Einstein's Elevator Equivalence Error.

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?
crawler
Posts: 664
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Einstein's Elevator Equivalence Error.

Unread post by crawler » Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:42 am

Recently i saw an interesting article that said that E=mcc might be a problem for Einstein's Elevator gedanken (or chest gedanken) used to posit equivalence tween gravitational g & acceleration g. It said that if m=E/cc then an observer being accelerated at g might gradually gain relativistic mass, whereas an observer stationary on the surface of the Earth would not. Hence zero equivalence. I have never seen that argument before. Of course it wouldnt bother Einsteinists (such as Einstein in later years) who dont believe in relativistic mass increase. But i think that skoolkids are fed that contradictory krapp. Interesting.

Higgsy
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: Einstein's Elevator Equivalence Error.

Unread post by Higgsy » Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:00 pm

crawler wrote:
Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:42 am
Recently i saw an interesting article that said that E=mcc might be a problem for Einstein's Elevator gedanken (or chest gedanken) used to posit equivalence tween gravitational g & acceleration g. It said that if m=E/cc then an observer being accelerated at g might gradually gain relativistic mass, whereas an observer stationary on the surface of the Earth would not. Hence zero equivalence. I have never seen that argument before. Of course it wouldnt bother Einsteinists (such as Einstein in later years) who dont believe in relativistic mass increase. But i think that skoolkids are fed that contradictory krapp. Interesting.
The equivalence is to be tested in the frame of Earth's surface and the frame of the elevator and in neither case does the observer gain mass as there is no change in kinetic energy. No anomaly.
"Why would the conservation of charge even matter?" - Cargo

allynh
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Einstein's Elevator Equivalence Error.

Unread post by allynh » Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:53 pm

Crawler is right, and Higgsy is wrong.

- Why didn't I see that 50 years ago in high school?

- 50 years! Where has the time gone.

Plus, the implications that we are standing on the Earth, in a gravitational field, under constant acceleration, and not gaining mass, is profoundly disturbing.

What is gravity then, if not acceleration.

Then when you are in orbit around the Earth, in "Free fall", you are not having to keep accelerating to stay in orbit against that gravity field.

None of that ever occurred to me. Yikes!

- What else am I missing?

Thanks for pointing that out.

Higgsy
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: Einstein's Elevator Equivalence Error.

Unread post by Higgsy » Mon Dec 07, 2020 6:46 pm

allynh wrote:
Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:53 pm
Crawler is right, and Higgsy is wrong.
No you are wrong. You measure your mass when standing on the Earth's surface in the same frame as the surface and yourself. You also should measure the mass in the elevator in the frame of the elevator and yourself. The so-called relativistic mass is determined by the rest mass and the kinetic energy, and the latter is not frame independent. You can make the relativistic mass whatever you choose by choice of frame but in the frame where the object is at rest, its kinetic energy and velocity are zero and its mass is invariant and does not change over time (assuming everything else is constant in time) even if the frame is accelerating. There is no anomaly and the equivalence is not broken.
"Why would the conservation of charge even matter?" - Cargo

crawler
Posts: 664
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Einstein's Elevator Equivalence Error.

Unread post by crawler » Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:49 pm

Higgsy might be correct.
If we have free-falling-Fred falling (into the Earth) past static-Stan (on the surface), ffF might say that sS is gaining relativistic mass.
If we have ffF falling past accelerating-Albert (or free-floating-Fred)(quasi-stationary if u like), ffF might say that aA is gaining mass.
If so then mass Equivalence exists (within the internal self consistency of GTR)(ie there might be a mass paradox, but not a mass catastrophe).

However if so then what we are left with is the catastrophe that some scientists believe in relativistic mass (like Einstein initially), & some (like Einstein in later years) dont.

I dont know offhand what kind of Earthly problems arise from being in one camp versus the other. Certainly the believers have an extra weapon to repel some attacks on GTR. Hell, E=mcc has even been used to blow smoke over the Twins Paradox.

Aetherists (anti-Einstein) like myself probably dont (yet) have any theory supporting any kind of change of mass with speed (ie aetherwind) or relative speed or position or potential. Certainly not a theory involving true/absolute/real mass (as seen by an observer in the absolute frame)(aetherwind equals zero km/s). But we might have a theory involving apparent/perceived/observed/measured mass. I dont remember seeing any wordage about that kind of mass thing (except for my own wordage).

Aetherists dont believe in rest mass, they have just ordinary mass all the time (except perhaps for problems involving perception).

dren
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: Einstein's Elevator Equivalence Error.

Unread post by dren » Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:53 pm

Does Earth's gravity acting on an object in orbit change when the orbiting object changes its speed?

crawler
Posts: 664
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Einstein's Elevator Equivalence Error.

Unread post by crawler » Tue Dec 08, 2020 8:48 pm

dren wrote:
Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:53 pm
Does Earth's gravity acting on an object in orbit change when the orbiting object changes its speed?
Aetherists say that gravity (g) is due to the acceleration of aether into the Earth where the aether is annihilated -- & that that acceleration (g) probably changes with altitude. Plus we have a vertical centripetal acceleration due to inertia & orbital velocity, which we can call (vgi). And now we add the (horizontal) acceleration of the object (due to your proposed change in speed), which we can call (hgi). Plus we have g etc forces due to the Moon & the Sun.

I reckon that the answer should be that we dont know whether Earth's gravity for an orbiting object (or for any object anywhere) changes with speed. There might be a slight effect. Certainly it cant be a strong effect, NASA can measure & predict things to a few mm they say.

However Aetherists would say that in simple theory speed & velocity probably dont affect gravitational (g) because (g) depends primarily on the acceleration of the aether (ie the acceleration of the aetherwind, not the speed of the aetherwind).

But as we all know when we change the speed of an orbiting object then the orbit etc change.

In an elevator or chest gedanken introducing a bit of sideways speed probably doesnt change the (vertical) argument, & introducing a bit of sideways acceleration probably doesnt change the (vertical) argument.

crawler
Posts: 664
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Einstein's Elevator Equivalence Error.

Unread post by crawler » Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:35 am

Today i redd Sujak -- Einstein's destruction of physics.
On page 50 Sujak mentions Einstein's change of heart over the years re an observer in a lift gaining mass, versus an observer standing on the surface of Earth not gaining mass.
https://issuu.com/ioandegau/docs/sujak_ ... f_20physic

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest