Equivalence Principle
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#1 Aug 13, 2011
Are there any errors in the following passages (all occur in vacuum)? There is a tall steel tower. Along this tower, an elevator cabin is in free fall. On this tower, light sources are set at intervals of ten meters. Lights are emitted from these and pass through horizontally a hole on the wall of this cabin (supposed to be the left wall ; timing is arranged). Light will reach somewhat upper point on the right wall. It will not be the same phenomenon occurs in non-gravitational field (even if steel tower is supposed to be accelerated upward).

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/e...
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#2 Sep 10, 2011
An elevator cabin is at a standstill in non-gravitational field. On the side wall (supposed to be the left wall), there are ten holes (at regular intervals ; vertically). The sun light is coming from the just left and passing through the holes. Then, on the right wall, there are ten projections (spot-lights ; don't move). But, if this elevator cabin begins free fall (downward), projections will move upward.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#3 Oct 11, 2011
On the ground, there are slanting rails (45 degrees). On this rails, an elevator cabin was accelerated upward at 1G and then at 2G. Can equivalence principle explain the change of resultant force (by inertial force and gravity)?
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#4 Dec 9, 2011
In non-gravitational field, there is a space ship (mother ship). Now, two probes separate from the mother ship and begin an accelerated motion to opposite direction (at 2g and 1g. by gas jet). No gravitational field will occur on the mother ship.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#5 Jun 11, 2012
A tall elevator cabin is in free fall. In this cabin, pressure of gaseous body is different (because value g is different). Equivalence principle will be wrong.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#6 Jun 14, 2012
An elevator cabin is accelerating upward. With the roof, a small body collided (came vertically). And after 10 seconds, a second body (the same mass) collided (came vertically also). This situation will not be the same to an elevator in gravitational field (at a standstill).
- P.S.- Some books today say that accelerated motion is not relative.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#7 Jun 23, 2012
“Accelerated motion is not relative”. It’s a subheading of a book (in Japanese). Yes, time dilation in gravitational field is written to be real (one sided ; not relative). But in many books, it seems to be written that “accelerated motion is relative”.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#8 Jul 13, 2012
On a point mass, inertial force acts only in one direction always. Gravity isn’t so. Equivalence principle will be wrong.

Under every situation, the law of universal gravitation will act.

“deleted”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#9 Jul 14, 2012
I provided an extensive reply, what happened to my comment?

“deleted”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#10 Jul 14, 2012
nakayama wrote:
Are there any errors in the following passages (all occur in vacuum)?

Lights are emitted from these and pass through horizontally a hole on the wall of this cabin (supposed to be the left wall ; timing is arranged).

Light will reach somewhat upper point on the right wall.
This is potentially a contradiction as written.

Light passing horizontally is thought to be a laser and would not reach the upper point on the right wall. And if it reaches the upper point, does it also reach the lower point and is therefore a divergent beam.

Or, are you assuming the box is travelling fast enough that the speed of a single photon when passing through the hole has the option of either:

1) shifting reference frames and hitting parallel to the hole, or
2) follow its original reference and hit the upper corner of the box.

So the hidden question here is "What determines the Reference Frame of systems of causality in regard to relativity?"

Once released, does a photon follow a fixed flight path? Or does the curvature of space-time modify based upon systems of causality?

Is this a correct interpretation of what you are seeking?
Physics

Yokohama, Japan

#11 Jul 18, 2012
To QESdunn,

None seems to judge it. So allow me to try to rewrite (Sorry, I can’t grasp your post well).

A box is floating in space. A star ray is passing through a hole on the left wall (Angle of ray to the wall is 90 degrees. It’s a postulate). A spotlight projected on the right wall doesn’t move. But when the box begins free fall, spotlight will continue to move upward. It’s all that i can write.
QESdunn

Albuquerque, NM

#12 Jul 19, 2012
Physics wrote:
To QESdunn,
None seems to judge it. So allow me to try to rewrite (Sorry, I can’t grasp your post well).
A box is floating in space. A star ray is passing through a hole on the left wall (Angle of ray to the wall is 90 degrees. It’s a postulate). A spotlight projected on the right wall doesn’t move. But when the box begins free fall, spotlight will continue to move upward. It’s all that i can write.
Assuming the star is at a great distance, and the box moves only a couple of kilometers perpendicular to the light path, the spot of light will still be in the same position on the opposite wall.

When I have time I'll sit and look at all the related information more closely.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#13 Jul 19, 2012
To QESdunn,

Your writing above is established view, i think. Every book writes as you wrote
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#14 Jul 23, 2012
“Accelerated motion is not relative”,”Equivalence of every frame including accelerated frame”

The two above seem to be inconsistent. These are subheading of books (in Japanese ; published in 1998 and 1999).
QESdunn

Albuquerque, NM

#15 Jul 29, 2012
nakayama wrote:
“Accelerated motion is not relative”,”Equivalence of every frame including accelerated frame”
The two above seem to be inconsistent. These are subheading of books (in Japanese ; published in 1998 and 1999).
The speed of the box moving plays a role in the relative position of the spot of light.

I know you meant the box to be in the vacinity of a gravitational body. But in space the box would be influenced more complexly than just a single body in free fall relative to a gravitational point source.

This is what makes experimentation difficult; isolating influences, especially those that are systems of unknowns. This is why getting exact repeatable measurements are not presently possible. And when an exact measurement occurs then likely fraud or the measurement device are at fault.

12 places of precision is incredibly difficult to achieve with any accuracy. An infinite number of places of precision with absolute accuracy is required to be exact.

Within the error is where Relativity is found. By isolating systems of relativity when making measurements, the sources of error can be identified. Groups of error can be categorized relative to speed, gravity, position, energy, force... and when analyzing the dimensions of units for these descriptions:

higgs boson, higgs field, space, time,

and all of observable physics is described by these basic relationships.

Relative to the spot on the wall: the position on the wall depends upon the relative precision of measurement and the closeness to the extremes of physics for the related experimental components.

Classical (Newtonian) Physics models non-relativistics observations in the Sweet-Spot of physics. The Sweet-Spot is near the center of all physics constraints.

Speed of Light
Plank's Constant
...

If you want to challenge your thoughts related to relativity, you can try reading:

http://qesdunn.pbworks.com

Proposed is a pathway leading to the control of time and space.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#16 Aug 2, 2012
To QESdunn,

Einstein seems to considered that we can deal with this problem (a box and star ray) by “thought experiment”. On this point, i agree with him completely.

If this post is irrelevant to your post, i apologize.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#17 Dec 17, 2012
The vector of action is recognizable. It will be a premise of the law of action and reaction. Equivalence principle disregards it.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#18 Jan 7, 2013
Action of gravity will be the same on an accelerating body. Equivalence principle will be wrong.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#19 Jan 8, 2013
P.S. to yesterday's post

* Formula on falling speed is valid.
* An experiment on falling body of rotating body was done (at Tohoku University in Japan).
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#20 Jan 17, 2013
A disk is rotating. According to the equivalence principle, as the center of the disk recedes, gravity increases. Unthinkable !!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Physics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Baseball vs Tennis Ball (Jan '07) Nov 6 Ben 20
better safer ways of producing clean energy for... (Feb '17) Nov 1 discountbrains 2
News Einstein's handwritten notes sell for $1.8M Oct 31 Pardon Pard 12
News Solar Energy: Prototype Shows How Tiny Photodet... Oct '17 Solarman 1
News Marshall University student to research black h... Sep '17 Mr_Zerubbabel 1
News NASA instrument key to understanding solar powe... Aug '17 Concave 1
The THEORY OF EVERYTHING has been discovered! (Sep '16) Jul '17 Atlanta Puppeteer 2
More from around the web