FE tides

Engy, how exactly is all acceleration gravitation? I am familiar with General Relativity, and I believe in it. But it does not state anywhere that all acceleration is gravitation, and I am unable to come up with how you could arrive at that conclusion. Please explain.

EDIT Bushido, you still can't assume that it must be gravity. It may be but it may not be. That's true of any example.

The bolded sentences are contradicting each other.

I disagree. General Relativity does not state that Gravitation is the sole cause of acceleration.

I disagree. General Relativity does not state that Gravitation is the sole cause of acceleration.

Just so that we all understand it, what does GR state, according to you?

I don't particularly think that is relevant, but;

When he completed his theory, Einstein's main point was that, to an observer in an enclosedd space (as has been stated before), there is no fundamental difference between the gravity and the forces felt by an accelerating observer. However, he did not state that they ARE the same thing, he stated that they are (not his actual wording here) practically indistinguishable in their effects. Einstein goes on to provide us with such things as gravitational time dilation and gravitational deflection of light.

Consequently, my understanding is that although the effects of gravitation and acceleration are the same in pretty much every way (unless you want to get petty), they are NOT the same thing.

Now, I'm not an idiot, I know that I may have made some gross error. If so, please point it out. For all I know I have made one and I am so convinced in my interperatation that I "cannot be wrong" (muchlike the nature of more stubborn Christians I have met, as an example).

Er, Christians aren't stubborn? You can't generalise Christians (there's a lot) as 'not stubborn'. I was referring to ones I have met (and I said that), not to all Christians. So I am sorry that you took offence, but I think you need to realise 2 things:

1) I'm not referring to Christianity in general
2) A lot of Christians are stubborn, simply as a personality trait. This is human nature in some people. Other Christians are stubborn in the way that they cannot accept that their own interperatation of something is wrong. eg, Fundamentalists believe everything in the bible to be the literal word of God, when it plainly isn't. So in this context, when Engy comes on (and lets face it he outclasses me in smarts), he may well convince me I am wrong. But onlyif he can convince me that I am scientifically wrong, not just interperating it differently.

Lol, no problem. Although a lot of my views on religion apply to most Christians, but lets leave that to the Religion board.

Quote from: Skeptical ATM on June 20, 2007, 08:24:54 AM

You wouldn't know it wasn't gravity doing it, no. But why would you assume that it was? Simply because it MAY be gravity doesn't mean that it IS gravity. There are a number of other ways to move a tinted, soundproof car.

You don't need that explanation for a car, because you have seen cars traveling on earth all the time. But, when you’re in a more unfamiliar environment, it tells you that you can’t trust your previous experience as you’re unable to tell if the system is accelerating or if there’s a gravitational field present. This is the essence of the Principle of Equivalence (And Gulliver, don’t show up with that APJ article, because, quite frankly you’re beginning to look like Tom Bishop with Earth: Not a Globe)

So why can't you just look for tidal forces. If you find them, you're in a gravitational field. Easy enough!

Oh, I have to doubt anyone who dismisses a APJ article like EnaG. Are you sure that you understand science and the peer-review scientific publication process?

Quote from: Bushido on June 20, 2007, 08:34:18 AM

Quote from: Skeptical ATM on June 20, 2007, 08:24:54 AM

You wouldn't know it wasn't gravity doing it, no. But why would you assume that it was? Simply because it MAY be gravity doesn't mean that it IS gravity. There are a number of other ways to move a tinted, soundproof car.

You don't need that explanation for a car, because you have seen cars traveling on earth all the time. But, when you’re in a more unfamiliar environment, it tells you that you can’t trust your previous experience as you’re unable to tell if the system is accelerating or if there’s a gravitational field present. This is the essence of the Principle of Equivalence (And Gulliver, don’t show up with that APJ article, because, quite frankly you’re beginning to look like Tom Bishop with Earth: Not a Globe)

So why can't you just look for tidal forces. If you find them, you're in a gravitational field. Easy enough!

Oh, I have to doubt anyone who dismisses a APJ article like EnaG. Are you sure that you understand science and the peer-review scientific publication process?

I found out that Your Friend had a PhD in nuclear physics a long time a go. With all due respect, but has he taken a graduate course in General Relativity, because, as far as I know, that is not obligatory for nuclear physicists. Nevertheless, APJ is the Astrophysical Journal and GR is a must there.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 20, 2007, 09:47:10 AM

...
Oh, I have to doubt anyone who dismisses a APJ article like EnaG. Are you sure that you understand science and the peer-review scientific publication process?

I found out that Your Friend had a PhD in nuclear physics a long time a go. With all due respect, but has he taken a graduate course in General Relativity, because, as far as I know, that is not obligatory for nuclear physicists. Nevertheless, APJ is the Astrophysical Journal and GR is a must there.

My friend has laid out his credentials. I've laid out mine (Ph.D. in OR, undergraduate BA with honors with majors in math, physics, and computer science, EMBA, peer-reviewed articles in top-shelf journals, international speaker, college and university (undergraduate, masters, and doctoral levels) instructor). We are left to wonder how wonderful your credentials must be to attack people like us, but feel free to continue your attack though. You must be really insecure to question a Ph. D. in nuclear physics.

By the way, my friend is not the author of the APJ article. He just references it to help you resolve your confusion about the EP and its application.

And no one at APJ would support your statements about GR. The EP, as Einstein presented it, is useful, but just not true.

My friend has laid out his credentials. I've laid out mine (Ph.D. in OR, undergraduate BA with honors with majors in math, physics, and computer science, EMBA, peer-reviewed articles in top-shelf journals, international speaker, college and university (undergraduate, masters, and doctoral levels) instructor).

Ooh, don't forget leading the design of the navigation software on the B-2.  Yet, strangely enough, you don't know how the B-2 navigates.

And you think that there are pictures of Dark Matter. 

And you claim to have pictures of black holes.

Then, you claim that we just don't have pictures of them because scientists forgot that there is more to the EM spectrum than the visible part.

Oh, and not to mention that you think that Bell's work allows for information to be transfered at faster than light speeds.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 20, 2007, 12:40:33 PM

My friend has laid out his credentials. I've laid out mine (Ph.D. in OR, undergraduate BA with honors with majors in math, physics, and computer science, EMBA, peer-reviewed articles in top-shelf journals, international speaker, college and university (undergraduate, masters, and doctoral levels) instructor).

Ooh, don't forget leading the design of the navigation software on the B-2.  Yet, strangely enough, you don't know how the B-2 navigates.

And you think that there are pictures of Dark Matter. 

And you claim to have pictures of black holes.

Then, you claim that we just don't have pictures of them because scientists forgot that there is more to the EM spectrum than the visible part.

Oh, and not to mention that you think that Bell's work allows for information to be transfered at faster than light speeds.

This from a person you says that all accelerations are gravitations. What a maroon!

1) The team I led was responsible for the refueling algorithm under navigation constraints. It's a very hard problem. I've published the resulting paper in a top-shelf OR Journal. It won recognition, including a multi-million dollar grant to my University from the Israeli Air Force.

2) I stand by my position.

3) I stand by my position.

4) I stand by my position. There is no other interpretation possible from Bell's work and its follow-on experiments.

1.  The engineer is a pilot that thinks balloons can travel faster then his plane.  27,000km/h faster.
2.  He thinks infinite energy is not a problem.
3. He thinks that one can take a picture of an object that pulls in light itself.  Pictures of black holes are really pictures of stuff being effected by the back hole.
4.  I don't know who Bell is but I know of this experiment.
http://plus.maths.org/issue12/news/fasterThanLight/

You know Engy I was actually going to apologise, as it now appears to me how you came to that conclusion; its simply how you read the words, and I read them differently to you. (Actually, the guy who taught it to me did). However you didn't bother to say that yourself, so I don't think I will.

1) I think he actually said that they were pseudolites, whichwouldn't have to be travelling at those speeds.
2) No defense for this one currently.
3) Yes, they are pictures of the effects, just like seeing the effects of a force (eg gravity or friction).
4) Perhaps Alexander Graham?

My friend has laid out his credentials. I've laid out mine (Ph.D. in OR, undergraduate BA with honors with majors in math, physics, and computer science, EMBA, peer-reviewed articles in top-shelf journals, international speaker, college and university (undergraduate, masters, and doctoral levels) instructor).

What's OR? What was your undergraduate major exactly? And isn't EMBA something about business administration?

Oh, yeah. Do you know the formula for the Second Newton's Law?

That's not really relevant. He could quite easily go on Wiki and find that. (Not suggesting you would)

Quote from: Gulliver on June 20, 2007, 12:40:33 PM

My friend has laid out his credentials. I've laid out mine (Ph.D. in OR, undergraduate BA with honors with majors in math, physics, and computer science, EMBA, peer-reviewed articles in top-shelf journals, international speaker, college and university (undergraduate, masters, and doctoral levels) instructor).

What's OR? What was your undergraduate major exactly? And isn't EMBA something about business administration?

Oh, yeah. Do you know the formula for the Second Newton's Law?

OR is Operations Research. I told you already these three: math, physics, and computer science. I technically had a minor in theoretical statistics but it won't fit on the paperwork or computer fields. The college hadn't had a "fourer" before. I also graduated in three years while working full-time all three years and as an Resident Assistant for two of the years, paying 100% of all expenses beyond a few scholarships. EMBA is a prestigious degree. It's a Master's degree of business administration, designed for corporate executives. In my case my company had to agree that I was soon to be promoted to Corporate Executive, which I was with a year of graduation. I later moved to a Fortune 200 Company as an executive.

Yes, I recall Newton's Second Law. I've read it first while reading his original treatise for fun in early high school. Perhaps, you should look at Principles yourself before you critique what I said.

Now you've avoided my questions, most cowardly, yet again. And now I have another for you: In your society doesn't it reflect most badly on your parents that you fail to confer respect to your elders?

Engy is a smart guy, but he rarely answers stuff like this directly. He'll find another flaw in counters to him, and hit us with it.

OR = Operations Research - Just as I suspected!

And how does this have anything to do with Physics, especially with General Relativity. It seems to be confirmed that you haven't the credentials to attack any point Einstein has made. Even though I haven't read the article you point out, if it was published in a serious Journal, it couldn't say that Einstein was wrong. We would have known about such a paper. And please don't use the Eötvös experiments in your discussions against me because I was the first one to post anything about that name on these forums. And they've nothing to do with tidal effects.

The very fact that you do not know Second Newton's Law was a clear indicator that you know nothing about Physics, despite your solid academic career. You may be a brilliant scholar, but not in the area of Physics.

It is irrelevant what my society teaches me about respecting elders. I thought you liked the scientific method. In it, one of the basic rules is that authority has no meaning. If one is wrong, he must be pointed to his mistake, regardless of his social or academic status. You may be the Chancellor of Harvard for all I care, but you’re still wrong in saying that Einstein was wrong about General Relativity. You have no proof of that. So, I suggest you go back to your primer and don’t pollute the threads with boasting about your academic credentials.

He's not necessarily wrong. Maybe you just interperated it wrong.

You know Engy I was actually going to apologise, as it now appears to me how you came to that conclusion; its simply how you read the words, and I read them differently to you. (Actually, the guy who taught it to me did). However you didn't bother to say that yourself, so I don't think I will.

1) I think he actually said that they were pseudolites, whichwouldn't have to be travelling at those speeds.

Hes called the ISS a balloon before too.  Stratalittes are balloons.

You know what?

I think Gulliver and Tom Bishop are the same person. They both made a claim to be doctors, they're both old, they both lack a sense of humor and they are both on these forums. 

Yeah I know he did, and I've quoted him on it. The general theory is that the satellites we see are actually these statelights which may indeed be balloon lifted. These have a lens allowing them to seem further away. Noone explained the speed problem you pointed out.

EDIT Well Bushido, you're not really answering our questiions after we point out you could be wrong in your conclusions. So maybe you're Tom.

EDIT Well Bushido, you're not really answering our questiions after we point out you could be wrong in your conclusions. So maybe you're Tom.

I am fucking Vishnu. I can be whoever I want 


EDIT:
Have some of you noticed that Gulliver was posting in here and suddenly he was gone. Guess he went googling. Hope to see you soon, Tom.

And you know what, I think I was actually talking about someone else and put your name. D'oh, sorry.

I actually mean several people.

OR = Operations Research - Just as I suspected!

And how does this have anything to do with Physics, especially with General Relativity. It seems to be confirmed that you haven't the credentials to attack any point Einstein has made. Even though I haven't read the article you point out, if it was published in a serious Journal, it couldn't say that Einstein was wrong. We would have known about such a paper. And please don't use the Eötvös experiments in your discussions against me because I was the first one to post anything about that name on these forums. And they've nothing to do with tidal effects.

The very fact that you do not know Second Newton's Law was a clear indicator that you know nothing about Physics, despite your solid academic career. You may be a brilliant scholar, but not in the area of Physics.

It is irrelevant what my society teaches me about respecting elders. I thought you liked the scientific method. In it, one of the basic rules is that authority has no meaning. If one is wrong, he must be pointed to his mistake, regardless of his social or academic status. You may be the Chancellor of Harvard for all I care, but you’re still wrong in saying that Einstein was wrong about General Relativity. You have no proof of that. So, I suggest you go back to your primer and don’t pollute the threads with boasting about your academic credentials.

I see. You're one really confused little person. A degree is not what makes a good person. Care, honesty, humility, and respect are the cornerstones that you need.

The Eotvos Effect is measured by the wonderful devise that Eotvos used. It's explained in the APJ. It's a tidal effect. I've pointed you to your error. Now answer it.

Perhaps, you could tell me where I'm wrong about the Second Law.

I'm not saying Einstein is wrong, per se. I'm saying that you're relying so much on the EP. Einstein didn't seem to me to want you to make the broad assumptions that you make. He wanted you to consider the possibility and to marvel at the wonders of the world that he saw. The hints to unravel great mysteries can lie in unexpected places, and especially to an open mind.

Finally, you do a great disservice to your parents. I hope that you can change, for their sake.

I see. You're one really confused little person. A degree is not what makes a good person. Care, honesty, humility, and respect are the cornerstones that you need.

Not relevant, Tom.

The Eotvos Effect is measured by the wonderful devise that Eotvos used. It's explained in the APJ. It's a tidal effect. I've pointed you to your error. Now answer it.

Here's a description of your effect.
No tidal forces there. Only Earth's rotation.

Perhaps, you could tell me where I'm wrong about the Second Law.

This is your post:

Now if you want to have some fun, consider the mass of the FE. F=integral(m(t)*dv/dt) from 0 to time. Mass increases exponential with time as the velocity approaches c. Consider how much force the UA must exert if the FE has a rest mass of 1*10^10 kg after 18 years of acceleration. After 180 year? After 1800 years? After 4 billion years? With a little effort, you'd quickly show that there isn't enough energy in the known Universe to power the UA. Please reply if you'd like to attack FE in this manner. We could work together, perhaps in a new thread, perhaps off-line and then present our completed results.

I hope that helps.

I'm not saying Einstein is wrong, per se. I'm saying that you're relying so much on the EP. Einstein didn't seem to me to want you to make the broad assumptions that you make. He wanted you to consider the possibility and to marvel at the wonders of the world that he saw. The hints to unravel great mysteries can lie in unexpected places, and especially to an open mind.

Will you stop writing about GR. I think you've said enough on that subject. Go manage some project while doing an operations research, you old fart.

Finally, you do a great disservice to your parents. I hope that you can change, for their sake.

I don't have parents. I'm Vishnu, remember. I am the begging and the end. I am become death, the shatterer of worlds.


Gulliver, or Tom, you SUCK.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 20, 2007, 04:10:47 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on June 20, 2007, 04:10:47 PM

The Eotvos Effect is measured by the wonderful devise that Eotvos used. It's explained in the APJ. It's a tidal effect. I've pointed you to your error. Now answer it.

Here's a description of your effect.
No tidal forces there. Only Earth's rotation.

Here's the appropriate text from the APJ Article already referenced:

Last but not least, we mention some examples of instruments that have been used in practice for the detection of tidal forces. The torsion balance of Eostov²⁶ (see Fig. 3) was originally designed as a "Schwerkrafwarometer" for the measurement of gradients in the gravitational field. The asymmetric suspension of masses makes this torsion balance quite sensitive to vertical gradients in the horizontal component of the gravitational field.
...
The strong principle of equivalence, as usually stated, is therefore false; nature does not obey it.

Now are you mature enough to admit your mistake?

wigga please, it says Eostov. That's not Eotvos.
I'm quoting that so you can't change it:

Here's the appropriate text from the APJ Article already referenced:

Quote from: Ohanian, Hans C., "What is the principle of equivalence?", APJ, Vol. 45, No. 10, page 409

Last but not least, we mention some examples of instruments that have been used in practice for the detection of tidal forces. The torsion balance of Eostov²⁶ (see Fig. 3) was originally designed as a "Schwerkrafwarometer" for the measurement of gradients in the gravitational field. The asymmetric suspension of masses makes this torsion balance quite sensitive to vertical gradients in the horizontal component of the gravitational field.
...
The strong principle of equivalence, as usually stated, is therefore false; nature does not obey it.

Now are you mature enough to admit your mistake?

...

Quote from: Gulliver on June 06, 2007, 04:17:20 PM

... F=integral(m(t)*dv/dt) from 0 to time. ..

Okay... And this is wrong why?

wigga please, it says Eostov. That's not Eotvos.
I'm quoting that so you can't change it:

Quote from: Gulliver on June 20, 2007, 05:03:55 PM

Here's the appropriate text from the APJ Article already referenced:

Quote from: Ohanian, Hans C., "What is the principle of equivalence?", APJ, Vol. 45, No. 10, page 409

Last but not least, we mention some examples of instruments that have been used in practice for the detection of tidal forces. The torsion balance of Eostov²⁶ (see Fig. 3) was originally designed as a "Schwerkrafwarometer" for the measurement of gradients in the gravitational field. The asymmetric suspension of masses makes this torsion balance quite sensitive to vertical gradients in the horizontal component of the gravitational field.
...
The strong principle of equivalence, as usually stated, is therefore false; nature does not obey it.

Now are you mature enough to admit your mistake?

Nice evasion of the issue. We could really have a debate about typing skills some other day. I suspect that your ego would get in your way though.