[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> 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 >
This habit of contemplating of motion by shutting oneself in box began with Galileo and was taken to its logical extreme by Einstein: >From Galileo's _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_ "Shut yourself up with some friend in the main cabin below decks on some large ship, and have with you there some flies, butterflies, and other small flying animals. Have a large bowl of water with some fish in it; hang up a bottle that empties drop by drop into a wide vessel beneath it. With the ship standing still, observe carefully how the little animals fly with equal speed to all sides of the cabin. The fish swim indifferently in all directions; the drops fall into the vessel beneath; and, in throwing something to your friend, you need throw it no more strongly in one direction than another, the distances being equal; jumping with your feet together, you pass equal spaces in every direction. When you have observed all these things carefully (though there is no doubt that when the ship is standing still everything must happen in this way), have the ship proceed with any speed you like, so long as the motion is uniform and not fluctuating this way and that. You will discover not the least change in all the effects named, nor could you tell from any of them whether the ship was moving or standing still. In jumping, you will pass on the floor the same spaces as before, nor will you make larger jumps toward the stern than toward the prow even though the ship is moving quite rapidly, despite the fact that during the time that you are in the air the floor under you will be going in a direction opposite to your jump. In throwing something to your companion, you will need no more force to get it to him whether he is in the direction of the bow or the stern, with yourself situated opposite. The droplets will fall as before into the vessel beneath without dropping toward the stern, although while the drops are in the air the ship runs many spans. The fish in their water will swim toward the front of their bowl with no more effort than toward the back, and will go with equal ease to bait placed anywhere around the edges of the bowl. Finally the butterflies and flies will continue their flights indifferently toward every side, nor will it ever happen that they are concentrated toward the stern, as if tired out from keeping up with the course of the ship, from which they will have been separated during long intervals by keeping themselves in the air. And if smoke is made by burning some incense, it will be seen going up in the form of a little cloud, remaining still and moving no more toward one side than the other. The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship's motion is common to all the things contained in it, and to the air also. That is why I said you should be below decks; for if this took place above in the open air, which would not follow the course of the ship, more or less noticeable differences would be seen in some of the effects noted." Harry
