I have about 4 fundamentally different thought experiments to debunk Relativity in various ways besides various other arguments involving electromagnetism.
While they have never been really hard to grasp, I have never had one that can be described in 2 quick sentences and be really easy to grasp like this one is, so logically infallible: Equivalence Principle If you drop a clock in Einstein's accelerating elevator it is instantly no longer accelerating and not subject to gravitational like time dilation. Either the same is true if the test is done in a gravity field (the clock is seen to run fast the instant you let go), or you can easily tell the difference! *So while I am very used to being ignored most of time time*, I really hope I am not ignored this time because coming up with a conclusive argument is not enough if it takes a while to read, or if there are enough distractions and misunderstandings to argue about. I really hope to get a reply from everyone here that thinks they have even a basic grasp of the equivalence principle, time dilation and so on. Obviously disingenuous objections can always be made but I think this is to clear cut to be badly effected by disbelief and smoke screens. So please, tell me I've done it. (either made a new expectation about the imperfection of the equivalence principle, or a new expectation about time dilation and gravity) Or Tell me I haven't because the equivalence principle was always known to have this fault. Or because gravitational time dilation was always known to have this quirk. Or tell me I haven't because the non-accelerating object will be time dilated by the acceleration of a local object because of some frame dragging effect and everyone knows that. Or tell me you don't understand it. Tell me you don't believe me but you can't explain it. But please this time, don't ignore me. John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:43 AM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > If I am wrong about this and this is an expected difference, then > the equivalence principle is often wrongly stated to be far more > bulletproof than it should be stated. > > This source says: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilli...Relativity.pdf > > The Equivalence Principle says that it's not just that you're too inept to > figure out a way to differentiate between them, but instead that there is *no > possible local experiment you can perform to tell the difference, no matter > how clever you are*. > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:17 AM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Leaking, I guess you are implying the equivalence principle is not meant >> to apply to dropped objects? >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:19 AM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Leaking, this does not apply to the elevator example though. >>> >>> And the equivalence principle states that G-force and Gravity aren't >>> similar but are the same thing. >>> >>> So if the non-accelerating clock in the elevator can't be reasoned to be >>> time dilated according to GR since it occupies an inertial reference frame, >>> but in in the gravity example... >>> >>> Then the equivalence principle so the equivalence-ish principle if it >>> predicts different things for a thrown or dropped clock. >>> If you can tell the difference easily, it isn't equivalent! >>> >>> Personally I would view that a person standing on earth is accelerating >>> relative to space but one going with the distortion of space (falling) >>> isn't as far as space is concerned. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:00 AM, leaking pen <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> gravity is an acceleration vector, it IS accelerating in relation to >>>> itself, not just in relation to you. In addition, it's an accelerating >>>> acceleration vector. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:57 PM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> If you are in an accelerating space elevator, and you throw a clock >>>>> upwards and then it falls down, the clock looks to be accelerating, but it >>>>> is in a constant inertial frame not accelerating and so your time should >>>>> slow due to acceleration according to the equivalence principle of General >>>>> Relativity (Gravity=time dilation & Gravity=inertia force) but you can't >>>>> observe other clocks that are in space around you not accelerating to be >>>>> effected by this form of time dilation. >>>>> >>>>> So if it is equivalent then you should be able to see that if you let >>>>> a clock be effected by gravity (fall) it should also tick faster than your >>>>> time rate. >>>>> >>>>> So a clock thrown into a black hole, at least as far as General >>>>> Relativity is concerned should be seen to tick at a normal to an observer >>>>> far away from the black hole! >>>>> At least until it stops falling. >>>>> >>>>> This is not AFAIK a recognized conclusion of General Relativity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
