Hi Harry, > From: Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
... > In the alternative approach I should have said _speed_ instead of > _velocity_, as velocity implies speed with a direction. > > Also, instead of a ball, imagine it is *you* who is thrown up > but you carry a speedometer. The speedometer always reports a > positive speed. Like the speedometer in a car or the air speed > indicator in a plane, the instrument always reports a positive > speed. In the alternative approach, the relative velocity of > the ground is of no interest. What matters is what the > speedometer says over time. I suspect my thick headedness still doesn't grasp something essential here. Ok, I'm imagining *ME* being thrown up into the sky and I'm holding onto a speedometer. I understand you're telling me that the speedometer reports "a positive speed". A "positive speed" relative to what? I'm currently assuming this "positive speed" is in relationship to the ground - but then you also state that the "relative velocity of the ground is of no interest." So, I'm thrown into a state of mild confusion here! ;-) This is where I'll say something stupid here like "everything is relative!" Perhaps you can help clarify (to me) exactly what the mechanism is that allows you to define *MY* speed, after I have been thrown up into the sky and have started falling back towards the ground, as: "positive speed". In this exercise it's obvious that all things thrown up (including myself) will eventually fall back down. When I begin falling back it no longer seems accurate to describe my ultimate desination of splatting against the ground as "positive speed" anymore. Quite the opposite, IMHO. So, hopefully, I have clarified the confusion I'm continuing to have concerning your definition of "positive speed". > > - which brings up Einstein's > > comment that "Gravity" and "Acceleration" are essentially > > the same phenomenon. Please correct me if I error on this > > last statement but I believe Einstein has made that > > statement. > > > > I don't see the "discontinuity" you are proposing. > > > > Can you clarify? > > > > Yes Einstein made that claim, but I don't think it is true. > I believe there is a way to distinguish gravitational > acceleration from engineered acceleration through this > alternative approach. > > Harry IMHO, one of the biggest confusions perceived about the distinction between "gravity" and "acceleration" is the notion that perceived "motion" must be involved, or at least measurably observed i.e.: "Motion" to induce the effects of acceleration. Obviously, at first glance no "motion" is observed as we stand still on Terra Firma feeling the effects of "gravity." From that perspective it is easy to conclude that "acceleration" and "gravity", while sharing many interesting characteristics, MUST somehow be fundamentally different phenomenon. There is, however, a thought experiment I can offer that suggests that "gravity" is just another aspect of "acceleration", a thought experiment that I hope some will find amusing if not a tad mind boggling! In fact I wager that not very many theorists have perceived the thought experiment I'm about to suggest here. So, all you vortexians you're about to get a little peak into my mad little mind! FIRST STEP: Imagine you're standing on the surface of a very large balloon. The internal volume of the balloon is constantly being fed additional air. This obviously causes the balloon to expand, and if you're standing on the surface of that balloon you will sense the affects of acceleration as you're pressed down. If the balloon is as big as the Earth then an observer would be hard pressed to distinguish the effects of "acceleration" causing the balloon to expand from the effects of "gravity". SECOND STEP: Ok, now, take this thought experiment to the next level. Assume these inflatable balloons I speak so glibly about are actually every single atom in the universe. IOW, every single atom in the universe is ever soooo-slowly expanding. This includes all the atoms making up your body. In relative terms if all atoms in the universe are slowing expanding it might turn out to be impossible to distinguish the effects of "acceleration" from our perception of "gravity" because in this thought experiment one really is NOT experiencing "gravity". In truth one is experiencing the effects of "acceleration" even though it appears that "gravity" is holding one to the ground. Not only that because all atoms are slowing expanding in relationship to the flat curvature of surrounding space this implies that ALL matter is being attracted (slowly accelarated) towards all other matter. Walla! Gravity explained! When can I pick up my medal! Of course, I don't claim that my mad little thought experiment is the ultimate holy grail that truly explains the dirty little secret called "gravity". I'm sure there are many flaws in my mad theory that many will be more than happy to point out. In fact, I hope they do! One thing that I wonder about is how would electromagnetism, particularly EM frequencies be affected by this model of a slowing expanding atomic structure. I guess they would have to be slowing expanding as well. What happens to the constant speed of light: Is it slowing expanding as well? Things might get a little messy. I really haven't had a chance to take my thought experiment any farther than step ONE and TWO. In conclusion, Harry, I apologize in the sense that I don't believe I'm helping you make your case as I arrogantly attempt to suggest my own zany theory that would seem to contradict aspects of ours! ;-) I look forward to further deliberations. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
