between the two.
No, a thort-X allows all sorts of non-practical assumptions.
Quote
How about if we shine a light across the elevator. The light beam bends down. In a gravitational field the photons hitting the far wall will be aiming-progressing on a downward angle. In an inertial field the photons will at all times be aiming horizontally, but progressing on a downward angle.
But no difference in an accelerating box.  Both beams bend down.  Using the equivalence principle is how they made the prediction that gravity would bend light.
No. Think it throo. In the inertial case the photon retains its heading at all times.
Quote
The only height issue that i can think of is that in a gravity field a clock near the ceiling might tick faster than a clock near the floor, whilst in the inertial case the ticking would be the same.
But an accelerating box is not inertial.  So the clock at the top of the box ticks faster than the one at the bottom.
I dont understand.  All clocks anywhere in the accelerating elevator must tick the same. The only possible problem being how to measure all of their tickings.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 14:23:06
If gravity were not stronger at the bottom of the line then the thread would not point, it would just float around.
Nonsense.  Any gravity/acceleration will make a plumb-line point a certain way.  It need not be stronger at the bottom for this to be true.
Example is a plumb line in a coal mine, where gravity is weaker near the bottom of the line, and strongest at the top.  Plumb lines still work in mines.

Yes, I agree that widely separated plumb lines will point different ways if they're near the gravity source.  Geometry demands that.  It is a non-local test after all.

Quote
But a solid rod would not be affected as much as is light. It would show that the threads are not parallel. According to GR the length of rods is only affected in the radial direction,
Does gravity have any effect on the radial length of something?  Speed does of course, but all objects in question here are stationary in their respective frames (the frame of the box).

You're looking for relativistic details in a straightforward Newtonian example.  Make the box 10000 km wide and notice that the plumb lines are perpendicular.  Length contraction from trivial gravity of Earth (if there is such a thing at all) isn't going to hide that.
If you're going to break the rules, do it right.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 14:32:04
but uniform gravitation is impossible
Yea, well continuous acceleration is similarly impossible, so we could violate locality by a test that extends the temporal size of our box.  Wait to see if the acceleration stops.  That's a non-local test to distinguish between the two.
No, a thort-X allows all sorts of non-practical assumptions.
Then there is no problem with the uniform gravitational field to which the continuous acceleration is being compared.  It is quite possible, just not practical.

Quote
No. Think it throo. In the inertial case the photon retains its heading at all times.
The accelerating box is not inertial.

Quote
dont understand.  All clocks anywhere in the accelerating elevator must tick the same.
Not so.  Theory of relativity says otherwise. Different inertial frames would order separated events in the same order for this to be true, but SR shows that event ordering is frame dependent.
Quote
The only possible problem being how to measure all of their tickings.
Observers at either end are quite capable of watching the clocks at the far end, and noticing that they don't run at the same rate.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 14:55:51
Like detection of tides.  There are no tidal forces in a uniform gravitational field.
An intersting correction: There are no classical (Newton, Kepler) tides in a uniform gravitational field.
If clocks tick faster at the top of both boxes, then to maintain the uniform vertical dimension of the box, the acceleration up at the top must be less than the acceleration at the bottom.  Less acceleration means less force.  You weigh less at the top of the box even in a perfectly uniform gravitational field or in an accelerating box.  That difference in force will produce tidal effects in both the gravity and the accelerating box.  A bar that is allowed to spin freely will tend to align itself vertically.

Relativistic tides drop off with the square of the distance from the gravitational source, not the cube of the distance as with classical tides.  So the relativistic tide from the sun is stronger than that from the moon, but both are dwarfed by the classic tides from those sources.

I already knew all this from my long-ship thread, where the occupants at the back of the ship are killed by my unreasonable G forces, yet those at the front are experiencing a tiny fraction of 1 g.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 21:46:37
If gravity were not stronger at the bottom of the line then the thread would not point, it would just float around.
Nonsense.  Any gravity/acceleration will make a plumb-line point a certain way.  It need not be stronger at the bottom for this to be true.
Yes u are correct, gravity need not be stronger at the bottom for the thread to be straight & tight -- but this of course a side issue & not critical to equivalence.
Example is a plumb line in a coal mine, where gravity is weaker near the bottom of the line, and strongest at the top.  Plumb lines still work in mines.
Yes. 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.
Yes, I agree that widely separated plumb lines will point different ways if they're near the gravity source.  Geometry demands that.  It is a non-local test after all.
Yes, depending on TD & LC effects affecting measurement etc.
Quote
But a solid rod would not be affected as much as is light. It would show that the threads are not parallel. According to GR the length of rods is only affected in the radial direction,
Does gravity have any effect on the radial length of something?  Speed does of course, but all objects in question here are stationary in their respective frames (the frame of the box).
Yes my understanding of GR is that rods are shortened in the radial direction only, not tangentially. Light can be affected in all directions because the ticking dilation factor comes into play with light what with frequency & wavelength -- eg if u use lightwaves to measure length. Yes relative V is zero in the elevator, so isnt a factor.
You're looking for relativistic details in a straightforward Newtonian example.  Make the box 10000 km wide and notice that the plumb lines are perpendicular.  Length contraction from trivial gravity of Earth (if there is such a thing at all) isn't going to hide that.  If you're going to break the rules, do it right.
I think that u are referring to the unwritten rule that Einstein's elevator must have zero width & zero length & zero height. This would be laughed out of court. So, Einsteinians mask this by saying that the experiment must have zero width length height -- yes, that looks much better (hey everyone look at that blackhole over there).
Or u might be referring to the unwritten rule that Einsteinians can use the principle being argued about to prove their case.  Its a bit like me say saying that 2 plus 2 = 5, & then in my proof saying 5 minus 2 = 2 (because 2 plus 2 = 5). Popper would choke on his sandwich.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2018 21:53:36
I think that u are referring to the unwritten rule that Einstein's elevator must have zero width & zero length & zero height.
In the limit, that's what local means.
So...?
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 21:59:44
Like detection of tides.  There are no tidal forces in a uniform gravitational field.
An intersting correction: There are no classical (Newton, Kepler) tides in a uniform gravitational field.
If clocks tick faster at the top of both boxes, then to maintain the uniform vertical dimension of the box, the acceleration up at the top must be less than the acceleration at the bottom.  Less acceleration means less force.  You weigh less at the top of the box even in a perfectly uniform gravitational field or in an accelerating box. 
Comment: Where in hell do u keep getting that silly idea that inertial force is different near the floor compared to the ceiling?

That difference in force will produce tidal effects in both the gravity and the accelerating box.  A bar that is allowed to spin freely will tend to align itself vertically.
Comment: Ahah. Thats a new test. The spinning bar will change alignment in a gravity field but not in an acceleration field. Very good.
Hold on a mo. The spinning bar would hit the floor. It would need to be supported on a thread from the ceiling. Not a good thort-X.  Its ok in a way but it is stretching the allowance for non-practicality.


Relativistic tides drop off with the square of the distance from the gravitational source, not the cube of the distance as with classical tides.  So the relativistic tide from the sun is stronger than that from the moon, but both are dwarfed by the classic tides from those sources. I already knew all this from my long-ship thread, where the occupants at the back of the ship are killed by my unreasonable G forces, yet those at the front are experiencing a tiny fraction of 1 g.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 22:17:23
I think that u are referring to the unwritten rule that Einstein's elevator must have zero width & zero length & zero height.
In the limit, that's what local means. So...?
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). Let me have a go.
................Imagine out in deep space a cable pulling up on a box, the box having zero width length height -- now, an observer with zero width length height standing in the box would not know whether the box was sitting still on Earth in a gravity of g or whether it was being pulled up with an increasing acceleration equal to g.
Also the observer  would be thinking how in hell did i get into this box, it is the same size az me, ie zero size.
And heshe would be thinking how do they know that i am standing, i might be sitting, whats the difference, i havent got any size.
Now, let me look for the light beam shining across the box, i will see if it has a bend, hmmmmm, the width of the box is zero, that makes it hard to tell, this isnt fair, i dont like this thort-X. The railway carriage was much better, much bigger too..................
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 22:39:14
but uniform gravitation is impossible
Yea, well continuous acceleration is similarly impossible, so we could violate locality by a test that extends the temporal size of our box.  Wait to see if the acceleration stops.  That's a non-local test to distinguish between the two.
No, a thort-X allows all sorts of non-practical assumptions.
Then there is no problem with the uniform gravitational field to which the continuous acceleration is being compared.  It is quite possible, just not practical.
Comment: Yes i am now happy with a uniform gravity field, & a uniform acceleration inertial field.

Quote
No. Think it throo. In the inertial case the photon retains its heading at all times.
The accelerating box is not inertial.
Comment: No i dont agree. But praps my inertial is different to your inertial.

Quote
dont understand.  All clocks anywhere in the accelerating elevator must tick the same.
Not so.  Theory of relativity says otherwise. Different inertial frames would order separated events in the same order for this to be true, but SR shows that event ordering is frame dependent.
Comment: I dont understand. There is only one frame inside the elevator.

Quote
The only possible problem being how to measure all of their tickings.
Observers at either end are quite capable of watching the clocks at the far end, and noticing that they don't run at the same rate.
Comment: Yes i agree. Measuring the ticking rate is easy, measuring true time is usually a problem.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 22:55:04
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
I think that u are referring to the unwritten rule that Einstein's elevator must have zero width & zero length & zero height.
Must be insignificant, not necessarily zero.  The test cannot depend on enough distance to make differences from one side to the other.  If it depends on that, it isn't a local test.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 23:01:54
Where in hell do u keep getting that silly idea that inertial force is different near the floor compared to the ceiling?
I never said inertia was a force, and theory of relativity gave me the idea that acceleration is less at the lead of the accelerating object than at the tail.

Quote
Quote from: Halc
That difference in force will produce tidal effects in both the gravity and the accelerating box.  A bar that is allowed to spin freely will tend to align itself vertically.
Ahah. Thats a new test. The spinning bar will change alignment in a gravity field but not in an acceleration field. Very good.
I said it would align even in an accelerating field.

Quote
Hold on a mo. The spinning bar would hit the floor. It would need to be supported on a thread from the ceiling.
Yea, you'd need to put in on a horizontal axis so it is free to spin without hitting the floor.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 23:13:35
Yes i am now happy with a uniform gravity field, & a uniform acceleration inertial field.
Again, an accelerating box is not an inertial one.

Quote
No. Think it throo. In the inertial case the photon retains its heading at all times.
Quote
Quote from: Halc
The accelerating box is not inertial.
No i dont agree. But praps my inertial is different to your inertial.
Inertial means not accelerating.  Use 'accelerating' if you mean the box being compared to the gravitational field.

Quote
I dont understand. There is only one frame inside the elevator.
The intertial frame of the elevator is constantly changing because of the acceleration.  It is an accelerated reference frame, not an intertial one, so the clocks at either end cannot stay synced.

Quote
Yes i agree. Measuring the ticking rate is easy, measuring true time is usually a problem.
That would not be relativity theory.  Measuring true time is easy.  Pick any clock that runs at true time, and compare everything to that clock.  Funny that the etherists cannot do that.  Nobody for instance states the dilation factor of the standard clock that defines GMT.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 23:25:57
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).
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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 23:43:40
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.
Comment: Yes, thats what i thort, but iron is double the density of rock.

Quote
I think that u are referring to the unwritten rule that Einstein's elevator must have zero width & zero length & zero height.
Must be insignificant, not necessarily zero.  The test cannot depend on enough distance to make differences from one side to the other.  If it depends on that, it isn't a local test.
Comment: So, insert the word locality into Einstein's wordage for his silly elevator thort-X.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 23:51:02
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).
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.
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 gravity field might or might not be uniform depending on definition, but it is certainly constant (ignoring slow real world changes due to spin & orbit & moon etc).
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 23:53:18
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.
Quote from: Halc
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.
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.png
Acceleration is 9.8m/sec² 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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2018 23:56:19
So, insert the word locality into Einstein's wordage for his silly elevator thort-X.
It's always been in there.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/12/2018 23:59:16
Yes i am now happy with a uniform gravity field, & a uniform acceleration inertial field.
Again, an accelerating box is not an inertial one.
Comment: We are talking about two different inertials here.

Quote
No. Think it throo. In the inertial case the photon retains its heading at all times.
Quote
Quote from: Halc
The accelerating box is not inertial.
No i dont agree. But praps my inertial is different to your inertial.
Inertial means not accelerating.  Use 'accelerating' if you mean the box being compared to the gravitational field.
Comment: Yes i wont use inertial again.

Quote
I dont understand. There is only one frame inside the elevator.
The inertial frame of the elevator is constantly changing because of the acceleration.  It is an accelerated reference frame, not an inertial one, so the clocks at either end cannot stay synched.
Comment: Ok i understand.

Quote
Yes i agree. Measuring the ticking rate is easy, measuring true time is usually a problem.
That would not be relativity theory.  Measuring true time is easy.  Pick any clock that runs at true time, and compare everything to that clock.  Funny that the etherists cannot do that.  Nobody for instance states the dilation factor of the standard clock that defines GMT.
Comment: 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).
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 13/12/2018 00:01:32
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.
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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 13/12/2018 00:06:43
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.
Quote from: Halc
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.
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.png
Acceleration is 9.8m/sec² 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.
And as u said, the plumb thread will point as per g at that depth/ht, not as per the change in g.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 13/12/2018 00:07:33
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).
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 .
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 13/12/2018 00:25:53
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).
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.
This is my idea of how the aetheric theory goes. The only clock that has true ticking is a clock experiencing zero aetherwind -- here that clock must be at rest in the absolute frame -- difficult, the aetherwind blowing throo Earth is say 500 kmps south to north say 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis -- but, actually, easy, because, if a clock & observer are at rest with respect to each other then the clock will appear to be ticking at the same rate as an absolute clock (due to ticking dilation)(in accordance with the Heaviside Voigt FitzGerald Lorentz gamma for ticking dilation).
So all clocks at rest in your small lab all appear to be ticking as per their absolute ticking rate, no tuning needed (its automatic).
Now, to say analyse GPS we need to estimate the aetherwind that will be blowing throo the satellite clock & calculate the expected ticking using gamma.
Here the aetherists will in effect use gamma twice (once automatically)(& once by crunching the relative absolute relative velocity of the satellite compared to an observer in the absolute rest frame)(a long winded way of saying that their V is the estimated aetherwind to be felt by the satellite).
Einsteinians will use gamma once only, they apply it to the relative velocity tween observer (& satellite) sitting on the ground & the satellite in orbit.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 13/12/2018 00:41:00
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.
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.
Ok, i think i get it. Interesting notion.
I think that a uniform gravity field like that is impossible. U could posit that u can get one near an infinite plate. But, note, in this case the force of gravity is constant at any location or distance (ie it would not be in accord with your expected requirements).
 
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.

Inside the hollow of a hollow Earth the gravity field must be zero, Einsteinians & aetherists will agree here.  But a zero field cant be called a uniform field, surely.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 13/12/2018 01:14:28
I think that a uniform gravity field like that is impossible. U could posit that u can get one near an infinite plate.
One can get arbitrarily close to it by putting enough mass in one place. A sufficiently large plate also works. That makes them merely impractical, not impossible.

Quote
But, note, in this case the force of gravity is constant at any location or distance (ie it would not be in accord with your expected requirements).
Your assertion is what everybody thought up through the 19th century.  Yes, this would be true in a Newtonian universe. The model has been falsified.

Quote
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.
Sounds like a mark against your aether theory.

Quote
Inside the hollow of a hollow Earth the gravity field must be zero, Einsteinians & aetherists will agree here.  But a zero field cant be called a uniform field, surely.
It would be uniform, yes, but equivalent to an elevator at zero acceleration, which is not what we are discussing.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 13/12/2018 02:21:09
Quote
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.
Sounds like a mark against your aether theory.
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).
Ranzan has a theory that aether is contractile & that the primary convergence of the streamlines due to aether annihilation in matter is bolstered by a secondary annihilation along the streamlines which magnifies the effect. However if the primary convergence doesnt exist then i suppose that the secondary annihilation doesnt happen either. So no help for any gravity at an infinite plate there.

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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 13/12/2018 13:44:15
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.
That is a completely different aether theory than the one I know (neo-Lorentz ether theory, as is typically pushed by the anti-relativists).  What you describe here is falsified easily.

Quote
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).
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.
The infinite plate line then works out to 1/R0 which is constant gravity, not zero gravity.
But Newton worked that out, and didn't need aether theory to do it.
It all derives from treating the wire and the plane as point masses with the 1/RR rule.

Quote
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.
A spiral galaxy is not infinite length in one dimension.  It acts nothing like the wire, sliced or otherwise.

Quote
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.
Whereas you do no simulation at all, and declare success because it works in your imagination.

I think we're getting off topic here.  We were discussing the equivalence principle, and this post is all about a theory irrelevant to that.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 13/12/2018 21:15:45
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.
That is a completely different aether theory than the one I know (neo-Lorentz ether theory, as is typically pushed by the anti-relativists).  What you describe here is falsified easily.
Comment: Lorentz in the early days knew nothing of the aetherwind (i dont think that he even knew of a possible wind due to Earth's spin or orbit throo some sort of fixed aether, fixed to the Sun or something). Lorentz probly knew little of the aether annihilation-inflow theory (alltho praps he did, there were similar theories going back a long way). I welcome any falsification.
Quote
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).
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.
Comment: 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. I cant say 0/0R or 0/0 or anything like that.
The infinite plate line then works out to 1/R0 which is constant gravity, not zero gravity. But Newton worked that out, and didn't need aether theory to do it. It all derives from treating the wire and the plane as point masses with the 1/RR rule.
Comment: Yes that is the Newtonian answer. Aether theory shows zero convergence of inflow streamlines, ie GF=0. Hencely u could have 2 parallel infinite plates & the attraction would be zero.
Quote
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.
A spiral galaxy is not infinite length in one dimension.  It acts nothing like the wire, sliced or otherwise.
Comment:  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, praps i should have said an infinite cylinder (which would have a 1/R gravity just like an infinite wire). But here i admit that my 1/R analogy where my thin slice retains the 1/R gravity even tho the rest of the infinite thick wire-cylinder has been removed is problematical. So i am still thinking re this stuff.
Quote
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.
Whereas you do no simulation at all, and declare success because it works in your imagination.
Comment: Yesterday i saw a computer analysis for a certain spiral galaxy & the graph showed that the star velocities exactly followed the computer generated line for 1/R, whereas their 1/RR line went down to near their xx axis.
I think we're getting off topic here.  We were discussing the equivalence principle, and this post is all about a theory irrelevant to that. Comment: Yes. There is a "how gravity works in a spiral galaxy"  thread running at present in New Theories. But that is overflowing with sillyness.  This needs its own 1/R thread, or Dark Matter thread.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Colin2B on 13/12/2018 22:58:37
The spherical cavity results in zero weight everywhere, the equivalent to an inertial frame, but still in a gravity well.
Sorry, I should have been more specific, I didn’t mean a cavity centred on the sphere’s centre, but one offset from the centre. Dont’t have time to do the tex (too much spam around at moment). I think @PmbPhy might have it on his website.
It is also possible to envisage an area on earth where the geoid, due to density variation below the surface, becomes flat over a limited area and plumb lines over that area would be parallel.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 13/12/2018 23:01:37

Quote from: Halc
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.
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.
GF=0 is what you are making up.  At what point in adding objects to a flat array of objects does the gravity suddenly switch off?
I could generate infinite energy and reactionless thrust if this were true.
You say you welcome falsification, but you don't recognize it when you get it.

Quote
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,
Ah, you're slicing it that way.  Such an object does not exhibit the 1/R gravity drop off of a rod with significant length.  The pull from the further parts of the rod have been removed.  Integrating over the mass of the flat object would show this.  Integrating over the mass of the long rod/wire would show the 1/R dropoff of force.  Nothing needs to be infinite.

Quote
There is a "how gravity works in a spiral galaxy"  thread running at present in New Theories. But that is overflowing with sillyness.
Ah, Thank you!  You label anything that threatens you 'silliness', and I would actually question my posts if you didn't consider them silly.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 13/12/2018 23:05:05
The spherical cavity results in zero weight everywhere, the equivalent to an inertial frame, but still in a gravity well.
Sorry, I should have been more specific, I didn’t mean a cavity centred on the sphere’s centre, but one offset from the centre. Dont’t have time to do the tex (too much spam around at moment). I think @PmbPhy might have it on his website.
It is also possible to envisage an area on earth where the geoid, due to density variation below the surface, becomes flat over a limited area and plumb lines over that area would be parallel.
OK, That's cool.  I suspect the density of the sphere needs to be fairly uniform to get it to work, but that's reasonable.
No need for infinite things and such.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 13/12/2018 23:30:17
Quote from: Halc
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.
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.
GF=0 is what you are making up.  At what point in adding objects to a flat array of objects does the gravity suddenly switch off? I could generate infinite energy and reactionless thrust if this were true. You say you welcome falsification, but you don't recognize it when you get it.
Comment: The streamlines are all parallel, hencely the aether inflow is not accelerating. Gravity force is not due to aether velocity, it is due to aether acceleration. Zero acceleration = zero gravity.
Quote
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,
Ah, you're slicing it that way.  Such an object does not exhibit the 1/R gravity drop off of a rod with significant length.  The pull from the further parts of the rod have been removed.  Integrating over the mass of the flat object would show this.  Integrating over the mass of the long rod/wire would show the 1/R dropoff of force.  Nothing needs to be infinite.
Comment:  I admit that my analogy isnt watertight, i could be wrong. Once the thin slice (disc) begins to be given some thickness the 1/R starts to revert to a 1/RR relationship. I am still thinking re this.
Quote
There is a "how gravity works in a spiral galaxy"  thread running at present in New Theories. But that is overflowing with sillyness.
Ah, Thank you!  You label anything that threatens you 'silliness', and I would actually question my posts if you didn't consider them silly.
Comment: Being an aetherist it is unlikely that i would fully agree with anything in that thread. But when i said sillyness i meant that there appeared to be a lot of microscopic analysis of trivial stuff.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/12/2018 01:59:16
Albert Einstein (1879–1955).  Relativity: The Special and General Theory.  1920.
XX.  The Equality of Inertial and Gravitational Mass as an Argument for the General Postulate of Relativity
     We imagine a large portion of empty space, so far removed from stars and other appreciable masses that we have before us approximately the conditions required by the fundamental law of Galilei. It is then possible to choose a Galileian reference-body for this part of space (world), relative to which points at rest remain at rest and points in motion continue permanently in uniform rectilinear motion. As reference-body let us imagine a spacious chest resembling a room with an observer inside who is equipped with apparatus. Gravitation naturally does not exist for this observer. He must fasten himself with strings to the floor, otherwise the slightest impact against the floor will cause him to rise slowly towards the ceiling of the room.      1
     To the middle of the lid of the chest is fixed externally a hook with rope attached, and now a “being” (what kind of a being is immaterial to us) begins pulling at this with a constant force. The chest together with the observer then begin to move “upwards” with a uniformly accelerated motion. In course of time their velocity will reach unheard-of values—provided that we are viewing all this from another reference-body which is not being pulled with a rope.      2
       But how does the man in the chest regard the process? The acceleration of the chest will be transmitted to him by the reaction of the floor of the chest. He must therefore take up this pressure by means of his legs if he does not wish to be laid out full length on the floor. He is then standing in the chest in exactly the same way as anyone stands in a room of a house on our earth. If he release a body which he previously had in his hand, the acceleration of the chest will no longer be transmitted to this body, and for this reason the body will approach the floor of the chest with an accelerated relative motion. The observer will further convince himself that the acceleration of the body towards the floor of the chest is always of the same magnitude, whatever kind of body he may happen to use for the experiment.      3
        Relying on his knowledge of the gravitational field (as it was discussed in the preceding section), the man in the chest will thus come to the conclusion that he and the chest are in a gravitational field which is constant with regard to time. Of course he will be puzzled for a moment as to why the chest does not fall in this gravitational field. Just then, however, he discovers the hook in the middle of the lid of the chest and the rope which is attached to it, and he consequently comes to the conclusion that the chest is suspended at rest in the gravitational field.      4
         Ought we to smile at the man and say that he errs in his conclusion? I do not believe we ought if we wish to remain consistent; 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.      5
          We must note carefully that the possibility of this mode of interpretation rests on the fundamental property of the gravitational field of giving all bodies the same acceleration, or, what comes to the same thing, on the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. If this natural law did not exist, the man in the accelerated chest would not be able to interpret the behaviour of the bodies around him on the supposition of a gravitational field, and he would not be justified on the grounds of experience in supposing his reference-body to be “at rest.”      6
          Suppose that the man in the chest fixes a rope to the inner side of the lid, and that he attaches a body to the free end of the rope. The result of this will be to stretch the rope so that it will hang “vertically” downwards. If we ask for an opinion of the cause of tension in the rope, the man in the chest will say: “The suspended body experiences a downward force in the gravitational field, and this is neutralised by the tension of the rope; what determines the magnitude of the tension of the rope is the gravitational mass of the suspended body.” On the other hand, an observer who is poised freely in space will interpret the condition of things thus: “The rope must perforce take part in the accelerated motion of the chest, and it transmits this motion to the body attached to it. The tension of the rope is just large enough to effect the acceleration of the body. That which determines the magnitude of the tension of the rope is the inertial mass of the body.” Guided by this example, we see that our extension of the principle of relativity implies the necessity of the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Thus we have obtained a physical interpretation of this law.      7
           From our consideration of the accelerated chest we see that a general theory of relativity must yield important results on the laws of gravitation. In point of fact, the systematic pursuit of the general idea of relativity has supplied the laws satisfied by the gravitational field. Before proceeding farther, however, I must warn the reader against a misconception suggested by these considerations. A gravitational field exists for the man in the chest, despite the fact that there was no such field for the co-ordinate system first chosen. Now we might easily suppose that the existence of a gravitational field is always only an apparent one. We might also think that, regardless of the kind of gravitational field which may be present, we could always choose another reference-body such that no gravitational field exists with reference to it. This is by no means true for all gravitational fields, but only for those of quite special form. It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes.      8
            We can now appreciate why that argument is not convincing, which we brought forward against the general principle of relativity at the end of Section XVIII. It is certainly true that the observer in the railway carriage experiences a jerk forwards as a result of the application of the brake, and that he recognises in this the non-uniformity of motion (retardation) of the carriage. But he is compelled by nobody to refer this jerk to a “real” acceleration (retardation) of the carriage. He might also interpret his experience thus: “My body of reference (the carriage) remains permanently at rest. With reference to it, however, there exists (during the period of application of the brakes) a gravitational field which is directed forwards and which is variable with respect to time. Under the influence of this field, the embankment together with the earth moves non-uniformly in such a manner that their original velocity in the backwards direction is continuously reduced.”   
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/12/2018 02:38:13
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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 14/12/2018 05:32:54
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.
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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/12/2018 07:37:24
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.
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.
I fear that u are now making a mistake that i made earlier that u quite rightly corrected me on. 
I said that if the gravity field was uniform (g constant in time & constant in the xyz of the chest-elevator-room) then the 2 or 4 strings would not hang proper but would just float around.  
Based on the original OP being about Brown doing his test(s) above ground (ie at the surface), ie gravity field super-uniform (g constant in xy horizontal plane but decreasing with height in the z vertical direction).  U pointed out that even if that Brownian test were done in a shaft underground (gravity field sub-uniform)(g constant in the xy horizontal plane but increasing with height in the z vertical direction) the strings (or plumb-line if u like) would nonetheless hang straight (down)(albeit a little less tight).  And u were correct. 
My error was partly due to semantics re the definition of a uniform field (i didnt say so but i had pictured an aetheric analogy that was wrong)(it was an analogy of a different circumstance)(partly due to semantics).

I dont see how doing Brown's test in a chest-elevator-room in a chamber underground would make any difference to doing it in a shaft underground as already mentioned.  Even if the chamber were very large, & even if the chamber were located as deep as u want (but of course not at center of Earth). 
Above ground g varies more or less linearly & slowly, decreasing with height.
Below ground it can according to wiki vary more strongly & at some depths increasing & at some depths decreasing, & at some depths can be uniform (constant is a better term).
But nonetheless a pair of strings spaced a small distance apart & well away from side-walls will hang down non-parallel, & then when moved a little further apart & still well away from side-wall will be seen to hang either more parallel or less parallel, & this will tell Igor whether he is in a gravity field or in an acceleration field, & Brown's string test will work ok in most locations in or on Earth (if in a gravity field)(even if in a big underground chamber), & will work ok in deep outer space well away from mass (if in an acceleration field).
What am i missing?

Ah i just then saw the posting by Colin2B (i thort u said it was by Evan). Colin said.......
Sorry, I should have been more specific, I didn’t mean a cavity centred on the sphere’s centre, but one offset from the centre. Don’t have time to do the tex (too much spam around at moment). I think @PmbPhy might have it on his website. It is also possible to envisage an area on earth where the geoid, due to density variation below the surface, becomes flat over a limited area and plumb lines over that area would be parallel.
It looks to me that Colin is making the same mistake that u corrected me on.
If there is a depth where the geoid becomes flat then in fact the geoid would have a fuzzy surface.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 14/12/2018 12:01:17
But nonetheless a pair of strings spaced a small distance apart & well away from side-walls will hang down non-parallel
What 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.

Quote
Ah i just then saw the posting by Colin2B (i thort u said it was by Evan).
Oops!  Sorry Colin.  Got my crediting wrong...

Quote
If 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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/12/2018 12:29:02
But nonetheless a pair of strings spaced a small distance apart & well away from side-walls will hang down non-parallel
What 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.
Yes, but i did say well away from the side-walls. If u like u can have very light walls & very heavy string (or heavy bobs). Or how about just have a spherical elevator, then u can hang the strings anywhere u like.

Quote
If 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 the zone of uniform or constant g is say 10 km deep then the geoid can be drawn to pass throo anywhere u like in that 10 km. Or it can be drawn to pass throo everywhere in that 10 km, in which case u will have lots of lines, or in effect a fat fuzzy line.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: phyti on 14/12/2018 16:03:06
But nonetheless a pair of strings spaced a small distance apart & well away from side-walls will hang down non-parallel
What 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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 14/12/2018 18:45:19
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.
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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/12/2018 19:43:49
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.
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.
I dont  think that Brown's string test needs an ideal spherical Earth, almost any roundish blob will do, but of course a sphere is best.
Phyti is of course merely referring to Brown's test, Phyti pointing out that Brown's test is legit, the strings when moved a bit further apart in a gravity field (near Earth)(or near a perfect sphere) will point less parallel. Phyti is not making a comment on my idea of having a spherical elevator-chest-box.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/12/2018 20:03:10
But nonetheless a pair of strings spaced a small distance apart & well away from side-walls will hang down non-parallel
What 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.
I notice in my OP that Brown did say a large chest, the inference being that the test with the pendulums being 1 foot apart is well clear of the gravity of the walls, but Brown doesnt actually say so.
I notice that Brown was in fact referring to two simple pendulums, ie a wt on the end of a string, whereas i have been referring to strings with no wt on the end.  Anyhow even in a simple chest the walls would not be an issue if the wts were massive enuff (but might destroy the ceiling).
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/12/2018 20:31:41
Brown's twin-pendulum test of equivalence is just one of many tests that can disprove Einstein's chest-elevator equivalence thort-X. If an Einsteinian comes up with a scenario where one particular test wouldnt disprove then that is not fatal to the anti-Einsteinians -- one of the other tests will be sure to work in that scenario -- but in any case all that an anti-Einsteinian need do is to find just one chest-elevator scenario where just one test can distinguish tween gravity & acceleration and equivalence is proven wrong (end of argument).

And i notice that almost everyone looking into this equivalence stuff falls back on the two standard scenarios, eg an elevator sitting motionless in a gravity field & an elevator being accelerated upwards. But any sort of elevator scenario should be ok.  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.

When i say that i can disprove equivalence i dont mean that i can disprove the law of equivalence of inertial mass & gravitational mass -- that cant be done -- inertial mass is numerically equal to gravitational mass (at least it is in the macro world, but not in the micro world)(& there are subtle differences that can come into play in some instances).
No, the disproof applies to the notion that gravity is equivalent to acceleration. It might be in many instances but aint in many important instances (for example re the bending of light).
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 15/12/2018 00:44:13
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.
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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 15/12/2018 02:35:36
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.
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.
I havent thort of looking out of a window. I am not sure whether that would make it easier.  But one version of the light beam thort-X that i have seen has the beam entering throo a window.

(A) 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).
(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.
 
(B)  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).

(C)  If an Einsteinian plead that both (1) & (2) would produce a curved beam then i would point out that 
in (1) the individual photons would retain their initial direction of pointing (in the vertical plane) all of the way across the elevator, whilst crabbing along the line of trajectory of the beam &
in (2) the photons would gradually yaw (in the vertical plane) such that their pointings would follow the curved line of the beam all of the way across & they would not exhibit any crabbing at any time.

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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 15/12/2018 04:51:44
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).
Not a local test.  You're looking out of the window.

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"?
 
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
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.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 15/12/2018 06:03:02
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).
Not a local test.  You're looking out of the window.
If u like u can shine a light beam from wall to wall inside. Possibly the same thing.
[17dec2018-- I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT EINSTEIN HAD A RAY OF LIGHT ENTERING HORIZONTALLY AT THE MIDDLE OF ONE WALL.]
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"?
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.
Quote
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).
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.
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.
Quote
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.
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.
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, & the common plane of the photon-bullet's centerline & the line of the beam indicates the plane that contains the line of action of the gravity field -- & the general direction of the nose of the photon-bullet indicates the general direction -- but the exact line of action of the field might not be determinable (there might be some other test that helps here).
But i am surprised that u went for (B), i thort Einsteinians would go for (A). I modified my earlier thread, there is also a (C).
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 15/12/2018 15:31:21
If u like u can shine a light beam from wall to wall inside. Possibly the same thing.
That's fine.  The bean should be measured by the observer to go straight across in both cases.

Quote
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.
Yes.  Newton was wrong.  There is no Newtonian bending.

Quote
But i am surprised that u consider that both should be straight, i would have thort that Einsteinians would insist that both be curved.
Not from the frame of either observer in either box.

Quote
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.
Photons don't have a shape, and don't yaw.  They are measured at certain points, which in this case will be a spot on the wall directly opposite the source of the light.  If it is a beam, it might be measured in the path between as it is defected by dust and such.  That beam will be observed to be straight in this freefall case.

Quote
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
If you're going to propose this, you're going to have to indicate how one might measure the way a photon points at the event of measurement.  One can only measure a photon once, per Heisenberg.
From my point of view, you're making up total fiction.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 15/12/2018 20:49:32
If u like u can shine a light beam from wall to wall inside. Possibly the same thing.
That's fine.  The beam should be measured by the observer to go straight across in both cases.
 Comment: I think that it is ok to insist on non-local inputs. However in the case of my far-away starlight i think that that should be acceptable, after all i am only using it to provide a constant (& a straight & aligned photon) photon input, its not as if i am checking on its frequency or something.
Re the beam going straight across in both cases -- i will address this in its own posting later today.
[17dec2018-- I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT EINSTEIN HAD A RAY OF LIGHT ENTERING HORIZONTALLY AT THE MIDDLE OF ONE WALL.]
Quote
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.
Yes.  Newton was wrong.  There is no Newtonian bending.
 Comment:  Einstein in 1911 got 0.83~0.875 arcsec for bending due to time (the time in spacetime) & in 1915 added 0.87~0.875 arcsec for space (the space in spacetime) to get  1.7~1.75 arcsec.  Soldner got 0.83~0.875 arcsec in 1805 (?) using a ballistic calculation, which we call the Newtonian value.  The 0.875 arcsec & 1.75 arcsec are using modern numbers for Sun's mass & G etc.  Yes i think that Einstein didnt directly include any Newtonian-ballistic bending in his figures (but praps indirectly), & the Soldner 0.83~0.875 arcsec might be a co-incidence (or it might be an automatic outcome what with Einstein's stuff riding on the back of Newton's stuff).
Quote
But i am surprised that u consider that both should be straight, i would have thort that Einsteinians would insist that both be curved.
Not from the frame of either observer in either box.
 Comment: I will address this later today..
Quote
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.
Photons don't have a shape, and don't yaw. 
 Comment:  This is the crux of the issue.  I will address this in a separate posting later today.
They are measured at certain points, which in this case will be a spot on the wall directly opposite the source of the light.  If it is a beam, it might be measured in the path between as it is defected by dust and such.  That beam will be observed to be straight in this freefall case.
 Comment:  Yes measurements at various points will show whether straight or curved.
Quote
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
If you're going to propose this, you're going to have to indicate how one might measure the way a photon points at the event of measurement.  One can only measure a photon once, per Heisenberg. From my point of view, you're making up total fiction.   
 Comment:  Yes i dont know how we might measure which way a photon is pointing (ie whether it is crabbing), especially with ultra-small values. I will think about this & address it separately later today.
The measurement would of course be made at the far wall. If photons are destroyed during measure then that aint a worry.  Heisenberg's stuff is nonsense (but not relevant here)(& not relevant anywhere else).  The fiction is Einstein's, as i will show.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 16/12/2018 01:23:34
Quote
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
If you're going to propose this, you're going to have to indicate how one might measure the way a photon points at the event of measurement.  One can only measure a photon once, per Heisenberg. From my point of view, you're making up total fiction.  
 Comment:  Yes i dont know how we might measure which way a photon is pointing (ie whether it is crabbing), especially with ultra-small values. I will think about this & address it separately later today.
The measurement would of course be made at the far wall. If photons are destroyed during measure then that aint a worry.  Heisenberg's stuff is nonsense (but not relevant here)(& not relevant anywhere else).  The fiction is Einstein's, as i will show.

Ok i had a think.  I crunched some numbers in Excel.  For a 10 m  wide elevator &  g = 9.8 m/s/s  a beam travelling at  300,000 kmps  will fall  5.44 pico mm  (mm^-12)  measured at the far wall,  & the beam angle at the wall (ie the tangent to the curve) will be  0.2235 pico arcsec  (arcsec^-12).   This is a simple ballistic calculation (ie as per Soldner)(ie as per Newton).   For Einsteinian numbers just multiply by 2 (multiplying by 2 is nearnuff & ok at these small angles)(yes i checked).
These small values did not appear to be a concern in 1915, ie when the ability to measure distance & angle was say one millionth of the sensitivity of  2018  instruments.   No one in 1915 pointed out that the curve couldn’t be measured that accurately, not even if u used a  100 m wide elevator & a gravity of  10g  (here u would increase the  mm  & the arcsec by say 100)(at these small angles).   If Einstein & Co could measure a beam to say  0.005 mm at the far wall etc then they would need to magnify their curve by say  10^10  (or if using  100 m &  10g they would need to magnify by say 10^8).
And how would Einstein & Co make a very thin-narrow beam.   Once a slit gets down to say  0.001 mm u get diffraction or something.  And u would need to have two slits, one vertical & one horizontal – ie doubled diffraction.   In fact u would need two sets of slits (ie 4 slits), to establish a fixed initial trajectory  (the source being a big flame or a big element or big something), ie double-double diffraction.   I wanted to get away from much of this sort of complication by simply allowing distant starlight throo a small hole (ie one pair of slits).  But u said no.   So i guess that Einstein & Co cant use starlight either.
Ok, lets say that Einstein & Co manage to get a  0.001 mm beam of light.  The deflection at the far wall is only  0.000,000,000,005,444  mm (ie their beam is  200,000,000  times bigger).  In addition they can measure to only say  0.005 mm or lets make that  0.001 mm  (that is almost  100,000,000,000  times bigger than that deflection).  Here is a draft letter………..
Dear Dr Albert Einstein.
I refer to your recent request for funding to allow u to further develop your  thort-X  illustrating the possible equivalence of the bending of light due to gravity & acceleration in an elevator. 
Please advise how an observer might measure the bending of the beam of light.   The accuracy of today's instruments falls short by a factor of  100,000,000,000.  Furthermore the beam of light should ideally be no more than  0.000,000,01 mm wide.    A beam one photon wide might be acceptable.  In which case we strongly advise that u firstly discover the photon.
From our point of view u are making up total fiction, & we think that your thort-X  will be a waste of money. 
Good luck.
The Institute of Naked Scientists.
PS -- can we keep the nude pix u sent us.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 16/12/2018 01:46:48
I think that it is ok to insist on non-local inputs. However in the case of my far-away starlight i think that that should be acceptable
Then the task is trivial.  No need to consider photons.  The star is not accelerating with you, so just watch the star and if it seems to accelerate, it is you that is actually accelerating.  Measuring the bending of light is totally unnecessary.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 16/12/2018 01:56:23
Ok i had a think.
Hope it didn't hurt too much.
Quote
I crunched some numbers in Excel. For a 10 m  wide elevator &  g = 9.8 m/s/s  a beam travelling at  300,000 kmps  will fall  5.44 pico mm  (mm^-12)  measured at the far wall,  & the beam angle at the wall (ie the tangent to the curve) will be  0.2235 pico arcsec  (arcsec^-12).   This is a simple ballistic calculation (ie as per Soldner)(ie as per Newton).
OK, but the box falls by the same amount during that time it takes the beam to cross it, so the beam appears to go straight as measured by the observer in the box.

Quote
Good luck.
The Institute of Naked Scientists.
PS -- can we keep the nude pix u sent us.
No, the sign-off is: Send us $2500 or we send your porn-watching webcam footage to your entire contact list.  Oh wait, Einstein was way back in the day and his laptop didn't have a webcam...
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 16/12/2018 02:02:21
I think that it is ok to insist on non-local inputs. However in the case of my far-away starlight i think that that should be acceptable
Then the task is trivial.  No need to consider photons.  The star is not accelerating with you, so just watch the star and if it seems to accelerate, it is you that is actually accelerating.  Measuring the bending of light is totally unnecessary.
If the star is nearby then u could cheat in that way, but i am talking about a distant star, meaning a distant galaxy of course.  Here u could cheat by using that to tell u if any rotation of the elevator (at least in one or two planes)(it couldnt tell u about all 3 planes).
One problem with this star stuff, & with much of the elevator stuff that u read, is that everyone ignores the need to keep the elevator steady, if any rotation or vibration then most bending tests would be hopeless. It might help if u had a super-gyro to keep an eye on the size of any such rotation etc to allow correction of the raw measurements in some instances (depending on the tests).
Even if u used an inboard source of light u would still probly need that sort of correction.
[17dec2018-- I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT EINSTEIN HAD A RAY OF LIGHT ENTERING HORIZONTALLY AT THE MIDDLE OF ONE WALL.]
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 16/12/2018 02:09:34
I crunched some numbers in Excel. For a 10 m  wide elevator &  g = 9.8 m/s/s  a beam travelling at  300,000 kmps  will fall  5.44 pico mm  (mm^-12)  measured at the far wall,  & the beam angle at the wall (ie the tangent to the curve) will be  0.2235 pico arcsec  (arcsec^-12).   This is a simple ballistic calculation (ie as per Soldner)(ie as per Newton).
OK, but the box falls by the same amount during that time it takes the beam to cross it, so the beam appears to go straight as measured by the observer in the box.
Comment: A straight beam is just as difficult to measure as a curved beam. So all of my comments apply. Re going straight, i will cook up a response to that.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 16/12/2018 02:14:23
If the star is nearby then u could cheat in that way, but i am talking about a distant star, meaning a distant galaxy of course.  Here u could cheat by using that to tell u if any rotation of the elevator (at least in one or two planes)(it couldnt tell u about all 3 planes).
Rotation is absolute, so I don't need to look out the window to detect rotation.  Rotation is about one axis, not one or more planes.
A super-distant star is functionally the same as a light source bolted to the box.

Quote
One problem with this star stuff, & with much of the elevator stuff that u read, is that everyone ignores the need to keep the elevator steady, if any rotation or vibration then most bending tests would be hopeless.
You quoted Einstein's description.  It was a box hanging on a rope that went off into the darkness.  The guy could go outside the box and see the rope.
We can assume a reasonable lack of vibration and spin.  If it spins, the guy can take steps to halt that.  He's got a lab after all.  Yes, that's what gyros do.  You can halt the spin of Earth if you are in possession of a gyro that's up to the task.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 16/12/2018 02:34:09
If the star is nearby then u could cheat in that way, but i am talking about a distant star, meaning a distant galaxy of course.  Here u could cheat by using that to tell u if any rotation of the elevator (at least in one or two planes)(it couldnt tell u about all 3 planes).
Rotation is absolute, so I don't need to look out the window to detect rotation.  Rotation is about one axis, not one or more planes.
A super-distant star is functionally the same as a light source bolted to the box.
Yes rotation can be measured inside the elevator. Rotation is about one axis but it is unlikely that that axis coincides with one of the elevator's 3 axis.
A super-distant star is much the same as an internal light, but the photons coming from the distant star will be pointing exactly along that vizible line,  whereas photons coming from an internal source can be crabbing-skidding as they come out (i can explain).
[17dec2018-- I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT EINSTEIN HAD A RAY OF LIGHT ENTERING HORIZONTALLY AT THE MIDDLE OF ONE WALL.]
Quote
One problem with this star stuff, & with much of the elevator stuff that u read, is that everyone ignores the need to keep the elevator steady, if any rotation or vibration then most bending tests would be hopeless.
You quoted Einstein's description.  It was a box hanging on a rope that went off into the darkness.  The guy could go outside the box and see the rope.
I havent been able to find Einstein's description for his thort-X for the bending of light in an elevator. The rotation stuff applies mainly to the elevator when out in deep outer space, even if being pulled by a rope. But it must also apply to the elevator when hanging near say Earth, or even if sitting on the surface. 
We can assume a reasonable lack of vibration and spin.  If it spins, the guy can take steps to halt that.  He's got a lab after all.  Yes, that's what gyros do.  You can halt the spin of Earth if you are in possession of a gyro that's up to the task.
Yes but the exact halting of spin or the measuring-correcting for spin must be an even bigger problem than the primary measuring that i detailed.  We are talking about micro micro stuff.  And the main thrust of today's posting is re the practical side of testing & measuring.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 16/12/2018 03:19:04
the photons coming from the distant star will be pointing exactly along that vizible line,  whereas photons coming from an internal source can be crabbing-skidding as they come out (i can explain).
You say you can, but you don't.
Last I checked, I could not purchase a photon-crab-skidding detector.   You need a security clearance to get one.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 16/12/2018 11:39:00
SOME  THORTS  RE  EINSTEIN'S  THORT-X  RE  THE  BENDING  OF  LIGHT  IN  AN  ELEVATOR.
In this posting i want to have a fresh look at the exact nature of the bending of light in an elevator.
I haven’t been able to find a link to Einstein's thort-X  re the bending of light in an elevator  –  i hear that this thort was in  1911.  But it is obvious to me that if an elevator is accelerated upwards at  g  (in zero gravity) then the beam of light crossing the elevator must appear (for an observer in the elevator) to have a bend downwards equal to a ballistic trajectory. 

If the elevator is fixed to the surface of Earth then according to Einstein's  1915  version of GR the bend downwards will be equal to the aforementioned ballistic bending, the GR bending in the elevator being due to the time-dilation half of spacetime.  The other half of  GR bending is the spatial half of spacetime bending & here it is zero because the spatial bending only applies to the radial component of the gravity field, & here in the elevator this component is zero (the gravity field being vertical).   Here we ignore Earth's spin & orbit & the associated centrifugal accelerations (ie for the purpose of the thort-X   Earth is not spinning or orbiting)(& we ignore the Moon).

I daresay that the above is in accord with what Einstein said. The bending due to gravity is numerically equal to the bending due to acceleration & both are numerically equal to the simple ballistic bending (if g is the same in each case).

My understanding of  GR  is that the presence of mass makes time dilate, moreso near the mass, thusly the slower light in the bottom of the beam in the elevator is overtaken by the faster light in the top of the beam, thusly making the beam curve-bend downwards towards the mass.  This is the time portion of spacetime bending.
And the presence of mass makes measuring rods contract in the radial direction from the effective center of mass, but there is no contraction in the tangential direction, & the beam in the elevator is moving in the tangential direction only, hencely is not affected.  Any such bending is the space portion of spacetime bending.

I am not sure that a photon follows a ballistic trajectory near mass.  And i don’t believe in the time-dilation reasoning for that half of the spacetime bending in  GR.  However i think that light is slowed near mass (giving Shapiro Delay).  And i believe that the modern satellite measurements of  1.75 arcsec of bending near the Sun are correct.  I think that there are some unknown reasons for all of this, & the GR reasoning is false, but accidentally gives the correct numerical solution (at least for bending near the Sun). 

Re the bending of light passing the Sun. This bending is the bending that happens to a photon when it comes from infinity, passes the Sun, & reaches Earth.  The mentions of  1.75 arcsec i think refer to the bending that happens when the photon comes from infinity passes the Sun & then goes to infinity -- likewise the  0.875 arcsec for each of the spatial GR bending & the time-dilation GR bending & the ballistic Newtonian bending.  But even tho these three bendings are equal for infinity to infinity they are different along the way, & strictly speaking the three bendings all have a slightly different numerical value at Earth's orbit (ie during eclipse) -- but the differences to the infinity to infinity bendings is trivial.

However in our elevator the strengths of the three bendings have a fixed value for each -- it aint similar to a photon approaching the Sun then passing the Sun then going away from the Sun, where the three strengths & directions change continuously.  The strengths in the elevator are similar to the strengths that we have when the photon is at its nearest to the Sun -- ie all three strengths in both cases are at 90 deg to the photon's trajectory.  For the GR time-dilation bending the strength is at a max -- for the spatial GR bending the strength is zero (because the photon is moving tangentially not radially) -- for the ballistic Newtonian bending the strength is at a max.

For the fourth bending, the acceleration bending in zero gravity field, this is in effect identical to the Newtonian ballistic bending but is due to the elevator going ballistic (in an acceleration field) rather than the photon going ballistic (in a gravity field), so the fourth bending generally doesnt get a special mention.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 16/12/2018 12:11:02
Now we come to my version of this thort-X,  an elevator in free-fall.
If there is no gravity field then the elevator will be static.  And we assume that it is not spinning.  The beam of light will go straight across the elevator, ie no bending.

If there is a gravity field then the elevator will accelerate at say  g.   If the gravity field happens to be exactly downwards in the elevator then the beam will bend downwards at a rate equal to the ballistic bending.  However the observer & elevator will fall at the same rate as the beam, hencely the beam will appear to go straight.
Here i am talking about the GR version, where the bending (in the elevator here) is due to time-dilation, which happens to be numerically equal to the ballistic bending.

Therefore the beam will appear to go straight when the elevator is in a gravity field & when not.  The only difference tween the two is that if there is a gravity field then the photon will not point exactly along the line of the beam, it will point downwards a little as it crosses the elevator,  the angle being at a max when it gets to the far wall.  To the observer the photon will appear to crab, ie skid sideways.  But the photon will in fact be propagating directly ahead in its own frame, ie as if following a simple curved trajectory.

So in theory it might be possible to measure the downwards angle.   However the problem is that the downwards angle of such a photon is certainly much too small to measure -- & in any case i don’t even know of any kind of test that might measure such an angle.   It’s a completely new area.  Still thinking.

At this point i wish to advise that i dont agree with the above GR analysis. I think that for accidental reasons the  0.875 arcsec of bending near the Sun due to time dilation is equal to the 0.875 arcsec of bending due to radial length contraction both of which are equal to the 0.875 arcsec of bending calculated for a simple ballistic trajectory.  In fact i think that there is no such thing as bending due to time dilation nor radial length contraction, both are false.  I think that there is bending equal to a simple ballistic bending, & in addition an equal extra dose of bending due to the slowing of light near mass.  The slowing of light near mass is due to photino drag, which i wont go into here (i mention it in another  thread).
Now, the ballistic bending & the bending due to drag might be equal for a beam passing the Sun, but they are unlikely to be equal for a beam crossing our elevator.  The result is i think that the bending in the elevator due to free-fall in a gravity field will not be a straight line, there will be bend (i am not sure how big)(it will be small)(still thinking).  Anyhow, if so, then that would allow an easier way to tell, ie measuring a bend has to be easier than measuring the photon downwards angle.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 16/12/2018 12:28:19
But it is obvious to me that if an elevator is accelerated upwards at  g  (in zero gravity) then the beam of light crossing the elevator must appear (for an observer in the elevator) to have a bend downwards equal to a ballistic trajectory. 
Careful of things you find 'obvious', but yes in this case.  Ditto for the one sitting on the surface of Earth.
The straight-across observation was for the freefall case, both in and not in a gravitational field.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 16/12/2018 12:40:33
Therefore the beam will appear to go straight when the elevator is in a gravity field & when not.
So says the 'silly' equivalence principle, yes.
Quote
To the observer the photon will appear to crab, ie skid sideways.  But the photon will in fact be propagating directly ahead in its own frame, ie as if following a simple curved trajectory.
So far you have failed to say how this can be measured.  If you like, make the gravity and distance large, so the 'crabbing' is significant.

Quote
So in theory it might be possible to measure the downwards angle.[/b]   However the problem is that the downwards angle of such a photon is certainly much too small to measure -- & in any case i don’t even know of any kind of test that might measure such an angle.
It would I suppose help if there was such a thing.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 16/12/2018 21:29:07
WHAT  CAN  AN  ELEVATOR  THORT-X  TELL US ?
A thort-X  can be a good illustration of an idea, but it can never prove anything.  Proof can only be approached by tests-measurements-experiments.  It seems that Einstein was happy in 1911 to spout that bending of light in an elevator would be seen to be identical for when the elevator was accelerating upwards at  g  in zero gravity compared to when it was stationary in a gravity field of strength  g.   Yet in  1915  in his  GR  he decided to add that in a gravity field there was an additional bending due to length contraction in the radial direction due to gravity potential near mass.   But not a word about his original spouting about his  1911 elevator equivalence of bending. 

Einstein could have pointed out that his  1911 spouting was not affected because the radial length contraction in the elevator was zero because the gravity field is at 90 deg to the beam (& the cosine of 90 deg is zero).  That would be correct numerically, but it wouldn’t be ok reputation wise – the excuse would hold up in court, but nonetheless it was morally a disaster.  So Einstein decided to ignore the whole elevator bending of light stuff after that  (hey everyone, look over there, it’s a blackhole).

Suddenly in  1915  Einstein had managed to prove that thort-Xs  are not as good as might be thort. 
How can acceleration & gravity in  1911  be equivalent if in  1915  u find that gravity includes a new major effect.   Thort-Xs would never be the same again.  Up till then u could virtually get a Nobel for a good thort-X, but no more. 
Of course the usual thing happened.  Einsteinian apologists over the years came up with all manner of excuses that acceleration  g  definitely involves a characteristic  that mimics  gravity g.  Apologists in SR & in GR have an almost endless menu of relativistic tricks.  They can with ease show that in an accelerated elevator clocks near the floor tick slower than clocks near the ceiling, just as if the elevator were sitting a gravity field.  Amazing stuff.

U can draw a matrix of their stupid excuses. They can play with time-dilation & length contraction & relativistic mass.  They can invoke observers sitting in all sorts of places, inside, outside, far away, moving, sitting, jumping.  The effect can be real or it can be perceived-apparent.  They can talk of individual photons when it helps them, but mainly they ignore photons & anything micro & invoke macro things like waves & wave-fronts & beams & rays.

Their arguments & proofs usually have one or two direct or indirect circular references to the issues in question, eg they will use  GR to help explain  GR, eg they will use an elevator thort-X to help establish GR, & then use GR to help excuse a problem with the elevator thort-X. 
Even better, they have no hesitation in invoking arguments that directly contradict  SR  or GR, or thems postulates & principles & laws.  It all comes naturally  (hey, look over there, it’s a gravity wave).
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 17/12/2018 01:17:12
But it is obvious to me that if an elevator is accelerated upwards at  g  (in zero gravity) then the beam of light crossing the elevator must appear (for an observer in the elevator) to have a bend downwards equal to a ballistic trajectory. 
Careful of things you find 'obvious', but yes in this case.  Ditto for the one sitting on the surface of Earth.
The straight-across observation was for the freefall case, both in and not in a gravitational field.
Yes obvious aint necessarily obvious.  I do believe in relativity, neo Lorentz relativity, not Einsteinian SR & GR relativity (altho in many cases they give the same answer).  So i am comfortable with using gamma to show that the apparent whatever aint the same as the true whatever.  This applies to ticking & length.  But when inputting V into gamma i use absolute relative velocity (the velocity of the aetherwind), not the Einsteinian relative velocity.  But when Brown measures the angle of the two pendulums (wts on threads) then in a gravity field if he uses a measuring rod horizontally then the length of the rod will not be affected by its height from the floor because the rod is being held perpendicularly to the line of action of the field, Einsteinians & aetherists agree.  But ticking is almost certainly slower near the floor (in a gravity field) -- but i am not sure how that might affect Brown's measurement of parallel.  In #7 set fair i think alluded to this. I answered in #13.  Ticking might affect our perception of mass & of  N & of  g etc.  So anyhow yes obvious aint necessarily obvious.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 17/12/2018 01:38:06
Therefore the beam will appear to go straight when the elevator is in a gravity field & when not.
So says the 'silly' equivalence principle, yes.
I think that there are a few 'the' equivalence principles.
The primary one is i think the law of the equivalence of inert mass & gravity mass (as per Einstein's chest thort-X).
The next one is say the weak equivalence principle, that all things fall at the same speed.
The next one is say that all experiments will give the same equivalent result in any-every reference frame.
And we are mainly talking here re the equivalence of bending of light in an accelerated frame & in a gravity field.
18dec2018: There is a 5th equivalence -- equivalence is the name given to the accidental result that someone gets the correct number using the wrong reasons (or the correct equation using the wrong logic). Einstein's SR & GR are full of this stuff, or they would be if they in fact gave the correct results (SR & GR are rarely accurate)(as we are now finding in our modern accurate world)
Quote
To the observer the photon will appear to crab, ie skid sideways.  But the photon will in fact be propagating directly ahead in its own frame, ie as if following a simple curved trajectory.
So far you have failed to say how this can be measured.  If you like, make the gravity and distance large, so the 'crabbing' is significant.
I will talk about this later today.
Quote
So in theory it might be possible to measure the downwards angle.[/b]   However the problem is that the downwards angle of such a photon is certainly much too small to measure -- & in any case i don’t even know of any kind of test that might measure such an angle.
It would I suppose help if there was such a thing.
Modern science seems to have ignored photons.  There is little official info re how long or wide etc a photon is or isnt. Are photons dead straight.  When they propagate along a curved-bent beam do individual photons bend internally or do they remain straight.  Later today i hope to describe a test re measuring-detecting the downwards angle (crabbing angle).
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 17/12/2018 01:51:12
I do believe in relativity, neo Lorentz relativity, not Einsteinian SR & GR relativity (altho in many cases they give the same answer).
In all cases they give the same empirical answer.  If they didn't, there would be a falsification test.  Your aether theory on the other hand does not.

Quote
But when Brown measures the angle of the two pendulums (wts on threads) then in a gravity field if he uses a measuring rod horizontally then the length of the rod will not be affected by its height from the floor because the rod is being held perpendicularly to the line of action of the field, Einsteinians & aetherists agree.
I don't think orientation in a gravitational field has any effect on length of a rod in its own frame.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: Halc on 17/12/2018 02:02:17
Quote from: Halc
So says the 'silly' equivalence principle, yes.
I think that there are a few 'the' equivalence principles.
The primary one is i think the law of the equivalence of inert mass & gravity mass (as per Einstein's chest thort-X).
The next one is say the weak equivalence principle, that all things fall at the same speed.
The next one is say that all experiments will give the same equivalent result in any-every reference frame.
None of those.  I means the one that comes up when you google "equivalence principle".
The inertial thing is a corollary of it.
Things do not fall at the same speed, but rather accelerate identically under an identical gravitational field.
Not all experiments yield the same result in different frames.

Quote
Modern science seems to have ignored photons.  There is little official info re how long or wide etc a photon is or isnt. Are photons dead straight.
No, photons are quantum entities and do not have classic properties such as dimensions, straightness, or even location.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 17/12/2018 06:52:05
Quote from: Halc
So says the 'silly' equivalence principle, yes.
I think that there are a few 'the' equivalence principles.
The primary one is i think the law of the equivalence of inert mass & gravity mass (as per Einstein's chest thort-X).
The next one is say the weak equivalence principle, that all things fall at the same speed.
The next one is say that all experiments will give the same equivalent result in any-every reference frame.
None of those.  I means the one that comes up when you google "equivalence principle". The inertial thing is a corollary of it.
I googled. Here is the wiki.......
Einstein's statement of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass
A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:
(Inertial mass) * (Acceleration)  =  (Intensity of the gravitational field) * (Gravitational mass).
It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body.[1][2]


The underlined wordage is a load of krapp.  Einstein didnt understand that there is no such thing as gravity mass, all is inertial mass because (1) the way we measure gravity mass is to measure the inertial mass, & (2) we invent gravity mass by giving it a definition (shades of proof by naming), & (3) gravity mass does not exist, & (4) gravity mass is not needed in any context, & (5) gravity mass is of no use. So, there is always numerical equality of inertial & gravity mass, because it is merely equality of inertial mass & inertial mass.
And we might never know whether acceleration is independent of the nature of the body.
The only way to tell is if u get the body & count all of the elementary particles & calculate the theoretical mass & then do a test to measure the whole mass. So here we would be testing to see if all of the elementary inertia's tally with the inertia of the whole body. And even here things might get sticky koz acceleration is hiding quietly inside of our measurement of inertial force hencely acceleration can hardly be independent.
18dec2018: Yet due to Einsteinian non-understanding of mass we still see raving re how some lab somewhere has now proven equivalence to over 20 decimals -- whereas all they are proving is that inertia equals inertia -- hell i wouldnt be surprized if someone got a Nobel for proving that inertia equals inertia -- idiots.
Things do not fall at the same speed, but rather accelerate identically under an identical gravitational field.
No it means the same thing in different words. My wording is simpler & thusly better.
Not all experiments yield the same result in different frames.
I partly agree. The truth is closer to ......... No experiment yields the same result in a different frame.
Us aetherists know that the aetherwind affects all of physics. Here i am talking about hard core physics.

For example i suspect that mass depends on velocity. This dependence is masked by ticking dilation, because ticking too depends on velocity.  Here i dont mean that velocity gives energy & energy has mass -- i dont believe that energy has mass.  We never measure mass, we only measure apparent mass -- however it is an accident of Lorentzian relativity that apparent mass happens to equal true (absolute) mass, at all velocities (but as i said i suspect that there is a small violation). 
But it gets weirder -- the speed of light depends on the nearness of mass (ie the gravity potential) -- & ticking depends on the speed of light -- hencely measurements of mass are affected by the nearness of mass, not just velocity -- i think that mass appears greater when near other mass.  U heard it here first.
Quote
Modern science seems to have ignored photons.  There is little official info re how long or wide etc a photon is or isnt. Are photons dead straight.
No, photons are quantum entities and do not have classic properties such as dimensions, straightness, or even location.
Our quantum universe begins with the photon as the primary particle, or quasi-particle.  A photon has mass & size.  And forms elementary particles (electrons quarks etc). 
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 17/12/2018 07:55:02
I do believe in relativity, neo Lorentz relativity, not Einsteinian SR & GR relativity (altho in many cases they give the same answer).
In all cases they give the same empirical answer.  If they didn't, there would be a falsification test.  Your aether theory on the other hand does not.
Aether theory underpins both Lorentzian relativity (Earth slips throo a fixed aether) & neo Lorentzian relativity (Earth has a background aetherwind).
V in Einstein's gamma is the relative velocity tween observers.
V in Lorentz's gamma is the relative absolute velocity (ie one of the two observers is the absolute observer who is sitting in the aether rest-frame & sees the true velocity & mass & length & ticking in every other frame)(ie V is the velocity of the aetherwind).
Quote
But when Brown measures the angle of the two pendulums (wts on threads) then in a gravity field if he uses a measuring rod horizontally then the length of the rod will not be affected by its height from the floor because the rod is being held perpendicularly to the line of action of the field, Einsteinians & aetherists agree.
I don't think orientation in a gravitational field has any effect on length of a rod in its own frame.
Thats not the GR version.  But it might depend on whether one is talking about true length or apparent length.  In neo Lorentzian relativity if the observer & rod are at rest in the same frame then the apparent length mass ticking is always equal to the true length mass ticking.  But the size of the true mass length ticking might be a more difficult question (but luckily the true mass length ticking are probly of no interest or use anyhow).

Funnily, neo Lorentzian relativity doesnt recognize that light is slowed near mass, however oddly enuff that doesnt spoil the old law that if the observer & rod are at rest in the same frame then the apparent length mass ticking is always equal to the true length mass ticking.  The ignorance of the additional dose of slowing is automatically compensated by its affect on ticking, & Lorentzians-aetherists are not aware of this.  Einstein was aware of the slowing of light near mass, but he had false causes, ie SR & GR -- the real cause is photaeno-drag.

Neo Lorentzian relativity does recognize that light is or might be slowed near mass, because aether flows & accelerates into mass, & the aetherwind inflow is greater nearer the mass, & photons travel at  c in the aether, hencely travel at c+v or c-v in an aetherwind.  However if the background aetherwind is going the same way as the inflow then we have c+v & if going the other way we have c-v.  Hencely ticking can be slowed or fasted depending on whether the clock is sitting on the near side of the mass or the far side. 
Slowing due to photaeno-drag due to the presence of mass does not depend on which side of the mass the clock is sitting.
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 17/12/2018 21:04:30
Quote
To the observer the photon will appear to crab, ie skid sideways.  But the photon will in fact be propagating directly ahead in its own frame, ie as if following a simple curved trajectory.
So far you have failed to say how this can be measured.  If you like, make the gravity and distance large, so the 'crabbing' is significant.
Quote
So in theory it might be possible to measure the downwards angle.[/b]   However the problem is that the downwards angle of such a photon is certainly much too small to measure -- & in any case i don’t even know of any kind of test that might measure such an angle.
It would I suppose help if there was such a thing.
the photons coming from the distant star will be pointing exactly along that vizible line,  whereas photons coming from an internal source can be crabbing-skidding as they come out (i can explain).
You say you can, but you don't.  Last I checked, I could not purchase a photon-crab-skidding detector.   You need a security clearance to get one.
No one can get a crabbing detector during the closed breeding season.   But just to clarify -- no photon can ever crab or skid or sidle -- photons always go where they are pointing.   But in some instances they can give the illusion of crabbing -- say when their natural curved path is negated by the acceleration of the elevator, giving an apparent straight trajectory across the elevator -- whereas the photon in its own pilot's seat is thinking that it is going dead straight at all times.

Re a possible crabbing detector, i cant think of a good one.  I had a think about putting a mirror on each wall thusly making the beam reflect to & fro.  A pair of mirrors can after 4290 km of reflexion result in a beam drop of  1.002 mm & a beam angle of   93  micro arcsec.   After 1,000,000 km of reflexion the drop is  54,444 mm  & the angle is  only 0.0224 arcsec.  All of this is in a gravity field of 1g (ie 9.8 m/s/s)
So, mirrors can magnify the drop in mm, but the crabbing angle is such a small thing that magnification up to an appreciable number would need too many reflexions.    And after u have magnified the crabbing up to a nice number, how do u actually measure it?
Title: Re: Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/12/2018 02:37:25
THE  ELEPHANT  IN  EINSTEIN'S  ELEVATOR.
Physicists are lucky. Experiments would be a nightmare if not for a miracle.
AETHERWIND.   Aetherists know that true length & true ticking & the shape of our eyes & experimental instruments  vary because they depend on the strength & direction of the aetherwind (V kmps) blowing throo the lab.  This is because the aetherwind adds to the speed of light, it makes the relative speed of light  c+V  or  c-V, where  c is the natural speed of the natural propagation of light throo a static aether.  The relative speed of light affects the speed & strength of the electrostatic forces binding solids etc, & hencely affects length & shape & ticking.  The size of the dilation is described by the equation for the Lorentzian gamma, which includes  c  &  V.
The wind (V kmps) is the superposing of the background aetherwind blowing past Earth  & the local aetherwind flowing into Earth to replace aether annihilated in the mass of Earth & lab & Igor & the instruments.

PHOTAENO-DRAG.   In addition true length & true ticking etc also vary due to proximity to mass. This is not due to any aetherwind --  it is due to photaeno-drag which slows the natural speed of light near mass (here  c  becomes  c').  If the speed of light is slowed then electrostatic forces binding solids are also slowed, & this affects the true shape of solids & length & ticking in a similar way  (i presume) to the effects of the aetherwind.
I presume that the dilatory effects of the aetherwind (c+v)  & photaeno-drag (c')  are additive not negatival.

The miracle is that in the lab we will always happen to see & measure the true length & shape &ticking & mass etc.  It’s a happy accident.  What we always see & measure is the apparent shape etc, but, luckily for science, the apparent shape etc is always the true shape etc.   For example if the true shape of a sphere elongates then it will still look like a sphere if the observer's eye elongates too.
If it were not so, we would not be able to have a simple standard for a metre or kilogram or second etc.
Every test would give a different result in different labs, or in the same lab but at a different time.

Re photaeno-drag, photaenos emanate from the central helical body of a photon, they are a vibration or spin or something of the aether, & photaenos are what we call electromagnetic radiation.  Photaenos propagate at  c  or praps  at  5c  or mightbe even faster.   They probly have mass (ie inertia), ie they probly annihilate aether.
Elementary particles (electrons quarks etc) are confined photons (photons that have formed a loop by biting their own tails), & hencely photaenos emanate from elementary particles (confined photons)(ie from mass) as well as from light (free photons). 
Photaenos fight for the use of the aether, because aether can only do so much, aether has a finite capacity for the needed vibrations or spins etc.   This tardiness feeds back to the main body of the photon thusly indirectly slowing its progress. 
Or if u like there is a direct drag acting on the main helical body of the photon where the main body has to propagate throo a sea of photaenos (emanating from other photons & mass).  The main helical body will itself be some sort of vibration or spin associated with a strong annihilation of aether.  Either way whether a direct drag or an indirect drag it is a photaeno-drag.

An elevator is a lab.  But we cant assume that every test carried out in the elevator will give consistent results.  For starters an elevator is not a fixed lab, & there might be complications if the elevator is moving at uniform speed up or down, or if it is accelerating.   
And even if an elevator is static there can be problems.  A test carried out in a horizontal plane might be ok, but might present problems if the observer is not exactly in the same plane.
A test involving height inside the elevator is a problem because a different height (eg a test at floor level compared to ceiling level)(or a test involving something moving from floor to ceiling etc) might involve a change in aetherwind & a change in photon-drag at the two different levels.  Here we are talking about a gravity field.

This miracle of being able to automatically see-measure true shape & ticking etc is praps the main reason why we can do science the way we do.   It’s the elephant in the elevator.  Worse than that, it isn’t so much that we ignore the elephant, most of us don’t even know it exists, Einsteinians don’t.
If the observer is not close to the test then it might be necessary to apply a gamma correction to the numbers.  Einsteinians don’t know that, they think that u only need to apply a correction if the observer has a non-zero relative velocity.
So, aetherists ignore the elephant in the elevator, but Einsteinians dont even know that it is there.