Joe Fischer wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 05:04:28 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
<rubbish@junk.com> wrote: > > >"Joe Fischer" wrote: > >>
On Sun, "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> continued to insist;
You have not given a single reference indicating a difference between
the principle of equivalence and the equivalence principle. If you
have one insert it here:
7. A ROSE is still a ROSE, by any other name.
NEW SI GUESS iSS: kg*meter^3 / (sec)^2 = (mol part)*K*Weber*sec.
Magnetic, electric, mass & radiation PRODUCTs of GENERAL CHARGE:
{p1*p2}*Ua = {q1*q2} / Ea = 4*pi*Ga*{M1*m1} = {C2a*C2b} / Ea*c^4
= 4*pi*Gr*G*{M1*m1} = (C2)^2 / Ea*c^4
..note n = mD / m1 -> = 4*pi*G*{M1*m1} / (n - 1)
= 4*pi*rA*eG
= 4*pi*[e]^2
..in units of: -> kilogram*(meter)^3 / (second)^2.
ADDENDUM 2
GENERAL GUESS electronvolt ENERGY +eV = -(m1*v1^2 / 2) = + pA*fA.
GENERAL GUESS photon mass [mph] = nA*{mph}*ls / rA = m1 = mD / n.
PARTiCULAR iSS photon mass {mph} = 2*pi*h / tp*c^2 = hbar / ls*c
= hbar / ts*c^2 = h / 2*pi*ls*c.
C2 = SECOND RADiATiON Constant.
k = Boltzmann's Constant -> J / (mol part)*K.
Cg = Ra / [S] = eK / L = the GUESS COMPLEXiTY.
eK = eG - eF = E - eM = Ra*L / [S] = KiNETiC energy.
eV = eG - eM = eK - L = -(m1*v1^2 / 2) -> V*A*sec ENERGY.
L = h*fL = pL*c = [mph]*c^2 = nA*{mph}*ls*c^2 / rA = eK / Cg;
= the GUESS very MOST WELL-defined LaGrangian, indeed, ever.!!
("e") = TransCENdental base of natural (Naperian) Logarithms.
mS = The GUESS SiGNETiC mass = (mD - m1) = (n - 1)*m1.
Qx = Stefan-Boltzmann RADiATiON number RATiO Constant.
Rh = h / {e}^2 = basic QUANTUM Hall RESiSTANCE -> Ohm.
Ua = Ur*Uo = Absolute PERMEABiLiTY -> kg*m / (A*sec)^2.
Ea = Er*Eo = Absolute PERMiTTiViTY -> kg*m / (V*sec)^2.
Ga = Gr*Go = Absolute GRAViTY -> m^3 / kg*(sec)^2.
{e} = Basic ELECTRiC CHARGE -> (mol part)*K*(sec)^2 / m -> A*sec;
= 10^9*A*sec / ("e")^64 = F / Na = mSUN*A*sec / ("e")^56*mEARth.
eG = Gibb's free Newtonian iSOLATED system ENERGY -> Joule -> J.
mD = m1's CAViTY DisCHARGE mass of AMBiENT (= m1 at WEiGHTlessNESS).
Ra = Na*k = F*k / {e} = Cg*[S] = eK*[S] / L = (h + 2*hbar) / hbar.!!
Mp = PLANCK mass.
Koo = Rydberg TEMPERATURE;
= C2 / (mol part)oo*loo.
nA = ANGULAR momenta NUMBER.
Moo*c^2 = Hartree ENERGY = eH.
me = 10^4*Qx*u = ELECTRON mass.
ls = (Planck LENGTH lp) / 4*(pi)^2.
Ub = Bohr MAGNETON -> J / T -> A*m^2.
B = Ua*[>H] -> Tesla -> kg / A*(sec)^2.
wls = (Compton electron WAVElength wlc) / 2*pi.
G = Universal Gravitational Constant = Go = Ga / Gr.
loo = Rydberg LENGTH = C2 / (mol part)oo*Koo = 1 / Roo.
(mol part)oo = {e}*c^2 / Koo*loo = Rydberg MOLAR PARTiCLE.
a = AMBiENT Fine Structure ALPHA = (n - 1) = G / Ga = 1 / Gr.
(n - 1) = (mD / m1) - 1 = mS / m1 = G / Ga = 1 / Gr = Go / Ga.
[mph] = nA*{mph}*ls / rA = h*fL / c^2 = m1 = mD / n ..PHOTON mass.
m1 = mD - mS = (CAViTY n DisCHARGE mass mD) / n = [mph]; TEST mass.
{p1*p2} = MAGNETiC pole PRODUCT -> (A*m)^2 -> {(mol part)*K*sec)}^2
-> (A*m*sec)^2 / (sec)^2 -> (Debye / sec)^2.
{q1*q2} = ELECTRiCAL CHARGEs PRODUCT = {e}^2 -> (A*sec)^2.
{M1*m1} = GRAViTATiONAL mass PRODUCT = (mass)^2 -> (Kilogram)^2.
{C2a*C2b} = SECOND RADiATiON PRODUCT = (C2)^2 -> ((mol part)*K*m)^2
= {((mol part)oo1*Koo1*loo1)*((mol part)oo2*Koo2*loo2)} saltFiNGERs;
= 4*pi*Ea*G*{M1*m1}*c^4 / (n - 1)
= 4*pi*Ea*Ga*{M1*m1}*c^4
= Ea*Ua*{p1*p2}*c^4 = F*h*c^3 / Ra
= {q1*q2}*c^4 = F*h*c^3 / Na*k
= {e}^2*c^4 = F*h*c^3 / Cg*[S]
= 4*pi*Ea*eG*rA*c^4 ..note COMPLEXiTY Cg & ENTROPY [S];
= 4*pi*Er*Eo*[e]^2*c^4 = 4*pi*Eo*me*ao{(n1 - 1)*(n2 - 1)}*c^6
= ((mol part)oo*Koo*loo)^2 ..ALL in units of -> A^2*m^4 / (sec)^2.
I am not going to insert anything, anyplace.
It suddenly becomes clear that your agenda is to defend the
moronic idea of "force of gravity" and "action-at-a-distance" --
Gravitational-automatic-instantaneous-action-a-distance-over-zero?
[NATURE doesn't care if g = v1^2 / r1 = vescape^2 / 2*(n - 1)*r1].
-- by invoking the sub-principles used in certain gravitational
experiments.
Well, I finally caught on, and I will not fall for it, there
is no "force of gravity", freefall is inertial motion, regardless
of how the mathematicians track the apparent motions due
to gravity.
Most writers don't use two different names for the two
different concepts, which is probably why you and many/most
people don't see the difference.
$ EinsteiN's LAW (the *significant* PoE) of Equivalence.
$ EinsteiN's LAW (the *original* EP) is NOT "relativistic";
$ EinsteiN's LAW (the *revelant* EP) is NOT the GR gtr PoE:
1. [ ANY energy e / c^2 = EQUiVALENT mass ]
2. [ ANY mass m = EQUiVALENT energy / c^2 ].
3. GUESS REST mass m = e / c^2 is EQUiVALENT ..NOT relativistic.!!
4. GUESS ABSORBED photon REST mass E_o / c^2 ..NOT relativistic.!!
5. Note that the *RELATiViSTiC* only applies with some VELOCiTY.!!
6. But, get this, EinsteiN's LAW also iNCLUDEs the RELATiViSTiC.!!
That's the *great UNfathomable BEAUTY* of EinsteiN's LAW.!!
I presume you mean most writers don't use two different name
for the same concept.
No, I stated what I mean, I think I stated it clearly,
there is no "attraction", and anybody that wants to perpetuate
the Newtonian (useful) nonsense is welcome to, but leave me out
of it, I am not a threat to anybody.
I suppose you have the right to state your beliefs, but why
attack me? I quoted Einstein, I tried to remove the illusions
of a super-complex natural process where some magical computers
calculate and apply a gravitational force to the gravitational mass
of an object, and that gravitational mass is precisely equal to
the inertial mass.
This is a VERY SiGNiFiCANT Ph.Tivitity "underlying reality" CHECK:
ONE significant DiFFERENCE between gravitational and inertial mass
is due *MEASUREABLY* to the fundamental EUCLiDiAN centro-symmetry.
[ This does NOT apply in GR ..GR CLEARLY has no centro-symmetry. ]
Whereas a GR TEST mass with no "g-field" CANNOT "ATTRACT" another,
and dropping TWO, at once, (impossible in GR-space-time), does NOT
in any way effect any change that would be DiFFERENT for just ONE.
However, dropping TWO *REAL* mass (non-GR ..GR has none), at once,
in the *REAL* world & *REAL* time, the TWO TEST mass will ATTRACT.
[This ATTRACTiON between TWO non-GR TEST mass, is a "MEASURABLE"].
[One "MEASURE" is the DiSTANCE between the SURFACE impact POiNTs].
This ATTRACTiON between TWO non-GR TEST mass, falsifies GR THEORY.
Also note that the *ONLY* GR input, into the MERCURY "anomaly", is
*exactly* THE GR input which *numerically* distinguished the ORBiT
MEASURE from the MEASURE which a purely NEWTONiAN account will be.
[ Namely the GR-planet MERCURY has *NO g-FiELD* in the GR PROOF. ]
[ Namely the ONLY GR-reason, WHY, a GR TEST mass has "NO field". ]
[ i.e. OTHERwise, there was ABSOLUTELY no OTHER GR-input at all. ]
CLEARLY, the GR "No-FiELD" of MERCURY *caused* the "PREDiCTiON".!!
That is a real dense way to learn GR. Posting ***** articles
and having them debunked, makes you out to be a crank ..instead
of someone who wants to learn about POiNT-mass on a WORLD-line.
I don't even know of a mathematical system capable
of even expressing the exact forces needed to cause equal
falling, let alone implement the exertion of that force at a
distance without any detectable mechanism.
This is where the discussion is, not the things you
accuse me of and not the reasons you attack me for.
Your supposed difference is the same as the semantic difference
between inertial mass and the mass associated with inertia
ie saying exactly the same thing in different words.
Gravitational mass & inertial mass HAS a field ..GR TEST mass does NOT,
due ENTiRELY to the CLEARLY-stated OFFiCiAL definition of GR TEST-mass.
No, thick skull, what I am saying is that Einstein was
impressed with the _FACT_ that iin the chest pulled by a rope in
deep space far from other matter, there is no gravitational force,
there is no need for the moronic term "gravitational mass", all
objects have to fall equally, because they don't fall, the room
is accelerated upward by the rope.
There is nothing new as long as the discussion is about the
equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, the newness hinges
on there not being any gravitional mass, there not being any gravitatiional force, there not being any mysterious long range forces not part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
This direct quote expresses the essence;
[Quote]
...with respect to all physical processes, that is, unless the
laws of nature with respect to K are in entire agreement with
those with respect to K'. By assuming this to be so, --
GR TEST-mass SPECiFiC definition has "NO g-field" ..unlike PLANETs.!!
-- we arrive at a principle which, if it is really true, has
great heuristic importance. For by theoretical consideration of
processes which take place relatively to a system of reference
with uniform acceleration, we obtain information as to the career
of processes in a homogeneous gravitational field."
(Einstein, 1911) > >> [Unquote]
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Many writers do identify the two by saying "Einsteins PoE",
which alone should suggest strongly that they are "not the same".
Bill
You are welcome to preach Newton and gravitational
attraction all you want, I will not interfere, but please leave me be.
I don't care to know what people disillusioned by a magical
force acting at a distance use to attack me, I understand why you
think I am a threat, the idea that there is no attractive force of
gravity makes all the studying you did a waste of time.
Einstein should have died a very happy man, because he
layed out all the possibilites, and defined freefall as inertial
motion once and for all, with no gravitational attraction --
You are a WEALTH of dis-information, jOE.!!
"No gravitational attraction" is *ONLY* ONE WAY for GR-TEST-mass.!!
-- and no gravitational
force, and he need not apologize to you.
I hope he didn't allow the mathematicians and the holdover
concepts from the dark ages cause him to search for a real physical
field that implements the ficticious force that does not exist.
$ Buoyed-weightless hollowed mass in ambient
Gravity DOEs NOT EXiST, if everything's in *weighed* equilibrium.!!
Gravity DOEs NOT EXiST, if everything's in *buoyant* equilibrium.!!
Gravity DOEs NOT EXiST, as a MEASURABLE at *buoyant* equilibrium.!!
Gravity DOEs NOT EXiST, as a MEASURABLE with a *buoyancy* of ZERO.!!
Note the GUESS iSS (+) is OUTgoing; But GUESS iSS (-) is iNcoming.!!
After all, as physicists, we MUST ((focus)) on the "MEASUREABLEs".!!
That would mean he could not die happy, because that
would not conform to his idea of physics in a room pulled by
a rope far from other matter.
A room pulled by a ROCKET far from other matter ..ATTACHED by
a spring-BALANCE apparatus provides a GEDANKEN means of the BEST
gauge, or MEASURE, of mass.!! But the EXHAUST blows back on it.!!
and gravitational physics will still be in the attraction at a
distance rut.
Look WHO took the "curvature" out of GR "space-time".!!
brian a m stuckless
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Joe Fischer
Re: Many writers fail to emphasis important facts about gravity theory.
.
