> From: Harry Veeder > I noticed you placed quotation marks around the term accelerating. > > It may well be that the electron is NOT accelerating in the sense of > mechanics which PRESUMES all acceleration is indicative of a > "smoking gun" i.e. an external force. > > Harry
Hi Harry, Indeed, I gather there remains a continuing debate concerning the definitions of "acceleration" versus "gravity" - are they truly the exact same phenomenon or not. The clearest definition I can think of that clearly reveals this paradox is Einstein's famous Elevator in Space think piece, the visualization that was later turned into a rocket ship traveling through space. If the spaceship was blessed with an unlimited fuel supply allowing it to constantly accelerate an individual within would find the effects of acceleration and gravity indistinguishable from each other, particularly if he had no outside windows in which to view potential external reference points. What is even more amazing about this experiment is that if a beam of light were shot horizontally across the room from one wall to the opposite side the observer would detect a slight bend in the light towards the direction of the ground. It would appear to this observer that the beam of light is BENDING. Any observer within this confined rocket ship room would interpret this light bending phenomenon as implying that some kind of "external force" must have influenced the beam ! of the light causing it to bend towards the ground in the same manner that throwing a ball across the same room causes it to assume the trajectory of a parabolic curve towards the ground. The puzzle, according to my very simple & prosaic understanding of Einstein's perceptions of acceleration versus gravity, is that there really isn't a "force" influencing the beam of light, nor any solid object for that matter that might also be thrown across the room. What's really happening (according to my understanding) is that the beam of light (and all solid objects for that matter) are simply moving through the fabric of 3D space, that in this example is flat. This is easy to comprehend when using the rocket ship analogy in which the visual manifestation of acceleration is clearly observable as the ship continues to accelerate as perceived by an observer outside of the rocket ship. What is NOT so easy to comprehend is the so-called effects of "acceleration" as it applies to a large mass like our planet Earth. In those cases we call the phenomenon the influence of "gravity" as compared to "acceleration." We have very simple mathematical formulas that predict how the phenomenon of "gravity" behaves - the square of the distance being one of the primary ones. However, a beam of light bends around the influence of gravity (like our Earth or Sun) in exactly the same way it would behave if the beam of light were beamed horizontally across the room within the windowless room of the rocket ship. This brings up the interesting conundrum from my perspective as to whether the phenomenon we perceive and label as "gravity" really exists in the first place. I'm under the current impression that it might be considered a gross misinterpretation, and illusion I might say, to perceive "gravity" as INFLUENCING any solid object or beam of light. It seems to make more sense from my perspective to simply call "gravity" another characteristic of the phenomenon we readily understand as "acceleration" as it applies to 3D space volume curvatures. The rocket ship reveals the simple effects of "acceleration" as it applies to a 1 dimensional space. In 3D volumetric space the effect can be perceived in the same manner as how a fixed volume of water is forced to flow through a funnel. As individual water molecules slowly approach the narrowing bottom spout of the funnel they are forced to "accelerate" faster and faster as they are forced to travel more quickly through a confined volume of space. It's the classic fire hose effect. It seems to me that the surface of a large planetary body, like our Earth or Sun, is treating "acceleration" in the exact same matter, where 3D volume space is in a sense being squeezed. In order to compensate for this squeezing effect objects "accelerate" faster at the surface than they would if dropped hundreds if not thousands of miles above the planetary surface - where 3D space isn't squeezed as much. The above analogy may not explain or prove the effects ZPE as suggested by Puthoff, other than the fact that it doesn't appear to contradict the assumption that a solid object that is being accelerated feels the effect of "gravity/acceleration" - which is theorized to be due to the object passing through ZPE space. On the other hand, my "clarification" might possibly help point out what I suspect could be a metaphorical trap of falling into a gravity well of illusory effects which I suspect many individuals innocently make. Their ensnarement within the gravity well of illusory effects may be hampering the next epiphany that awaits them just around the corner. Regarding epiphanies, well, I'm waiting for one as well! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
