- Thank you received: 0
One disproof of EP?
I am sorry but I have nothing to say any more that will not be a repetition of what I said before. I'll go find my friend Patrick and talk about 0 and infinity. It makes more sense.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
<b>Bravo</b> to you Makis, I'm here for you if you need me.<img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Let me try another way:
In classical physics, Sir Newton discovered gravitational force F = GMm / R^2.
In order to use the law in SR, I “modify” the law with Lorentz transformation, and I get
F = GMm.gamma / R^2
Where M = rest mass of a huge mass.
m = rest mass of a very small mass.
gamma = 1/ sqrt(1-v^2/r^2)
v = speed ( scalar value of velocity of m in respect to M ) , right at distance R.
1/ Consider m is in a circular orbit around M
In a circular orbit, m is always moving in a perpendicular direction to the gravitation force F. With SR, I get
F = m.a.gamma
GMm.gamma / R^2 = m.a.gamma
a = GM / R^2
In order not to violate EP, which state that g = a, I have to define g = GM / R^2
2/ Consider m is in a free fall
In a free fall, m is always moving on line of the gravitational force. With SR, I get
F = m.a.(gamma^3)
GMm.gamma / R^2 = m.a.(gamma^3)
a = GM (gamma^-2) / R^2, This acceleration value is different from g.
Thus, I claim that if SR is right, then EP is inconsistent.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
In classical physics, Sir Newton discovered gravitational force F = GMm / R^2.
In order to use the law in SR, I “modify” the law with Lorentz transformation, and I get
F = GMm.gamma / R^2
Cindy, If you apply a Lorentz transformation to a unicorn, what do you get? Certainly, no dinner for Thanksgiving.
For a last time, please understand that you can apply transformations to laws that are consistent with the context of the theory that defines the transformations in the first place. You cannot apply such a transformation to Newton's law. That law is not compatible with SR. It violates the principle of non-simultaneiaty. That is why, Einstein had to proceed and invent a new theory for gravity- curved space time, which was the result of the EP assumption or principle.
To help you understand this in another way: just forget about EP for a moment, and the rest of your proof and anser the following question:
Is he following law valid in relativistic speeds:
F = GMm.gamma / R^2
My answer is that it's not valid and I hope so is yours.
But if it is not valid, you cannot use it to prove anything relating to relativity or anything else. It is useless.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>just forget about EP for a moment, and the rest of your proof and answer the following question:
Is her following law valid in relativistic speeds?
F = GMm.gamma / R^2 <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Yes, it is. I don't see Cindy's equation violates anything, but I see that you are violating your own rule.
We all know that Physics is branch of science, in which physiscists try to describe natural phenomena in mathematics. And of course, a convincible theory is often begun with wrong assumptions. Experiments are good ways to determine whether an assumption is good or bad. I understand you will not reject EP until there is an experiment, which can show <b>g</b> differs from <b>a</b> clearly. However, you don't apply the same rule to Cindy's. Is there any experiment performed for her equation?
We all know that a moving mass has more energy than it does at rest. And if we agree that the universal force influences all forms of matter, then Cindy's equation does make some senses. The product (m.gamma) is simply total energy of the moving mass m ( m.gamma = rest mast + kinetic energy).
Yes, you are free not to use her equation. However, if you don't use it, you will never know how wonderful it is.
We, human being, probably never describe the force in mathematics perfectly. So, why don't we use her equation which still provides us very correct results? In addition, her equation is so simple and easy to use for everyone in comparison of very complex and awful calculations of GR.
I bet you and other physicists disprove the equation with experiments.
PS: Cindy's equation is free for everyone to use. But, whoever uses it, please do not forget Cindy.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.