Einstein's elevator gedanken in "zero g" instead of "1g".

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? If you have a personal favorite theory, that is in someway related to the Electric Universe, this is where it can be posted.
crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Einstein's elevator gedanken in "zero g" instead of "1g".

Unread post by crawler » Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:21 am

Here is a new version of Einstein's elevator gedanken. It can be called a "zero g" version.
The elevator is floating in deep outer space, then later it is in free fall near a massive body.
The original version being a "1g" version, the elevator being accelerated upwards at "1g" m/s/s in deep outer space, then later sitting in a gravity field of "1g" m/s/s on the surface of Earth. The details of the new version are as follows.

FLOATING. An elevator with an inside observer is floating in deep outer space. Very old starlight enters a small hole in one wall & crosses horizontally to the opposite wall. Everyone here would agree that the observer sees that the beam of light has no bend.

FREE FALL. The same setup, except that this time the elevator is in vertical free fall above a massive body. Does the observer see a bend in the beam?

(1) A (silly)(wrong) application of the usual considerations involved in the original Einsteinian elevator gedanken says/demands/predicts that both beams should have zero bend. This is based on Einstein's Principle of Equivalence being correct, in the silly GTR sense.
(2) A (naïve)(but correct) assessment, in the spirit of Einstein's original elevator gedanken, says that free fall should result in a bend (upwards here). This is based on my own interpretation of how the new version of the elevator gedanken would be expected to behave, for a naïve inside observer, naïve because he/she is not aware that light bends due to the nearness of mass (ie he/she is not aware of Shapiro Delay, ie the slowing of light near mass)(& he/she is not aware of GTR)(nor STR).
(3) A (non-naïve) real-world experiment (not a gedanken) would find that both beams have zero bend. This is based (a) on free fall giving a bend equal to (2), which is (b) exactly negated by an equal downwards bend due to the massive body.

Anyhow, a correct (naïve) assessment of the new version of the elevator gedanken, in the spirit of the original version, demands that (2) applies. The observer sees an upwards bend, due to the acceleration of free fall. And this suggests that light passing the Sun bends by 0.87 arcsec. Which is the same result as a correct (naïve) application of Einstein's original elevator gedanken, ie which could only achieve 0.87 arcsec (it did not give Einstein's supposed 1.75 arcsec)(the 1.75 arcsec was achieved by adding an effect not existing in the gedanken)(as i have mentioned lots of times on this forum).
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Einstein's elevator gedanken in "zero g" instead of "1g".

Unread post by crawler » Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:44 am

The same elevator & observer etc.
But a new version of Einstein's elevator gedanken. It can be called a "1g plus 28g" version.
(1) ROCKET IN DEEP OUTER SPACE. The elevator is in deep outer space & is accelerating upwards (by rocket) at 1g. The inside observer feels an upwards g-force of 1g, & sees a downwards bend in the beam crossing the elevator.
(2) ROCKET NEAR THE SUN. Here the elevator is close to the Sun, it is in free fall at 28g (ie the gravity at the surface is 28 times Earth's), however a rocket accelerates the elevator upwards away from the Sun at 1g, hence the inside observer feels an upwards g-force of 1g, the same as in (1) above.

(3) LIGHT PASSING THE SUN. The observed bend in the elevator in (1), when applied to the well known standard case of light passing the Sun, must give (3a) 0.87 arcsec (my calculation), or (3b) 1.75 arcsec (using Einstein's historic faulty GTR elevator gedanken equivalence calculation). (3c) The real bend we know is 1.75 arcsec.

(4) THREE QUESTIONS. The observed bend in the elevator in (2), when applied to the well known standard case of light passing the Sun, gives us (4a)(4b)(4c).

(4a) MY CALCULATION. 0.87 arcsec.

(4b) EINSTEIN'S CALCULATION. 1.75 arcsec. This bend is wrong, my 0.87 is correct, mine is based on a proper use of elevator equivalence.

(4c) REAL CALCULATION. The inside observer we know would see a bend in the elevator of about 29 times the bend expected for an acceleration of 1g (based on a bend due to the 1g for the rocket plus a bend due to the 28g for the nearness of the Sun). Therefore if this large bend is applied to the case for light passing the Sun it predicts a bend of say 29 times 0.87 arcsec. That there 28g bend is naïve or lazy, i couldn’t be bothered crunching the equation for bending (ie angle = 4Gm/rcc). Anyhow i aint sure what i have proven here, probly just another dig at the sillyness of elevator gedankens.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Einstein's elevator gedanken in "zero g" instead of "1g".

Unread post by crawler » Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:29 pm

The same elevator & observer etc.
But a new version of Einstein's elevator gedanken. It can be called a "1g blackhole" version.

(1) ROCKET IN DEEP OUTER SPACE. The elevator is in deep outer space & is accelerating upwards (by rocket) at 1g. The inside observer feels an upwards g-force of 1g, & sees a downwards bend in the beam crossing the elevator.
When that there observed bend is applied to the well known standard case of light passing the Sun, it predicts a bend of 0.87 arcsec. Einstein says that it predicts 1.75 arcsec, but as i have explained before his 1.75 arcsec is obtained when he adds an effect not existing in the gedanken.

(2) ROCKET NEAR A BLACKHOLE. Here the elevator is close to the event horizon of a super blackhole, it is in free fall at 1g (ie same as if at Earth), however a rocket accelerates the elevator upwards away from the blackhole at 1g, hence the inside observer feels an upwards g-force of 1g, & sees a downwards bend in the beam crossing the elevator (ie the same as in (1) above)(& the inside observer is not aware of the blackhole).
When that there observed bend is applied to the well known standard case of light passing the Sun, it predicts a bend of 0.87 arcsec. Einstein says that it predicts 1.75 arcsec, but as i have explained before his 1.75 arcsec is obtained when he adds an effect not existing in the gedanken.

(3) THE REAL BENDING IN (2). Here is my estimate for the real bending in (2), based on Einstein's true prediction that light slows near mass (as confirmed by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay) after Einstein died).

(3a) The real bending due to the 1g rocket acceleration in (1) & in (2) will equate to a bend of 0.87 arcsec for light passing the Sun (ie 0.44 arcsec before the Sun plus 0.43 arcsec after the Sun).

(3b) The Einsteinian bending due to the 1g gravitational attraction of the Einsteinian super blackhole in (2) will equate to an Einsteinian bend of up to N*360 deg for light passing the Sun. This is koz in Einsteinian theory light passing very very close to the Schwarzschild Radius will do a number of orbits of the blackhole (ie N orbits) before escaping. A photon passing at a certain distance might do exactly 1 orbit (N=1), in which case that bend is i suppose in effect zero arcsec (ie the photon's initial approach & final departure are exactly parallel). A photon passing further away will do less than 1 orbit, in which case the bend can be anything tween minus 1 arcsec (ie for a photon that almost completes 1 orbit)(ie its real bend 1 arcsec short of 360 deg) & plus 1 arcsec (ie for a photon that passes a long way away & has almost zero bending).

I used the word Einsteinian four times here, but i doubt that Einstein believed in blackholes or the Schwarzschild Radius or singularities, i reckon that much of the modern Einsteinian Dark Age of science dogma has been foisted onto poor old Alby.

(3c) I reckon that that there silly Einsteinian analysis in (3b) aint correct, koz, it appears to me that Einsteinists ignore Shapiro Delay, ie they ignore that light is slowed near mass. Funny, the prediction of Shapiro Delay is Einstein's only contribution to science (albeit using wrong reasoning) yet Einsteinists ignore Shapiro Delay in their calculations for their silly blackholes.

I reckon that Einsteinists ignore that light passing/grazing their silly blackhole (ie grazing the event horizon) must be slowed from the standard c km/s found in vacuum (if well away from mass) to a slower c' km/s when near mass (a blackhole here). But it gets worse. I reckon that c' near an event horizon is nearnuff zero km/s, ie photons slow to almost a dead stop. This slowing is based on the standard equation for gamma, which involves the square root of 1 – vv/cc. If the escape velocity v approaches c km/s then gamma approaches zero. This means that an event horizon duznt need to be based on an escape velocity of c, it needs an escape velocity of c'. This means that blackholes don’t need to be very massive. Einsteinists can simply add mass to a body until Ve = c'. They don’t have to keep adding mass until Ve = c. I don’t believe that the slowing of light near mass is described by the above gamma, ie by the square root of 1 – vv/cc, but it might not be very far off the true equation.

(3d) While i'm hot. If the atmosphere/surface of a super massive body has an appreciable thickness of gas/liquid, then the speed of light (say c') in that gas/liquid is slowed by the refractive index, in which case the speed of light here is c" not c'. Hence a super massive body becomes a kind of blackhole when its Ve = c". Hence a blackhole need not be very massive if it has an atmosphere.

(3e) Anyhow, as it turns out, my correct (3cd) analysis gives the same bendings as the flawed (3b) analysis. But my blackholes are smaller.
Anyhow, the inside observer in (2) will feel a 1g acceleration, & he/she expects to see a small bend in the beam due to the 1g. But he/she sees a giant bend, which we know is due to the blackhole.

Now, an elevator in free fall should have zero bend in the beam. The giant bend that he/she sees is due to the slowing of light by the blackhole (Shapiro Delay), it aint due to any acceleration. If the elevator in (2) was held at a fixed elevation near the blackhole then the giant bend due to the blackhole would be doubled, koz it would then be made up of 2 equal contributions from the acceleration & from the Shapiro Delay.
However, in this here gedanken the elevator is being held at a fixed elevation. The rocket is giving 1g upwards, while the blackhole is giving 1g downwards, & they cancel. Hence acceleration duznt double the bend (which now contradicts my earlier wordage underlined above). This contradiction amazed me. But other readers might not understand the ramifications. Duzzenmadder.

Re a blackhole having a gravity of only 1g at its event horizon, this sounds wrong, but it aint, it is possible if the blackhole is massive enuff, which mine is.

So, the inside observer in (2) must see a giant bend due to Shapiro Delay, plus a small contribution from the 1g acceleration.

Anyhow, Einstein's elevator gedanken was shite, is shite, & will always remain shite.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest