| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nick" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2005 01:07:23 AM |
| Object: |
Relative Acceleration; Timeless Acceleration |
To Einstein the Equivalence Principle said that acceleration
equivalence in "weight" of gravity was a relative one. He
said that since nothing is moving in gravity yet it has weight
it is equivalent to a relative acceleration. Just as things that
are not moving through space in general are only in relative
motion in potential to things that are(moving through space).
To Einstein it was relative acceleration.
I think that the time rate should be taken out of the EP
since there is no motion involved. This generalized acceleration(EP)
then would be a timeless one.
I am talking about a timeless/relative acceleration.
There is no motion so there is no rate for weight in
gravity. Take away the rate and you are left with a
change in velocity only.
The interesting thing is that this timeless acceleration
is limited one. It is limited to a less than light speed
change.
So according to timeless acceleration there would be a
maximum weight for any given mass; where weight
equals (timeless) acceleration multiplied by mass.
Take the rate out of the Equivalence Principle is what
I say; no rate in gravity's weight.
The other side is acceleration in freefall. Of course
this would not be timeless since there is motion and
therefore rate involved.
Mitch -- Gravity is a continuum --
.
|
|
| User: "yt56erd" |
|
| Title: Re: Relative Acceleration; Timeless Acceleration |
16 Jun 2005 02:53:47 AM |
|
|
*****. why do you talk like you know what einstien thought?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Relative Acceleration; Timeless Acceleration |
16 Jun 2005 08:59:02 AM |
|
|
Because he's too stupid to realize that he's ignorant and too arogant
to believe people who tell him that he's ignorant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Relative Acceleration; Timeless Acceleration |
19 Jun 2005 12:04:42 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
To Einstein the Equivalence Principle said that acceleration
equivalence in "weight" of gravity was a relative one.
This is unclear
He
said that since nothing is moving in gravity yet it has weight
it is equivalent to a relative acceleration. Just as things that
are not moving through space in general are only in relative
motion in potential to things that are(moving through space).
To Einstein it was relative acceleration.
okay
I think that the time rate should be taken out of the EP
since there is no motion involved. This generalized acceleration(EP)
then would be a timeless one.
This is unclear.
(cut)
For actual accelerationIf a body has constant acceleration in its own
rest frame, the
velocity at time T, with respect to the initial rest frame, will be
V= aT'
_____________
SQRT( 1 + ((aT'/c)^2))
the body's time, T' = c/a ln (aT/c + SQRT(1 +aaTT/cc).
An equivalent formula, easier to work with on the calculator on your
computer, is
T= sinh aT' , X = cosh aT'
where a is the acceleration in light years/year,
T is earth time, and X-1 is distance traveled from earth's
persepctive.
sinh is the hyperbolic sine, cosh is the hyperbolic cosine.
0.97g is about 1 light year/year, so letting a rocket accelerate at 1
light year/year for 1 "rocket year,
T= sinh 1 = 1.175 earth years.
The rocket will have traveled cosh(1) -1 = 1.54-1 =0.54 light years.
And its velocity will be 0.707 light speed.
A. McIntire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Relative Acceleration; Timeless Acceleration |
19 Jun 2005 12:27:08 AM |
|
|
Alan, propulsion acceleration is potentially unlimited.
Because freefall is motion through a gravity field it
must have a rate. And when you include an ever dwindling
rate acceleration can be unlimited.
Cheers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
