 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Newtons Corollary - Einsteins Postulat
Hello! I read the "Principia" and found... the principle of equivalence from Einstein! Here is a quotation from Newtons work: "COROLLARY VI. If bodies, any how moved among themselves, are urged in the direction of parallel lines by equal accelerative forces, they will all continue to move among themselves, after the same manner as if they had been urged by no such forces." Explain me - what is Einsteins genius? > Hello! > > I read the "Principia" and found... the principle of equivalence from > Einstein! It's on the very first page of Principia where weight and mass are equated. Didn't you read the introduction? The Law of Universal Gravitation dates back to Galileo, early 1600s. > Explain me - what is Einsteins genius? Try the possessive case. Annalen der Physik 4 XLIX 769-822 (1916) The Equivalence Principle is wholly unnecessary for an emprically validated, predictive theory of gravitation, http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4148 <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-97332004000700014&script=sci_arttext> http://www.ift.unesp.br/gcg/tele.pdf However, the postulated EP wonderfully simplifies things if it is true. There is only one untested EP violation allowed, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.dpf Somebody should look.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > However, the postulated EP wonderfully simplifies things if it is > true. There is only one untested EP violation allowed, > > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.dpf > Somebody should look. They might have a better chance looking at.. http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.pdf :) Your welcome Al, hope it does not burn too much. :) [...] > However, the postulated EP wonderfully simplifies things if it is > true. There is only one untested EP violation allowed, > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.dpf > Somebody should look "Gravity there makes inertia here" --E.Mach "Kill the wabbit, Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit" --E. Fudd So we don't need to look. "Origin of Gravity" http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6 Sue... > -- > Uncle Al -- | Hello! | [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | | Explain me - what is Einsteins genius? Same as J K Rowling's, who wrote Harry Potter. Pure magic. 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein That's why 4 = 12. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same? 1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B) where A = (0,0,0,t) A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v)) B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) x' = x-vt Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif "Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote. -------------------------------------------------------- According to xxein: It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts. --------------------------------------------------------- Not too hard to figure out who the kooks really are, is it? > "COROLLARY VI. > If bodies, any how moved among themselves, are urged in the direction [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Explain me - what is Einsteins genius? Gravitational mass = Intertial mass. That is one equivalence. Motion due to a uniform graviational field cannot be distinguished from acceleration. If you lived in a ship in outer space (but did not it) and the ship is accelerated at 1 g, you could not distinguish the force due to accelaration from the force due to an earth normal gravitational field. That is another equivalence principle. Bob Kolker > Motion due to a uniform graviational field cannot be distinguished from > acceleration. If you lived in a ship in outer space (but did not it) and > the ship is accelerated at 1 g, you could not distinguish the force due > to accelaration from the force due to an earth normal gravitational field. > > That is another equivalence principle. That is originally Newtons "Corollary VI". Einstein led an observer. The observer is also a body. Compare: Einstein:"For if one considers an observer in free fall, e.g. from the roof of a house, there exists for him during his fall no gravitational field - at least in his immediate vicinity." Newton:"If bodies, any how moved among themselves, are urged in the direction of parallel lines by equal accelerative forces, they will all continue to move among themselves, after the same manner as if they had been urged by no such forces." The Idea is exactly the same. On Jul 14, 1:10 pm, wor...@yandex.ru wrote: > > Motion due to a uniform graviational field cannot be distinguished from > > acceleration. If you lived in a ship in outer space (but did not it) and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > The Idea is exactly the same. But what Einstein added is to bring electromagnetism into the same tent. In electromagnetism we have the magnetic field which exerts a force on a moving charge. This is revolutionary! A force on a "moving" charge! Moving with respect to what? The laboratory floor? The Earth's surface? The solar system? Others (Lorentz, Poincare) discovered the law of transformation that would make electromagnetism work the same with respect to more than one inertial frame of reference, but only Einstein went on to prove the conclusion that length and time must be relative concepts, not independent of one's frame of reference. That took genius! The latter is a step at which the doubters balk. They "prove Einstein to be wrong" -- even "stupid "-- for saying that a ruler can have one length w.r.t. one frame and another length w.r.t. a different frame at the same time. It has been a century now, but deep down, there are physicists who still don't believe it. But experiment has shown him to be right. Uncle Ben > The latter is a step at which the doubters balk. They "prove Einstein > to be wrong" -- even "stupid "-- for saying that a ruler can have one > length w.r.t. one frame and another length w.r.t. a different frame at > the same time. It has been a century now, but deep down, there are > physicists who still don't believe it. But experiment has shown him > to be right. Actually Lev Okun argues quite convincingly an interpretation of Pound-Rebka using a falling photon is mathematically absurd. * R.V. Pound and G.A. Rebka, Jr. "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance" Phys. Rev. Lett. 3 439-441 (1959) * R.V. Pound and J.L. Snider "Effect of gravity on gamma radiation" Phys. Rev. 140 B 788-803 (1965) * R.V. Pound, "Weighing Photons" Classical and Quantum Gravity 17 2303-2311 (2000) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift While Einstein was ~right~ about the energy difference across Harvard Tower, his error in sign is a violation of causality and must cast doubt on other calculations that assume particle propagation for light. <<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply that the Academy recognised the particle nature of light? The Nobel Committee says that Einstein had found that the energy exchange between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv . As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta (in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the law that an electron emitted from a substance by monochromatic light with the frequency has to have a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however, found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange. The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology, photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on which the prize decision rested only in connection with emission and absorption processes. The Committee says that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >> http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html Sue... > Uncle Ben On Jul 5, 11:54 am, wor...@yandex.ru wrote: > Hello! > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Explain me - what is Einsteins genius? Einstein's genius, like the work of many geniuses -- like Newton, Feynman, Landau -- is not in inventing something from scratch, but *synthesizing* bits of ideas from predecessors into a whole picture that the predecessors did not see. Newton called this "standing on the shoulders of giants". Perhaps you had a different notion of what genius entails.... PD > Einstein's genius, like the work of many geniuses -- like Newton, > Feynman, Landau -- is not in inventing something from scratch, but > *synthesizing* bits of ideas from predecessors into a whole picture > that the predecessors did not see. > > Newton called this "standing on the shoulders of giants". What Einstein invented himself? Nevertheless the others are not mentioned, the tracks are blurred - only he is genius! I find this not fair. On Jul 15, 2:23 am, wor...@yandex.ru wrote: > > Einstein's genius, like the work of many geniuses -- like Newton, > > Feynman, Landau -- is not in inventing something from scratch, but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mentioned, the tracks are blurred - only he is genius! I find this not > fair. The others are certainly known to the physics community and their contributions also understood. But magazines for popular consumption and books for the coffee table are not intended to provide a balanced historical view. They are meant to thrill and to inspire. And for that purpose, choosing a hero, a star of the movie, always serves. Physicists are happy to correct this for physics students, but physicists do not waste their time trying to tell authors of magazines and coffee-table books to tell a balanced picture, anymore than historians try to correct Hollywood screen writers on scripts for historical movies. There is always "artistic license". If the book succeeds in enticing your interest, then you will read more and learn a more correct history, and the original book will have served its purpose. PD PD |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.