"In physics as in logic, a principle is valid only when it is coherent with all the facts. An exception always disproves the rule. It is surprising to read how the equivalence principle has been generally accepted while it is so easy to prove that it is not coherent with the behavior of bodies located in other frames, as we will see below."

Other experiments involving Maxwell's equations exist which are not compatible with the reciprocity principle. However, the ones described above suffice to disprove this principle.

Dar sa vedem putin detaliile, ce este logic si ce nu... eu ma opresc la prima eroare logica. Este de ajuns sa confirme un drum gresit.

soarce391 mesajeMar 11 nov 2008 17:42#207

Pippo a scris:
Arunca-ti putin ochii aici:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/Chapter10.html

...

Dar sa vedem putin detaliile, ce este logic si ce nu... eu ma opresc la prima eroare logica. Este de ajuns sa confirme un drum gresit.

Tu ai citit si ai inteles ce a scris nenea ala acolo ? Uite aici o mostra de prostie:

10.4 - Bremsstrahlung Due to Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations.
To illustrate the difference between inertial and gravitational accelerations, let us consider another thought experiment in which electric charges are placed in a gravitational field. One or more electrons are deposited on a stationary insulator in the Earth's normal gravitational field. This is static electricity. It is well known that Maxwell's equations predict that any accelerated electric charge must emit radiation called bremsstrahlung. According to Einstein's principle of equivalence, charges at rest in the Earth's gravitational field should emit bremsstrahlung because of the gravitational acceleration. However, no experiment has ever detected the emission of bremsstrahlung due to the gravitational acceleration of static electricity. The emission of radiation due to gravitational acceleration has been overlooked.

Normal ca nu emite camp electromagnetic pentru ca in raport cu sistemul referinta (adica Pamantul) sarcina este in repaus. In schimb daca sistemul de referinta este atasat unui corp in cadere libera in campul gravitational al Pamantului atunci sarcina apare accelerata si observatorul detecteaza camp electromagnetic. Nu se incalca nicicum principiul echivalentei.

Pippo, gandeste inainte de a pescui informatii de pe internet.

Pippo8.725 mesajeMar 11 nov 2008 18:23#208

soarce a scris:
Tu ai citit si ai inteles ce a scris nenea ala acolo ? Uite aici o mostra de prostie:
Pippo, gandeste inainte de a pescui informatii de pe internet.

Ai dreptate. Nu citisem decat concluziile, de aia i-am spus "sa-si arunce un ochi". Nu am prezentat asta ca pe o demonstratie, ci ca niste puncte de vedere diverse. Vedem noi si detaliile ... :huh: Si ne oprim la prima eroare... :blink:

Pippo8.725 mesajeMar 11 nov 2008 19:23#209

In schimb aici este o clara inconsistenta, si mai sunt o multime: (Daca cineva are intrebari si nu intelege engleza, o pot traduce in romaneste)

Question - (2-G)

Einstein proposed the hypothesis that the force of acceleration G due to gravity is identical to the force due to inertia (when the velocity of a mass is changed). According to Einstein, these two forces are indistinguishable. Are there experiments showing that this is wrong?

A. - Yes, several experiments show that those two forces have a different nature, because they lead to different results. The force of gravity can be applied during a long time without requiring energy. However, the acceleration involving a change of velocity requires energy. It is well known that they lead to quite different consequences that can be verified experimentally.

-----------------------

Question - (2-H)

Can you give an example showing that the force of acceleration due to Gravity leads to consequences which are different from the acceleration due to a real change of velocity of a mass ?

A. - Let us compare the consequences of Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations.

Consider a mass standing on the surface of the Earth. After one year, the mass submitted to gravitational acceleration is always standing there, without changing its energy or velocity. Let us also consider another identical mass, submitted to an inertial acceleration of one G in outer space due to the push of a rocket. After one year, the enormous energy given to the mass is such that its velocity has reached an important fraction of the velocity of light. If that mass falls on Earth its energy produces a gigantic crater on the impact. Einstein's theory claims that these two phenomena are equivalent and indistinguishable. This is non-sense. Any scientist should be able to see the difference. In order to convince people, Einstein adds that there is no difference for the observer located in the moving mass' frame of reference.

In order to illustrate Einstein's argument, let us consider another case in which relative motion is observed. A well known example is when we observe the Sun and the stars crossing the sky everyday, (or the sunrise or the sunset). Relative to the Earth surface, the sky is moving around us and the Sun disappears below the horizon. However, we all know that Galileo, using astronomical data, observed that in fact, it is the Earth that rotates and not the Sun (and the sky). Using external astronomical information, Galileo found the correct motion of the Earth, which led him to correct our understanding of the motion of planets in the solar system. The simple observation of the relative motion of the Sun and stars around us, which previously led to the pre-Galilean naive claim of the motion of the sky around us, was very poor science. GOOD SCIENCE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ALL POSSIBLE OBSERVATIONS AVAILABLE. It is very bad science to ignore voluntarily some of the information available.

In the case of the inertial acceleration of the mass during one year, it is bad science to ignore the fact that the mass submitted to an inertial acceleration needs energy for that acceleration and will restore later the energy acquired. The mass accelerated by the rocket has acquired energy and an increase of "mass equivalent" (m=E/c2) mass cannot logically be ignored.

One must conclude that the Einstein's principle of equivalence between inertial and gravitational acceleration leads to a catastrophic physical incoherence between inertial systems. Einstein's equivalence principle between inertial and gravitational forces is not compatible with coherent observations. This principle of equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass is bad science belonging to pre-Galilean epoch.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/invalidation.html

Nu-i tot, ajungem si la demonstratia exacta a erorii, ce poate fi experimental demonstrata.

soarce391 mesajeMar 11 nov 2008 19:29#210

Pippo a scris:
In schimb aici este o clara inconsistenta, si mai sunt o multime: (Daca cineva are intrebari si nu intelege engleza, o pot traduce in romaneste)
Nu-i tot, ajungem si la demonstratia exacta a erorii, ce poate fi experimental demonstrata.

Iar te intreb, ai inteles tot ce zice nenea asta ?

Sustii ca ce ai prezentat mai sus este o proba ce invalideaza principiul echivalentei, sau ai facut doar copy/paste ?

Nu sublinia asa zisa concluzie ci exact textul din care se deduce incalcarea principiului echivalentei.

Asta ca sa nu pierdem timpul de pomana.

← Înapoi la Stiinta, Tehnica si Inovatii