Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 11, 2021, 12:15:05 AM »
I decided to use my time out to do some reading and put together some thoughts that have been floating around in my mind for awhile now.

Tom and I have been down the path of how GR resolves the “mystery” the equality of inertial and gravitational mass before. This issue is at the heart of what is wrong with FET reliance on the EP to justify both UA and a flat earth, but he refused to accept any source on the subject other than a “physicist”.

So I went straight to the horse’s mouth on the issue. Hopefully, Einstein is enough of a physicist for him.

The wiki claim that GR doesn’t explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass isn’t just wrong, it exposes a basic lack of understanding of the theory. The whole theory of GR is founded on the unity of inertial and gravitational mass, along with the principle of relativity.

According to GR, there is no substantive difference between “gravitational mass” and “inertial mass”. There is just “mass”, and whether or not it is identified as gravitational or inertial is wholly dependent upon its state of motion and/or frame of reference.

Quote
What is important is only that one is justified at any instant and at will (depending upon the choice of a system of reference) to explain the mechanical behavior of a material point either by gravitation or by inertia. More is not needed; to achieve the essential equivalence of inertia and gravitation

http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/220 
Quote
It is true that this important law had hitherto been recorded in mechanics, but it had not been interpreted. A satisfactory interpretation can be obtained only if we recognize the following fact: The same quality of a body manifests itself according to circumstances as "inertia" or as "weight" (lit."heaviness").

Volume 6: The Berlin Years: Writings, 1914-1917 (English translation supplement) page 317 (princeton.edu)

Albert Einstein’s book: The Meaning of Relativity, pg 58
Quote
“…In fact, through this conception we arrive at the unity of the nature of inertia and gravitation. For according to our way of looking at it, the same masses may appear to be either under the action of inertia alone (with respect to K) or under the combined action of inertia and gravitation (with respect to K’).

Quote
Kottler claims I had abandoned in my later papers the "principle of equivalence" which I did introduce in order to unify the concepts of "inertial mass"and "gravitational mass”

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/249

Quote
In an example worth considering, the gravitational field has a relative existence only in a manner similar to the electric field generated by electro-magnetic induction….

The thought that one is dealing here with two fundamentally different cases was, for me, unbearable. The difference between these two cases could not be a real difference, but rather, in my conviction, could be only a difference in the choice of reference point. Judged from the magnet there certainty were no electric fields; judged from the conducting circuit there certainly was one. The existence of an electric field was therefore a relative one, depending on the state of motion of the coordinate system being used, and a kind of objective reality could be granted only to the electric and magnetic field together, quite apart from the state of relative motion of the observer or the coordinate system

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/151

The significance of understanding the EP this way is that it unifies gravity and inertia into one field, much like the electromagnetic field. One field is responsible for both inertial and gravitational effects as opposed to two different types of mass resulting in two different effects.  It also follows that whenever there is acceleration, a gravitational field exists relative to it. Acceleration produces inertial effects, inertial effects and gravitational effects are both governed by the gravitational field, therefore, whenever there is acceleration, there is a gravitational field relative to it. The existence of the field is relative and its presence depends on the frame of reference. However, by considering both frames together the field always exists in objective reality.

The relative nature of the gravitational field also means that the EP requires that whenever you consider an accelerating system at rest, you must also assume the presence of a gravitational field relative to it.

Quote
The Principle of Equivalence.

Do the laws of nature, known to us in some approximation, allow us to consider a reference system K' as being at rest if it is in uniform acceleration with respect to K. Or, somewhat more generally: Can the principle of relativity be extended such as to encompass reference systems that are in (uniform) accelerated motion relative to one another. The answer is: insofar as we really know the laws of nature, nothing prevents us from considering a system K' as at rest, provided we assume a gravitational field (homogeneous in first approximation) relative to K'. Because in a homogeneous gravitational field, as with regard to our system K', all bodies fall with the same acceleration independent of their physical nature. I call "principle of equivalence"the assumption that K' can be treated with all rigor as being at rest, such that no law of nature fails to be satisfied relative to K'.

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/250

So what does all this mean? Using the often used analogy of jumping off a chair, it means, according the EP, the jumper can
1) Consider the accelerating earth at rest but only if he assumes a gravitational field relative to it exists . In that case, the jumper is subject to the field and is falling from that perspective Or
2) Consider the earth accelerating and he is at rest above the ground with no gravitational field present. That violates the requirement of the EP that whenever there is acceleration, a gravitational field exists relative to it.

It isn’t enough that a field is produced once the ground and the jumper meet.  The concept of a gravitational field being “relative” to the accelerating system implies that there are (at least) two different perspectives.  One in which the field exists, and one in which it doesn’t. If an object is on the surface of the earth and the field only exists on the surface, there is no perspective in which a gravitational field doesn’t exist for that object. There is nothing “relative” about the gravitational field.

All this adds up to mean that there is no scenario in which the jumper can consider himself at rest but not in a gravitational field with an accelerating earth without violating the Equivalence Principle.

RE, however is perfectly consistent with the EP as stated in 1) above because in RE, the earth does accelerate centripetally.

So whatever basis you use to justify UA, you can’t use the EP. There is no “earth rising up to meet” anything.

EDIT: One more thing I forgot to mention.  There is an inherent contradiction in using the EP/UA to argue for a flat earth.  Supposedly, the FET position is that the EP can be applied because the effects of gravity caused by UA and the effects of gravity by GR are indistinguishable.

Except that GR gravity results in massive objects collapsing into spheres and UA gravity doesn’t.  The effects are distinguishable
.

« Last Edit: June 11, 2021, 01:07:31 AM by fisherman »
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2021, 02:43:55 AM »
You appear to be arguing that in the Equivalence Principle a gravitational field is inseparable from an upwardly accelerating surface. Seeing that Einstein uses an elevator accelerating upwards through space as an analogy for the EP, that is clearly incorrect.

Quote
EDIT: One more thing I forgot to mention.  There is an inherent contradiction in using the EP/UA to argue for a flat earth.  Supposedly, the FET position is that the EP can be applied because the effects of gravity caused by UA and the effects of gravity by GR are indistinguishable.

Except that GR gravity results in massive objects collapsing into spheres and UA gravity doesn’t.  The effects are distinguishable.

Actually, it doesn't say that GR and UA are indistinguishable.

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2021, 03:29:29 AM »
Quote
You appear to be arguing that in the Equivalence Principle a gravitational field is inseparable from an upwardly accelerating surface. Seeing that Einstein uses an elevator accelerating upwards through space as an analogy for the EP, that is clearly incorrect.

You are conflating an observer within a system with the system itself.

In order for an observer accelerating upwards by virtue of being, inside an upwardly accelerating elevator to consider themselves "at rest" within the elevator, they must per the EP, assume the presence of a gravitational field.  That's perfectly consistent with the EP. Where ever there is acceleration, there is a gravitational field relative to it. For clarity, that applies to any kind of acceleration, not just "upward"

For an outside observer, who is not in the upward accelerating elevator or "system" to consider the elevator to be at rest, the outside observer must assume the presence of a gravitational field.

Quote
Actually, it doesn't say that GR and UA are indistinguishable
.

By "it", I am assuming you mean FET.  If that's the case I didn't say that FET claims that GR and UA are indistinguishable.  I said that FET claims that the gravitational effects produced by GR and UA are indistinguishable.





There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2021, 04:44:52 AM »
In order for an observer accelerating upwards by virtue of being, inside an upwardly accelerating elevator to consider themselves "at rest" within the elevator, they must per the EP, assume the presence of a gravitational field.  That's perfectly consistent with the EP. Where ever there is acceleration, there is a gravitational field relative to it. For clarity, that applies to any kind of acceleration, not just "upward"

For an outside observer, who is not in the upward accelerating elevator or "system" to consider the elevator to be at rest, the outside observer must assume the presence of a gravitational field.

It's not a requirement for a person in an upwardly accelerating elevator to consider themselves "at rest". They can appropriately consider themselves in motion in an accelerating elevator.

Einstein clearly says that the effects an an upwardly accelerating elevator and a gravitational field are equivalent in his EP elevator analogy. Not sure why you are quoting random Einstein quotes about how "nothing prevents us from considering a system K' as at rest" to justify gravity, when he does not deny that we can consider the experience of being in an upwardly accelerating elevator to be in motion either.

Quote
By "it", I am assuming you mean FET.  If that's the case I didn't say that FET claims that GR and UA are indistinguishable.  I said that FET claims that the gravitational effects produced by GR and UA are indistinguishable.

Really? Where is that?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2021, 04:51:44 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2063
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2021, 05:35:15 AM »
Quote
By "it", I am assuming you mean FET.  If that's the case I didn't say that FET claims that GR and UA are indistinguishable.  I said that FET claims that the gravitational effects produced by GR and UA are indistinguishable.

Really? Where is that?

I think maybe the closest "where is that" would be here: "The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The Earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Why_doesn.27t_gravity_pull_the_Earth_into_a_spherical_shape.3F

Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2021, 05:55:50 AM »
The real reason that UA doesn’t work as an explanation is we observe inconsistencies in g across the globe, in a way consistent with a rotating sphere. You weigh less at the equator than the poles, for example. That would not be the case if the earth were flat and accelerating upwards.
The equivalence principle only works in the local context.

FE either denies variations in gravity, or mutters something about Celestial Gravitation although the Wiki page about that literally just says “this might be a thing”.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2021, 05:57:29 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2021, 12:27:35 PM »
Quote
Really? Where is that?

Here.  At least in this century, the effect we commonly refer to as gravity is caused by GR.

Quote
Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity"

Quote
It's not a requirement for a person in an upwardly accelerating elevator to consider themselves "at rest". They can appropriately consider themselves in motion in an accelerating elevator.

Einstein clearly says that the effects an an upwardly accelerating elevator and a gravitational field are equivalent in his EP elevator analogy. Not sure why you are quoting random Einstein quotes about how "nothing prevents us from considering a system K' as at rest" to justify gravity, when he does not deny that we can consider the experience of being in an upwardly accelerating elevator to be in motion either.

Again you are conflating the acceleration of the reference system and the motion of a person inside of the reference frame.  Provided a person is aware that their reference frame is accelerating, they can consider themselves accelerating by virtue of the fact that motion is transmitted to them. 

However, to be at restinside of the elevator i.e. "pinned to the floor" of the elevator, the whole point of the EP is that the person can't determine if gravity is pulling them down to the floor or if the elevator floor is pushing up on them.

As you sit at rest within your reference frame right now, can you determine through your senses alone, whether or not the ground is pushing up or gravity is pulling you down?



There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2021, 12:34:02 PM »
The real reason that UA doesn’t work as an explanation is we observe inconsistencies in g across the globe, in a way consistent with a rotating sphere. You weigh less at the equator than the poles, for example. That would not be the case if the earth were flat and accelerating upwards.
The equivalence principle only works in the local context.

FE either denies variations in gravity, or mutters something about Celestial Gravitation although the Wiki page about that literally just says “this might be a thing”.

There are alot of ways FET misinterprets and misapplies the EP to justify UA.  They want to waive the EP flag like it is some sort of magic wand that solves all the issues with FET, but it is a lot more nuanced principle than than they suggest.
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2021, 01:49:49 AM »
Quote
By "it", I am assuming you mean FET.  If that's the case I didn't say that FET claims that GR and UA are indistinguishable.  I said that FET claims that the gravitational effects produced by GR and UA are indistinguishable.

Really? Where is that?

I think maybe the closest "where is that" would be here: "The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The Earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Why_doesn.27t_gravity_pull_the_Earth_into_a_spherical_shape.3F

GR isn't mentioned in any of that.

The real reason that UA doesn’t work as an explanation is we observe inconsistencies in g across the globe, in a way consistent with a rotating sphere. You weigh less at the equator than the poles, for example. That would not be the case if the earth were flat and accelerating upwards.
The equivalence principle only works in the local context.

FE either denies variations in gravity, or mutters something about Celestial Gravitation although the Wiki page about that literally just says “this might be a thing”.

There is not sufficient evidence of that. The experiment was not conducted in a vacuum chamber - https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

Pretty weak for your position that there is only a single uncontrolled type of experiment on this.

Quote from: fisherman
Again you are conflating the acceleration of the reference system and the motion of a person inside of the reference frame.  Provided a person is aware that their reference frame is accelerating, they can consider themselves accelerating by virtue of the fact that motion is transmitted to them.

However, to be at restinside of the elevator i.e. "pinned to the floor" of the elevator, the whole point of the EP is that the person can't determine if gravity is pulling them down to the floor or if the elevator floor is pushing up on them.

As you sit at rest within your reference frame right now, can you determine through your senses alone, whether or not the ground is pushing up or gravity is pulling you down?

That's what the Wiki says the EP is. It's indistinguishable.

What happened to this argument: "All this adds up to mean that there is no scenario in which the jumper can consider himself at rest but not in a gravitational field with an accelerating earth without violating the Equivalence Principle."

Now you're saying that a jumper in an upwardly accelerating elevator can consider himself at rest, where the floor accelerates upwards into him, opposite of your initial premise.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2021, 02:08:42 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2021, 03:14:25 AM »
Quote
That's what the Wiki says the EP is. It's indistinguishable.

If gravity produced by an earth accelerating up is indistinguishable from gravity produced by an earth that isn't why doesn't it result in the earth collapsing into a sphere?  If they have different effects, they are distinguishable.
Quote
What happened to this argument: "All this adds up to mean that there is no scenario in which the jumper can consider himself at rest but not in a gravitational field with an accelerating earth without violating the Equivalence Principle."

Now you're saying that a jumper in an upwardly accelerating elevator can consider himself at rest, where the floor accelerates upwards into him, opposite of your initial premise
.

I have no clue how you reached that conclusion, but you're obviously not realizing the signifance of how Einstein defines the equivalence if it doesn't involve an elevator.  I'll make it simple for you. For clarity K is an inertial system and K' is an accelerating one in the quote below.
Quote
The assumption of the complete physical equivalence of the systems of co-ordinates, K and K', we call the “principle of equivalence;” this principle is evidently intimately connected with the theorem of the equality between the inert and the gravitational mass, and signifies an extension of the principle of relativity to co-ordinate systems which are in non-uniform motion relatively to each other. In fact, through this conception we arrive at the unity of the nature of inertia and gravitation. For according to our way of looking at it, the same masses may appear to be either under the action of inertia alone (with respect to K) or under the combined action of inertia and gravitation (with respect to K'). The possibility of explaining the numerical equality of inertia and gravitation by the unity of their nature gives to the general theory of relativity, according to my conviction, such a superiority over the conceptions of classical mechanics, that all the difficulties encountered in development must be considered as small in comparison.

According to UA, is there any frame of reference from which a jumper can be considered under the combined influence of inertia and gravity before the earth and jumper meet?  According to the EP, there should be.

If read hard enough, you'll see two other ways UA violates the EP in that same passage.

 
« Last Edit: June 12, 2021, 03:19:49 AM by fisherman »
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2063
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2021, 04:57:16 AM »
Quote
By "it", I am assuming you mean FET.  If that's the case I didn't say that FET claims that GR and UA are indistinguishable.  I said that FET claims that the gravitational effects produced by GR and UA are indistinguishable.

Really? Where is that?

I think maybe the closest "where is that" would be here: "The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The Earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Why_doesn.27t_gravity_pull_the_Earth_into_a_spherical_shape.3F

GR isn't mentioned in any of that.

Right, GR isn't mentioned. But defacto, if you're speaking of "Gravity" wouldn't you be talking about what our common main stream view of such is? That which is described by GR? So, in a sense, if you are relating to main stream "gravity" you are relating to GR as that is the common, deeper description/definition of what gravity is. In short, when you use the term "gravity", you are invoking GR. Just because your shit-all wiki doesn't use the acronym doesn't mean you are not playing in its playground.

How is this lost on you?

Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2021, 08:03:33 AM »
There is not sufficient evidence of that.
QED  :)

By “not sufficient evidence” what you really mean is it’s a result which doesn’t conform to your world view so you simply dismiss it. This is how you roll. If the result showed what you wanted it to then you’d accept it without question or scrutiny. Had the experiment been conducted in a vacuum chamber you’d simply find a different excuse or make up some ad hoc mechanism to explain the result. And thus you get to cling to your beliefs.

There’s an entire field of study which uses variations in g to find minerals underground

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/gravity-survey

I’m sure you have some excuse to explain that too. UA doesn’t work as an explanation, it’s just one of the many ad hoc mechanisms you use to explain why the world appears to be a spinning globe.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2021, 03:05:55 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2021, 01:49:49 AM

   
Quote
There is not sufficient evidence of that.

There's actually evidence of it from an experiment you cite on the your own wiki.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

Quote
Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase

The reason they give for this is
Quote
First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster

Not sure why you would think this supports UA or a flat earth or why you'd have it posted on your wiki.  According to UA, there shouldn't be any "unequal gravitational forces".
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2021, 06:11:25 AM »
Quote
By "it", I am assuming you mean FET.  If that's the case I didn't say that FET claims that GR and UA are indistinguishable.  I said that FET claims that the gravitational effects produced by GR and UA are indistinguishable.

Really? Where is that?

I think maybe the closest "where is that" would be here: "The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The Earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Why_doesn.27t_gravity_pull_the_Earth_into_a_spherical_shape.3F

GR isn't mentioned in any of that.

Right, GR isn't mentioned. But defacto, if you're speaking of "Gravity" wouldn't you be talking about what our common main stream view of such is? That which is described by GR? So, in a sense, if you are relating to main stream "gravity" you are relating to GR as that is the common, deeper description/definition of what gravity is. In short, when you use the term "gravity", you are invoking GR. Just because your shit-all wiki doesn't use the acronym doesn't mean you are not playing in its playground.

How is this lost on you?

Actually Newtonian Gravity is used far more than GR, since the equations are simpler.

But the Wiki doesn't say Newtonian Gravity either. It says, in what you quoted:

"The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity."

The upward acceleration effect causes an effect of what you think is coming from gravity. It doesn't say that UA is equivalent in all functions as Newtonian Gravity or GR. That is some kind of poor logic that I can only shake my head about.

Quote from: fisherman
Quote
That's what the Wiki says the EP is. It's indistinguishable.

If gravity produced by an earth accelerating up is indistinguishable from gravity produced by an earth that isn't why doesn't it result in the earth collapsing into a sphere?  If they have different effects, they are distinguishable.

Please recall that you asked me about the experience of being pinned to the ground. You asked:

"As you sit at rest within your reference frame right now, can you determine through your senses alone, whether or not the ground is pushing up or gravity is pulling you down?"

I said that it (the experience) indistinguishable from gravity.

Now you are asking me about things collapsing into a sphere. That is definitely not what we were talking about.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 06:45:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2021, 06:18:31 AM »
There's actually evidence of it from an experiment you cite on the your own wiki.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

Quote
Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase

The reason they give for this is
Quote
First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster

Not sure why you would think this supports UA or a flat earth or why you'd have it posted on your wiki.  According to UA, there shouldn't be any "unequal gravitational forces".

We talked about this before. Do you remember? Time Dilation at different heights is a prediction of the Equivalence Principle.

The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity

https://books.google.com/books?id=VY5yDQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA116&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q&f=false

In this book its authors describe gravitational time dilation by giving an analogy of an accelerating rocket in space which contains a clock attached to the ceiling and an astronaut sitting on the floor of the rocket with another clock. The astronaut on the floor first observes his own clock, and then observes the ceiling clock:

Quote
however, he observes that the ceiling clock is running faster. The ceiling clock sends a tone (in the form of a radio wave) down to the floor. Because the floor is accelerating upwards, it intercepts the radio wave sooner than if the rocket were merely coasting along. If the acceleration continues, subsequent tones also arrive earlier than expected. In the viewpoint of the astronaut on the floor, the ceiling clock is broadcasting its time intervals at an increased rate, and is running fast compared to the floor clock.

According to the equivalence principle, the phenomenon of mismatched clock rates, which occurs in response to the acceleration of a rocket, also occurs in a uniform gravitational field. The equivalence principle therefore insists on a seemingly bizarre conclusion. Two clocks at different heights above Earth's surface must measure the flow of time at different rates. This strange behavior is an intrinsic feature of gravity. The variation of the flow of time within a gravitational field is entirely independent of the mechanism used to measure time. Atomic clocks, quartz watches, and biological rhythms all experience the passage of time to be dilated or compressed in the same manner.

The Equivalence Principle predicts that clocks at different heights will be mismatched. See bolded above.

By “not sufficient evidence” what you really mean is it’s a result which doesn’t conform to your world view so you simply dismiss it. This is how you roll. If the result showed what you wanted it to then you’d accept it without question or scrutiny. Had the experiment been conducted in a vacuum chamber you’d simply find a different excuse or make up some ad hoc mechanism to explain the result. And thus you get to cling to your beliefs.

The Wiki doesn't just dismiss it. It addresses it. It shows how the atmosphere and environmental effects affects scales, showing that the experiment is uncontrolled.

There’s an entire field of study which uses variations in g to find minerals underground

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/gravity-survey

I’m sure you have some excuse to explain that too. UA doesn’t work as an explanation, it’s just one of the many ad hoc mechanisms you use to explain why the world appears to be a spinning globe.

Please explore the Wiki, it talks about that: https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

The mountains behave in the opposite way from what gravity predicts. The 'gravity' readings are negative rather than positive.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 07:27:57 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2063
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2021, 07:05:19 AM »
Quote
By "it", I am assuming you mean FET.  If that's the case I didn't say that FET claims that GR and UA are indistinguishable.  I said that FET claims that the gravitational effects produced by GR and UA are indistinguishable.

Really? Where is that?

I think maybe the closest "where is that" would be here: "The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The Earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Why_doesn.27t_gravity_pull_the_Earth_into_a_spherical_shape.3F

GR isn't mentioned in any of that.

Right, GR isn't mentioned. But defacto, if you're speaking of "Gravity" wouldn't you be talking about what our common main stream view of such is? That which is described by GR? So, in a sense, if you are relating to main stream "gravity" you are relating to GR as that is the common, deeper description/definition of what gravity is. In short, when you use the term "gravity", you are invoking GR. Just because your shit-all wiki doesn't use the acronym doesn't mean you are not playing in its playground.

How is this lost on you?

Actually Newtonian Gravity is used far more than GR, since the equations are simpler.

Agreed. And the equations work beautifully. Are the UA equations the same as the Newtonian ones?

But the Wiki doesn't say Newtonian Gravity either. It says, in what you quoted:

"The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity."

The upward acceleration effect causes an effect of what you think is coming from gravity. It doesn't say that UA is equivalent in all functions as Newtonian Gravity or GR. That is some kind of poor logic that I can only shake my head about.

Definitely head shake worthy as your own wiki seems to disagree with you:

According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "Universal Acceleration" (abbreviated as UA).

Hmmm, “identical effects”…

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 930
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2021, 11:04:20 AM »

Please explore the Wiki, it talks about that: https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

The mountains behave in the opposite way from what gravity predicts. The 'gravity' readings are negative rather than positive.

Incorrect. Isostasy and the gravity signal around mountain belts are completely compatible with gravity once you understand what is occurring in the subsurface and what has occurred in the geologic past.

As has been discussed:
Isostasy:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18098.0

Gravimeters and local variations in g:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16913.0


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2021, 04:28:38 PM »
Definitely head shake worthy as your own wiki seems to disagree with you:

According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "Universal Acceleration" (abbreviated as UA).

Hmmm, “identical effects”…

That quote is even more specific about it - "identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth".

So you can take your 'gotcha' argument about the earth collapsing into a ball and discard it into the trash.


Please explore the Wiki, it talks about that: https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

The mountains behave in the opposite way from what gravity predicts. The 'gravity' readings are negative rather than positive.

Incorrect. Isostasy and the gravity signal around mountain belts are completely compatible with gravity once you understand what is occurring in the subsurface and what has occurred in the geologic past.

As has been discussed:
Isostasy:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18098.0

Gravimeters and local variations in g:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16913.0

The scientists were expecting the gravity readings of the mountains to be greater than non-mountainous areas. It wasn't as expected, so they had to make up a hypothesis to explain it. They didn't come up with Isostasy before they made the readings. They came up with Isostasy afterwards to explain it.

Now you come here and claim that it is perfectly explainable if we accept that hypothesis. The situation is that we have something that needs to be proved (gravity) needing a explanatory hypothesis because the predictions were not as expected.

You may as well be claiming that the proof of reptilian overlords is that our guardian angels are hiding their existence for our protection, and that this "makes complete sense" ... "once we understand what is occurring", as that would provide a similar level of a confused mess of theories.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 05:09:13 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2063
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #18 on: June 13, 2021, 05:25:00 PM »
Definitely head shake worthy as your own wiki seems to disagree with you:

According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "Universal Acceleration" (abbreviated as UA).

Hmmm, “identical effects”…

That quote is even more specific about it - "identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth".

So you can take your 'gotcha' argument about the earth collapsing into a ball and discard it into the trash.

Where did I ever make an argument about anything collapsing into a ball? I'm simply pointing out that your claim was:

It doesn't say that UA is equivalent in all functions as Newtonian Gravity or GR. That is some kind of poor logic that I can only shake my head about.

And your wiki says that UA has identical effects as gravity. Which seems to be in direct opposition to what you are claiming. I don't know what the significance of the "surface of the earth" bit is, but are you saying that when in a plane, UA no longer has "identical effects" as gravity? If so, what's different?

As well, you never answered my question, are UA's equations the same as Newtonian equations? Being that they are an identical effect and all according to your wiki. If they are different, what are they?

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 930
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Reply #19 on: June 13, 2021, 05:40:38 PM »


You may as well be claiming that the proof of reptilian overlords is that our guardian angels are hiding their existence for our protection, and that this "makes complete sense" .. "once we understand what is occurring", as that would provide a similar level of a confused mess of theories.

An absolutely nonsensical comparison.

We have evidence to justify the theory of isostasy as a replacement for past arguments from incredulity that amount to little more than "mountains are big and made of rock so why dont they pull me towards them?"

Through detailed measurements and investigations we've learned just how inconsequential surficial features are compared to what's beneath us. (As a side note, mountains actually do have an impact on measurements of g at surface, it's just such a small component of the overall signal that it takes a precise gravimeter to register it. Small, but potentially important considerations in resource investigations -these were discussed in the thread I linked above)

A more appropriate analogy to isostatic theory would be comparing it to germ theory. It sounded ridiculous when it was first proposed... then we started looking at things under microscopes and all of a sudden things weren't so crazy after all!