| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mitchell" |
| Date: |
07 Nov 2004 09:46:51 PM |
| Object: |
Generalizing the Equivalence Principle |
The equivalence principle must be generalized. A gravitational field
or weight in gravity is fundamentally different from an accelerated
frame of reference's. The accelerated frame involves time. Weight
in gravity doesn't depend on a rate.
You can get an unlimited weight in accelerated motion by changing the
speed over ever smaller amounts of time. That acceleration is
potentially infinite. But without a rate the acceleration equivalence of a
gravitational field becomes a limited quantity. That limit is the
fundamental constant known as the speed of light.
Accelerated frame is: the Rate of change in velocity/potentially infinite.
Gravity's general acceleration equivalence is: only change in velocity
without any rate/and is limited.
The maximum change in velocity is less than the speed of light.
That is gravity's strength limit.
The speed limit defines the change in speed limit. This is the general
equivalent to a gravitational field or gravity's weight.
Thanyou,
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
| User: "Patrick Reany" |
|
| Title: Re: Generalizing the Equivalence Principle |
08 Nov 2004 11:58:11 AM |
|
|
(Mitchell) wrote in message news:<9c3da975.0411071946.68f1db7@posting.google.com>...
The equivalence principle must be generalized. A gravitational field
or weight in gravity is fundamentally different from an accelerated
frame of reference's. The accelerated frame involves time. Weight
in gravity doesn't depend on a rate.
An equivalence is an equivalence, not necessarily an identity. But
equivalent for what purpose? Einstein made it very clear: For the
purpose of DESCRIPTION of events through laws of physics. Invent any
theory of gravity that you want, and the Principle of Equivalence is a
constraint on that theory.
Some people here just can't seem to distinguish between their
subjective intuistic notion of reality, which has NOTHING to do with
physics, and intersubjective description of reality, which is all that
physics can aspire to be. But science education fails to teach that to
students. Thus the cranks and hundreds of subsequent misconceptions.
Patrick
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Generalizing the Equivalence Principle |
08 Nov 2004 11:01:45 PM |
|
|
Notice the rocket changed you rest mass BUT BUT gravity did not change
rest mass so no resistance to implulsive forces was overcome.
The rocked forces your feet to the deck .
But a falling rocket just keeps up with your rate. One changed your
rest mass and afected its mass too. One dint afect its mass energy wile
falling.
You resisted the rocket but not the gravity and the net energy between
thust and gravity is less for gravity .
what did Uncle idiot think he knew about gravity anyway ??
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Generalizing the Equivalence Principle |
08 Nov 2004 10:53:19 PM |
|
|
YES they are not the same.
Gravity and thust have just one diferance.
Gravity don't have somthing to overcome that thust does .
Thrush must overcome the resistance to implulsive forces.
Gravity dont .
These idots like greaser and slam sam wouldnt know that .
Equivalance is allready equal and interchangable ,,,,,,,how
generalised is that ?
Mass and energy are interchangable and the sum of all thier qualities
and Identical to conservation.
How simple .
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Generalizing the Equivalence Principle |
08 Nov 2004 03:10:47 AM |
|
|
(Mitchell) wrote in message news:<9c3da975.0411071946.68f1db7@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Stop posting.
A reminder has been sent to your email.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Generalizing the Equivalence Principle |
08 Nov 2004 05:35:04 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <fsegg@uaf.edu> wrote in message news:fd0fc2fa.0411080110.472f4379@posting.google.com...
macromitch@internetCDS.com (Mitchell) wrote in message news:<9c3da975.0411071946.68f1db7@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Stop posting.
A reminder has been sent to your email.
When you tell the neighbour's naughty kid to stop throwing
stones into your garden, he will start throwing them at your
head as well.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Zinni" |
|
| Title: Re: Generalizing the Equivalence Principle |
08 Nov 2004 07:12:33 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:418f59f0$0$7662$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
"Eric Gisse" <fsegg@uaf.edu> wrote in message
news:fd0fc2fa.0411080110.472f4379@posting.google.com...
macromitch@internetCDS.com (Mitchell) wrote in message
news:<9c3da975.0411071946.68f1db7@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Stop posting.
A reminder has been sent to your email.
When you tell the neighbour's naughty kid to stop throwing
stones into your garden, he will start throwing them at your
head as well.
Rough neighbourhood ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Generalizing the Equivalence Principle |
08 Nov 2004 01:40:00 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
The equivalence principle must be generalized.
All bodies fall identically in vacuum regardless of composition,
internal structure, or situation.
Idiot.
[snip boring ignorant crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Generalizing the Equivalence Principle |
08 Nov 2004 01:16:25 AM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
The equivalence principle must be generalized. A gravitational field
or weight in gravity is fundamentally different from an accelerated
frame of reference's. The accelerated frame involves time. Weight
in gravity doesn't depend on a rate.
The deeper you go into a gravity well, the slower time
runs. This is experimental fact BTW.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Generalizing the Equivalence Principle |
08 Nov 2004 08:36:32 PM |
|
|
Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message news:<B1Fjd.49081$G15.20728@fed1read03>...
Mitchell wrote:
The equivalence principle must be generalized. A gravitational field
or weight in gravity is fundamentally different from an accelerated
frame of reference's. The accelerated frame involves time. Weight
in gravity doesn't depend on a rate.
The deeper you go into a gravity well, the slower time
runs. This is experimental fact BTW.
Mark L. Fergerson
There is a problem Mark. Time ends at the event horizon.
But what is the timerate inside the black hole?
How can time end then start over again and then end again
at the singularity?
The slowdown of time gives the gravitational redshift also.
But it goes infinite at the event horizon Mark.
That means GR predicts light of infinite wavelength;
Energyless light in the infinite Einstein shift.
Dead light?
PoppyCock.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Generalizing the Equivalence Principle |
08 Nov 2004 11:21:05 PM |
|
|
Inside a black hole time and mass are interchangable. Instead of mass
and energy .
All things and all time where gold becomes clear as glass.
Thats where evry carbon atom of dna you recorded all you ever knew on
a trillion times a day is going to change states.
Thats where God gets to ride your supperglide. jesus is on thet
carbon atom with you. You know how he got there ?? dna makes copies
,,,he gave evryone a copie.
high seas ,,,30 feet ,,,up and 30 down and role port ,,spash the bow
air the screws and 40 up as a role to starboard ....
Now you type wile I rock yer seat.
Its hard to read when yer heads swinging and yer ***** is sliding around
..
Im glad the hold is not 1/2 loaded or th cargo would shift and we would
die.
Its some kind of merical we dont die out here .
I saw a wave an hour ago 60 feet high and curling like it was on a
beach. It ran up and tryed knocking the deckhouse off.
we went threw it real hard .
we saw a trawler go threw it and it pushed it back dwn and ramed the
aft deckhouse under for 4 seconds all the way past the bridge and the
wave left it standing on end till it fell rite.
It stayed running.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Generalizing the Equivalence Principle |
10 Nov 2004 10:47:03 PM |
|
|
(tj Frazir) wrote in message news:<18373-419053C1-644@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net>...
Inside a black hole time and mass are interchangable. Instead of mass
and energy .
The end of time is the end of the Unified Field; the end of everything TJ.
Ending time ends everything else as well. Its the law of unification.
When the first physicists solved the equations of black holes they
thought they saw matter literally dropping out of the universe.
But if there are black holes at the center of every galaxy
and the mass disappears then the galaxies would all unravel.
But we don't see the centers of galaxies disappearing. They
appear to be stable. So I say time never ends in a black hole.
It just stretches endlessly.
Ending time would end mass as well. But this is clearly not happening.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
