[Physics] About "logical errors"

[carmam at tiscali.co.uk]

In my last post, I said that although SR had paradoxes, I know of non in GR. I looked (but not an exhaustive look), and although I found errors, I found no paradoxes. The errors however, show that GR is wrong. Here is an error in GR which was thrown up by some research of my own. I wanted to start with somebody else's findings, but will put humility aside as I think this is a good example, and by following a logical path, we arrive at a conclusion which is very hard to dispute. It is to be found here :-   http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/carmam/Hollings.html#gravityHere is a short version, but please read the long version on that web page, as it has an interactive programme on it, which calculates orbital velocities which are proved to be different depending on mass. It goes even further, and explains something which I was not expecting.5.
THE EQUALITY OF INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS.

In chapter XIX, Einstein makes the following statement. 

"Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field
receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend on the material or
the physical state of the body. For instance, a piece of lead and a piece of
wood fall in exactly the same manner in a gravitational field (in vacuo) when
they start off from rest or with the same initial velocity."

When watching a piece of lead and a piece of wood fall, they appear to fall in
exactly the same manner. They do not. The lead actually falls faster, but the
difference in acceleration is so minute that it cannot be measured, and can be
completely ignored under all but very extreme circumstances.



The Equivalence Principle (chapter XX) states "It is not possible by
experiment to distinguish between an accelerating frame and an inertial frame
in a suitably chosen gravitational potential, provided that the observations
take place in a small region of space and time". 

Einstein states that all objects when dropped, will fall to the floor with
equal acceleration, whether the chest is in a gravitational field or is being
accelerated by an outside force. We are now in a position to show that this is
not the case. We will assume that we are standing
on the surface of the Earth. If you picture a mass the equivalent of the Earth,
but compressed to a size similar to that of the wood or lead under discussion
(it is immaterial what this mass is, but it might be convenient to picture a
miniature black hole), and hold it suspended by some means, when the MBH is
dropped, the man will observe the acceleration to be 19.6m/s^2 and the MBH will
hit the floor of the chest after 1.4s . As the Earth’s gravity is the former
value, and as is that of the miniature black hole, we can immediately see that
the gravitational attraction is a result of the attraction of the two bodies’
gravitational fields. This applies whatever the mass of the bodies, and
explains why the wood and the lead appear to behave the same - their mass is so
tiny compared to that of the Earth, that for all practical purposes when
dealing with the Earth, they are identical in mass.

If the man in the chest is being accelerated at 1G by an outside force (the
hypothetical being pulling on the rope, or a reaction motor etc) and drops an
MBH, it will fall with an acceleration of exactly 9.8m/s^2 - not a hair under
or over. The MBH is quite simply left behind as the chest accelerates away, and
if it is at a height of 20 meters to start with, it will take 2 seconds from
release to hitting the floor.

To summarise then, if the
experiment is done under a uniform acceleration of 1G, the MBH will hit the
floor after 2s. If the experiment is done in a gravitational field of 1G, the
MBH will hit the floor after 1.4s. He can immediately decide from this
experiment whether he is in a gravitational field or is being accelerated by an
outside force. If an MBH with a mass the same as that of the Earth falls faster
than a piece of lead, then so does one with a mass of half the Earth, as does a
mass of one hundredth, or a thousandth etc. In principle, if the man’s
instruments are sensitive enough, he can detect whether he is in a
gravitational field or being accelerated, whatever the mass of the objects
which he drops.

When watching a piece of lead and a piece of wood fall, they appear to fall in
exactly the same manner. They do not. The lead actually falls faster, but the
difference in acceleration is so minute that it cannot easily be measured, and
can be ignored for all practical purposes.Tom Hollings.


----Original Message----

From: dm88dm at gmail.com

Date: 04/11/2016 17:52

To: "General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list"<physics at tuks.nl>

Subj: Re: [Physics] About "logical errors"



Tom,

   Really, your going to insult Tesla, such sacrilege : ) Tesla's point is perfectly valid; space, emptiness, nothingness, these are all words to describe "a lack of properties", the only attribute of the words "empty space" by definition is that it has no properties (and that is without even considering a 4th dimension of time) if language and words are to have any meaning, i.e. the "properties of empty space" is an oxymoron. All Tesla is pointing out is the literal contradiction in terms; as soon as you say that empty space has properties, like permittivity and permeability, then it is no longer "nothing", it is now "something". Modern physics contains many such contradictions in terms, and these should be cause for concern, because besides everything else that is wrong with it, it is a misuse of language.

Doug

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Thomas Goodey <thomas at flyingkettle.com> wrote:
On 3 Nov 2016 at 12:00, Arend Lammertink wrote:



> Let me just quote Nikola Tesla... This logically

> thinking realist already wiped the floor with the theory

> of relativity in 1932 and thus proved for the umpteenth

> time to be far ahead of his time:



No, he didn't. He proved his total ignorance of the

fundamental elements of the subject.



> "It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of

> space supposed to exist according to the teachings of

> relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I

> hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that

> it can have no properties.



He had made up his mind already, a priori without

considering any facts.



> It might as well be said that God

> has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these

> are of our own making.



This is religious talk, and sounds like some type of

Catholic hairsplitting. What is the difference between

"properties" and "attributes"? Scientifically, we just talk

about what structural regularities can be identified in

nature.



> To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes

> curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act

> upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a

> view."



But actually it is the fact. Eddington proved that with the

eclipse observation. Of course it depends upon what you

mean by "nothing", which depends upon what you mean by

"thing".



> Isn't it just beautiful how Tesla makes perfectly clear that

> the Emperor of modern physics has no clothes with simple

> logic?



No, it was very stupid, because he opened his mouth in

total ignorance.



> Think about it. Space is literally no thing, nothing. It is

> the emptiness, the void, wherein physical stuff exists, but

> space in and of itself is not part of anything physical.



What do you mean by "physical" here - it's not clearly

defined?



> And because space is

> not physical at all, it can have no physical properties.



But it has metric properties. That is the whole point of

space. (Let's leave time out of it for simplicity; we won't

speak of space-time although really we should.) The entire

idea of space is that it serves as a foundation for

measurement of distances between points (events). Whatever

space "is" is not to the point. Read your Korzybski!



Tesla seems to have thought that, a priori, the metric

properties of space should be Euclidean. Actually this is

an odd choice, because the group structure of a Euclidean

space is quite complex. A Euclidean space is also infinite,

which might be thought to be something of a stumbling-block

to understanding. Still, somehow, people appear to think it

is easy to visualize (which of course is irrelevant).



But actually - as shown eighty years before by Riemann et

al. - there are many alternatives. Clearly Tesla knew no

more of that mathematics than my cat knows of

electrodynamics. Which of those alternatives is actually

realized in any spatial region is not a matter of

bullshitting but a matter of observation or even experiment

(as Gauss realized very well).



For example, one way in which such differences are

manifested is in the proportion of the volume of a sphere

to its area times its radius. In Euclidean space this is

always 4/3 pi r^3 to 4 pi r^3, i.e. 1/3. But in spaces of

other types this ratio, while being 1/3 for very small

spheres, changes as the sphere becomes bigger, to be either

greater or less than 1/3. It is not something to be

pontificated about without supporting evidence - you have

to look and see.



> Saying that space becomes curved by large bodies is the same

> as saying that a street map becomes curved because the

> cities and villages that are printed on it are so heavy.



But, in the case of space, this is the actual fact, as

determined by observation. Therefore all Tesla's polemics

may safely be ignored.



Thomas Goodey

******************



But remember, please, the rules by

which we live.

We are not built to comprehend a

lie.

We can neither love, nor pity, nor

forgive.

If you make a slip in handling us you

die.



Rudyard Kipling, 'Secret of the

Machines'





_______________________________________________

Physics mailing list

Physics at tuks.nl

http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics



_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161104/558d7003/attachment.html>