Expanding 4-D Matter Part II

[RascalPuff]

Newton's Laws of Gravity are pointless to consider in the elevator at this time. Because there are no significantly measurable gravitational effects in it, to influence its passengers and their experiments. The environment of the interior elevator is therefore purely and exclusively an inertial system, destitute of gravity and gravitational effects.

THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE OBSERVERS INSIDE THE ELEVATOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE FALLING IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD (as they actually are), OR SIMPLY 'FREE-FLOATING' IN THE VOID OF DEEP SPACE, FREE OF ANY GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER.

Then Einstein alters the situation of the elevator and its passengers. (Refer to Drawing 1 Illustration B)

This time the experimenting passengers are still in the elevator, but they actually are in the void of deep space, far away from any appreciable gravitational influence.

A cable is attached to the roof of the elevator car and an arbitrary force winches-in the cable at 32 feet per-second squared (the descent rate of free falling objects on earth). The elevator is therefore accelerating 'upward' through space (any direction in which the elevator car happens to be pulled by the cable, is 'upward' relative to the passengers within it). Again, the observers within the elevator have no idea where they are, and again they evaluate their situation by performing experiments. Their feet now rest firmly on the floor; they now have their 'normal' (as experienced on earth) body weight to support. Confirmed by scaled weight measurement.

(The observers are actually measuring and obtaining inert mass values; not realizing they are not measuring gravitational mass values: their coordinate system having found the two values identical under the accelerating circumstances; indistinguishable from each other. Inertial & Gravitational Mass Values; which are not supposed to have anything to do with each other, are likewise indistinguishable at this *juncture. Which Einstein called *astonishing. The *coincidental confluence of two different methods of measuring and defining mass value; arriving at exactly the same - unrelated coordinates. *A pound of butter offers exactly a pound of resistance to acceleration: when the acceleration exactly - and 'coincidentally' - equals the descent rate of objects in free-fall @ 32' per second squared., on earth.

When the passenger’s in Einstein’s elevator jump, they do not float to the ceiling because the floor is constantly accelerating upward beneath them at the descent-rate for free-falling objects on earth.When the observers and various objects are weighed on a standard scale within the elevator at this time, they all have their 'normal' earth-weight (heavy mass value ). Due to their resistance - generated by physical matter - negative inertia: the tendency of all bodies at rest to remain at rest and offer resistance to outside forces acting upon them, including non-uniform motion That is to say: inert mass value , opposing the acceleration (non-uniform motion) of the elevator floor.

If the elevator were accelerating at less than 32 ft. per-second, the objects and observers would weigh correspondingly less than their normal earth weight. If the elevator were accelerating at more than 32 ft. per-second, the objects and observers would weigh correspondingly more than their normal earth weight.

When the observers in the test elevator release objects from their grip, the objects appear to descend vertically - 'fall'/accelerate-'downward' @ 32 ft. per-second (per second). When objects are tossed or pushed in a horizontal direction, those objects do not move in a straight line in accordance with the laws of inertia; instead the paths of the tossed objects - due to the acceleration of the elevator car - describe a parabolic curve; descending vertically at 32 feet per second squared, relative to the floor; in accordance with the laws of gravitation.

The observers remain unaware that their room is accelerating (ascending ever-faster) through deep space. They understandably conclude from direct experience and experimentation, that they are situated in quite ordinary circumstances in a windowless room on earth, influenced by conventional gravity.

THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE OBSERVERS TO DETERMINE FROM WITHIN THE ELEVATOR (coordinate system) WHETHER THEY ARE AT REST IN THE EARTH'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD; WHERE ALL OBJECTS ARE 'PULLED' DOWNWARD @ 32 ft. per-second BY GRAVITY, or: WHETHER THEY ARE ACCELERATING IN AN INERTIAL SYSTEM (which they are in this case, @ 32 ft. per-second squared): WHERE THERE IS NO GRAVITY WHATSOEVER.

From his imaginative and now renowned 'elevator analogy', Einstein formulated a conclusion of unprecedented theoretical importance; that being: The General Principle Of Relativity: THERE IS NO WAY TO DISTINGUISH THE MOTION PRODUCED BY INERTIAL FORCES (acceleration/ centrifugal and centripetal force), FROM MOTION PRODUCED BY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE.
This is the General Principle Of Relativity. Fact #2.

It borders on being a statement of the obvious, but we are about to see that sometimes it isn't so obvious at all. That people in general everywhere, actively refuse to recognize it, altogether. The greatest problem - and the most importantly unrecognized solution - in science, since 1916.

It is particularly noteworthy, because the Classical and Contemporary popular concept of UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION remains, that is to say, continues to be, a 'pulling force of attraction'. Yet, here we find Contemporary Theoretical Physics - specifically Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity - equating gravity with acceleration as - and which is - a 'pushing or repelling force'.

That is to say, in 1686, Newton categorically and formally allowed that gravity 'may be' in fact, a repelling force. Then, in 1916, we have Einstein's General Principle Of Relativity equating gravity with acceleration, which is, once again, a repelling force. What I call: Newton's Gravitational Alternative - and Einstein's General Theory; on the same table. Historically 220 years apart. Lightning struck in the same place. Ominously joined, since the resiliently unrecognized and stubbornly unattended opportunity afforded, in The (Einstein's) General Theory, of 1916.

Isaac's Apple in Einstein's Elevator


F=Gmm
______
r squared
Special Effects by Austin Torney Illustration copyright 2007 by K.B.Robertson

[neutralino]

A few questions: Firstly, acceleration isn't a force. Secondly, why is this "force" repulsive?

[RascalPuff]

A few questions: Firstly, acceleration isn't a force. Secondly, why is this "force" repulsive?

The 'F' in 'F = GMM over r squared' (for example) has yet to be identified. Common knowledge that 'F' is unidentified. Whatever it is, it is used, for example, by Newton, to equate with gravity times mass times motion over r squared.

The unidentified force is alternatively impelling and repelling, in accordance with Newton and Einstein. Newton specifies that it may be impelling or repelling, and Einstein specifies that it is repelling.

[ThirdWorld]

Yet, here we find Contemporary Theoretical Physics - specifically Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity - equating gravity with acceleration as - and which is - a 'pushing or repelling force'.

*** Your quotes from Einstein and Newton might be correct but in my view your deductions are not.

How can you arbitrarily say that acceleration is "pushing or repelling force"? What is that statement a logical deduction of?

If you pull the elevator you cause acceleration and likewise if you push it.

Incidentally gravity is caused by forces that originate from the object and act towards its center and this to me is sufficient description for them to be referred to as pulling forces as opposed to pushing ones that are thought to originate from a source external to the object.

Roger

[RascalPuff]

*** Your quotes from Einstein and Newton might be correct but in my view your deductions are not.

How can you arbitrarily say that acceleration is "pushing or repelling force"? What is that statement a logical deduction of?

If you pull the elevator you cause acceleration and likewise if you push it.

Incidentally gravity is caused by forces that originate from the object and act towards its center and this to me is sufficient description for them to be referred to as pulling forces as opposed to pushing ones that are thought to originate from a source external to the object.

Roger

From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting planets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following statement about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of planets & apples, quote:


“For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain."


That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact.

[N0B0DY]

The impelling and repelling force you indicated seems alot like the impelling and repelling force of electromagnetism, RP.

Would you estimate that the whole model of which physicists have hitherto attempted to explain is moot (debatable)?

[RascalPuff]

The impelling and repelling force you indicated seems alot like the impelling and repelling force of electromagnetism, RP.

Would you estimate that the whole model of which physicists have hitherto attempted to explain is moot (debatable)?

Dear Mr. Nobody:
Until now, I hadn't realized that you have an extraordinary gift for understatement.

Always good to hear from you, Sir
- RP

[ThirdWorld]

For I ...suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, ...

are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other;

*** Newton is saying that he suspects that gravity might either be caused by attractive or repulsive forces.

You are taking part of his speculation and construing it as a statement of fact. You then link it to your own idea that acceleration means repulsion to come to a conclusion that gravity [which is acceleration] is due to repulsion.

equating gravity with acceleration as - and which is - a 'pushing or repelling force'.

*** The part I am referring to is the above which is not a quotation from Newton but your own deduction it seems.

You are saying here "equating gravity with acceleration...which is- a pushing or repelling force".

My argument is that you have not properly derived your above stated conclusion that "gravity.. is.. a repelling force"

Roger

[dleviwing]

Ignorance is ignorance no matter how many parts you express it in. It just gets dumb and dumber with each part.

[RascalPuff]

Isaac's Apple in Einstein's Elevator

F=Gmm
______
r squared
Special Effects by Austin Torney Illustration copyright 2007 by K.B.Robertson
(Refer: 'coordinate system')