Followup on Relativity Questions from UT Story

[antoniseb]

Posted for Jean Tate:

In a recent Universe Today article of mine, World-wide Campaign Sheds New Light on Nature's "LHC", Hannes wrote several interesting comments, to do with relativity.

I have directed readers of that article to the Q&A section of BAUT, as a good place to understand the points Hannes makes in more detail, and to get a better understanding of the topic in general.

To show how it can be done, I've started this new thread, and will invite Hannes, and Universe Today readers, to come here to discuss further.

Here's an early comment by Hannes, to get the ball rolling:

Jar Jar Binks was send with a rocket to space. He doesn't know why, but he will do the job – testing the equivalence principle with a massive ball in his hand.

He is in a big rocket with much fuel. He is accelerating with 1G . He also knows without looking out of a window that at the end of the trip there will be more mass in the ceiling than below him. Jar Jar drops the ball.

Will it drop to the ceiling or on his foot?

His brother Einstein look to the ship and sees the ceiling has more mass.

Jar jar Binks is afraid he will hurt his feet.
What will Einstein say?

He is thinking of throwing out the ball outside. He might have a speed close to lightspeed now, accelerating to LS compared to his brother. Will he be able to thow the ball outside, now the rocket is behaving like a black hole to the ouside world?

He is also very afraid he might evaporate due to Hawking radiation.

Einstein wrote a note to him "when you are ready and afraid – read this".

What will the note say?

[Cheap Astronomy]

So why is the ceiling going to get more mass - and how much more? If we consider the room is JJB's frame of reference then it's not obviously a relativistic change - someone is actually putting sandbags up there. What the hey? I don't see the relevance of this point.

Floor and ceiling are gravitationally defined terms - and otherwise mental constructs. Wherever the ball drops - that's the floor. If it drops to the ceiling - it means the ceiling has become the floor.

Sure he can throw it out. His space ship might look like a BH from a different frame of reference, but physics will still operate normally in his frame of reference.

The note would say "you are the epitomy of why Lucas should have stopped at 3 movies".

[forrest noble]

antoniseb, Jean Tate

Originally Posted by Hannes
Jar Jar Binks was send with a rocket to space. He doesn't know why, but he will do the job – testing the equivalence principle with a massive ball in his hand.

He is in a big rocket with much fuel. He is accelerating with 1G . He also knows without looking out of a window that at the end of the trip there will be more mass in the ceiling than below him. Jar Jar drops the ball.

Will it drop to the ceiling or on his foot?

His brother Einstein look to the ship and sees the ceiling has more mass.

Jar jar Binks is afraid he will hurt his feet.
What will Einstein say?

He is thinking of throwing out the ball outside. He might have a speed close to light speed now, accelerating to LS compared to his brother. Will he be able to thow the ball outside, now the rocket is behaving like a black hole to the outside world?

He is also very afraid he might evaporate due to Hawking radiation.

Einstein wrote a note to him "when you are ready and afraid – read this".

Since they are testing the equivalency principle, because they are accelerating at one G, all free/ unattached mass should fall in the opposite direction as the forward acceleration of the ship.

Now the guessing part begins to see if I understand the scenario. If at the end of the trip "there will be more mass in the ceiling than below him" that would seemingly mean nothing since acceleration and deceleration are the controlling factors. I assume the scenario is that they will turn around at the half way point. Although the rocket ship is approaching the speed of light the acceleration has apparently not changed at that point. Just because the ceiling will be more massive at the end of trip (maybe fuel consumption) will mean nothing compared to the equivalency principle and the acceleration -- so the ball, according to the equivalency principle, will fall on his foot/ feet (since it would appear the floor is opposite the direction of acceleration). Hopefully it's a child's bowling ball and he has hard toe boots.

I guess Jar jar's mind does not work too well either, considering throwing the bowling ball out the window and all, but if he could do so the ball would fall in the direction of the tail of the ship since the ball would no longer be accelerating. The ship and Jar jar would not become a black hole and would not evaporate (even though their potential-energy impact-mass would be huge but meaningless from Jar jar's perspective excepting upon splat!) -- maybe the whole ship and he in it might long before then ionize and disintegrate, but that's just speculation.

"when you are ready and afraid – read this". What will the note say?

The ship is starting to turn; don't be afraid. Take your vertigo pills and be prepared for standing or lying on the walls. You are now going to turn around in the next light month whereby you will be lying on the walls all the way around, then you will be decelerating all the way back to Earth. The "new floor" at that time will be on the ceiling. The front locker has a sensing device whereby it will only unlock after you have made the turn. This lock was put in for your own protection because there's a second keg of rum in the locker. Try not to drink it all at once like you usually do and like you probably did with the first keg.

[Ken G]

I can't say I understand the scenario completely, I have many of the same questions that have been posed. Does the "end of the trip" imply the proper acceleration has stopped? Is there deceleration, or a turnaround? Is the ball dropped at the end, or during the acceleration? Why is this whole thing not a simple application of the fictitious gravity that appears when you have proper acceleration (indeed, is the very definition of proper acceleration)? How could the inconsequential mass of the rocket, as reckoned by Jar Jar, possibly induce enough force on the ball do to much of anything? And why is the ship supposed to be acting like a black hole, just because it is moving fast? Its energy will not increase (counting rest mass), and there doesn't appear to be much pressure here, so I don't see why the ship's gravity should be expected to increase at all.

[Jean Tate]

My thanks to antoniseb for starting this thread on my behalf.

Hannes does not seem to have been interested in follow-up here.

In any case, in the interest of completeness, here are his remaining comments, on my Universe Today story, that seem to be relevant to this topic.

Explain this: the earth is accelerating at 1 G since the beginning of her existance.
Einstein's Equivalence Principle shows that there is no difference between constant acceleration of a rocket and gravity.

We are moving now compared to the beginning of a young Earth with a relative speed of 99,99999999E % lightspeed. We are a dangerous black hole now if set back in time!

If there was not a mechanism in this universe making possible differences between entropy/enthalpy, those forces would not exist.

If a black hole would only exists as a point-like source without more then 1 dimension, how would this 1-dimensional source produce 3- dimensional gravity? Why would would it have any influence at all? If matter would shrink to infinity its influence would be neglitable.

All other matter is showing dynamic thermo-dynamic properties. Why should a black hole be completely without dynamics? It is just an assumption based on ignorance that a black hole does only react with this universe on the event horizon, which is a purely mathematical solution for a black holes very obvious influence on this same universe.

An electron should not escape from any atomic black hole by comparison

Einstein designed and constructed the rocket so that all fuel and mass below would have been used during the trip.

When all is gone below Jar Jar is standing on a thin floor. But above him is still the same rest of his ship (his living quarters).

At rest it does not matter that below the ship there was more mass then at the top. The difference in gravity was not of any meaning, too weak for a difference to be detected.

But during the trip the configuration changed. The rocket was designed with that change in mind. Einstein wanted to know whether the balance in gravitational forces would change in a dynamic way.

Will it now be as if Jar Jar is standing at a floor with mass earth and above a mass like Jupiter from Einstein's point of view?

The situation is not as easy to understand as on first sight.

The strong equivalence principle states that in a free falling situation (our ball) only on small distance and timescales gravitational fields are not having any influence.

On the link above it is already shown that fast spaceships can behave like a black hole, but are apparently not the same. Einstein based his entire equivalence principle on Mach's work. If Mach missed someting – you guess.

Nevertheless there is also a breach in equivalence in the situation as described in the link above where it says the situation with a black hole and a fast ship is not equivalent. That is worrying to me.

It usually means, like in dark matter/energy issues that we are missing something crucial.

So will Jar Jar hurt his feet? You tell me.

Let's have a look into the possible differences between "schwere masse" and "träge masse".

Mach and Einstein state that they are equivalent. We will look into that now.

We will simulate on earth a situation so we can reduce the influence of "träge masse".

In our experiment we balance out the forces in the equatorial plane to look solely to the vertical forces which are as we know produced by gravity.
We will need a trick to rule out the influence of the rest of the universe, which according to Mach is the cause for "träge masse". In our local experiment we cancel out the degree of that influence by measuring solely the extend of "schwere masse", which is the pure vertical y-axis in a gravitational field.
The problem with matter is that it has dimensions and that the particles are not exactly on the same distance along the curvilinear abscissa within the gravitational field. we will try to mimic a situation where there is no influence on this horizontal plane.

When, here on earth, you would have a stick with the same curvature as the earth gravitational field and you would balance that stick perfectly (like a pencil upon a pencil) there is just pure "schwere masse".
When you would exert a force on the equatorial plane you can check whether "schwere masse" is the same as "träge masse". If it shows that (in the perfect situation with no friction) there is no inertia then we prove Einstein and Mach wrong. Any horizontal force F can be translated into a vertical force F, because there is no mass. In my opinion a Black hole represents this situation almost perfectly. Local gravity outweighs universal gravity almost completely. A black hole is flat on the horizontal axis so any change of force on the horizontal plane (which we would describe as momentum) would exert an equal force along the vertical plane. Momentum would be translated to gravity, so to say. The jet of the black hole represents in this situation the "release valve" of momentum from infalling matter.

I personally think that "träge masse" is ALMOST the same as "schwere masse". "Träge masse" is in normal circumstances not different from schwere masse. "Träge masse" is the result of the split-up of the different vectors within all the atoms involved. Mass is just an expression of those tensors.

And I totally gree with DrFlimmer , Jar Jar will hurt is feet (again).

What is mass and speed when there is no equivalence?

It can be translated as probability/possibility tensors within spacetime. It describes the probability/possibility that an object is here or there within the space-time matrix. In fact we'll see we can describe gravity as the same expression. There is no difference between matter and gravity in our grid, and we can explain that the speed of light can in fact be limitless, but the probability for that is nearly zero. So you can be pretty sure that matter is "moving" along a certain track. A single atom is a representation of a probability cloud of tensors. Forces represent dynamic tensors in the grid. But the total of entropic forces in this universe are zero in the dynamic space-time grid. In this probabilitygrid you do not have to increase mass. You just stretch possibilities over a bigger area.

So Jar Jar will hurt his feet.

You can do an experiment in which you check whether gravitional fields influence the shape of a magnetical field. You can do it right here on Earth. If it's perfectly round you will prove gravity is not a result of bending space.

It will prove that "träge masse" or inertia, is not the same as "schwere masse" or heavy mass. Exacly like my example, thanks this might be easier to prove.

@LBC:
You're great, but take a look at the other possibilities. Lorentz transformations are counterintuitive with QM! You will never be able to unite those two if you do not question one or the other.

QM predicts that with greater speed you will have bigger problems defining an objects position. Lorentz' transformations declare the opposite.
I think Einstein did not have a clue about the nature of matter and gravity. I am trying to overcome this problem. I say you don't need Lorentz transformations if you can prove there is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Lorentz' equations are just a step back to "absolute movement" and "absolute position" and ether.

Anyone can see that and Einstein knew but was not capable of solving that issue at the moment.

Sorry,

" If it's perfectly round you will prove gravity is not a result of bending space"

.. is not an option. But you can turn any object with any electromagnetical field within a gravittational field. It might have any shape [form].

When you prove that the gravitational force is in not in any way influencing the shape of the field then you will have proof.

I will describe another experiment which can prove or disprove the origin of inertia. The meaning of this experiment is to determine whether the gravitational field itself is responsible for the slowing down of an atomic clock, or just the movement in a gravitational field is creating chaotic tensors at an atomic scale.

Put an atomic clock [on batteries] on a horizontal stick and of course a counterweight on the other side. Now carefully balance the stick on a small ridge till it stays horizontal. It is very difficult, almost impossible – I know.

It's the same problem as when you try to balance a pair of pencils on top of each other.

Now compare it with another atomic clock just standing somewhere else in the room.

If you will notice that time on the balanced clock goes faster as the one on the floor then you have proven that inertia ("träge Masse") is the cause of the time dilation. Thus "träge Masse" is NOT equivalent to "schwere Masse".

Anyone here who is willing to put Einstein to the test?

To understand my experiment correctly. Both clocks are at the same height in my experiment. The cesium atoms will be at the exact the same height within the gravitational field in both clocks. I do not want them to differ.

As LBC states Einstein's equations will predict no difference in time between the 2 clocks. I fully agree. But I want to put that to the test.

Important detail is that the Cesium atoms from the balanced clock should be in exact line of the same horizontal plain [stick]. Not on the stick, which would be above the stic.k,

I should have been more precise, I'm sorry.

I do not really understand what Hannes is saying, but I suspect that one or more of the Eöt-Wash experiments tested his ideas, to a high degree.

More generally, what are the best tests, to date, of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass?

[forrest noble]

antoniseb, Jean Tate,

Thanks for the answers. But in my opinion this guy Hannes is confused with all those words such as schwere mass/ schmere mass stuff. Send him a copy of my posting #3 so he knows how the trip "really" went and what the note "really" said ; such are the differences between theory and reality.

[Ken G]

It doesn't sound like Hannes is maintaining either a correct or consistent position. It's just ATM guessing about what would happen in experiments that are more precise than anything we can actually do, as far as I can tell. Why would it possibly matter if the object was suspended by a horizontal rod, or by a platform under it? And it would help to know what "above link" he was referring to when he talked about rocket ships acting like black holes-- to me it's pretty absurd to imagine that the gravity of the roof of the rocket will magically become huge for a person moving with the rocket, and as I said above, if we are talking about people outside the rocket, its relativistic mass cannot increase as it accelerates if it is self-propelled. Is there some reason we should expect these remarks to be cogent, and we just don't know enough ourselves to see why they are cogent?

[Jean Tate]

Thanks everyone.

The "link above" is Can a Really, Really Fast Spacecraft Turn Into A Black Hole?

Hannes seems to have left the building, so we're talking to ourselves.

I agree that his comments are confusing.

In any case, I'm still interested to know what is considered the best test, to date, of the the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass.

[slang]

Then perhaps a new thread, or a change of title to the current thread, might pull in more readers who might know of such experiments.

[publius]

Being a blackhole is something of an invariant. If ain't a blackhole in the rest frame (such as it can be defined), then it ain't a blackhole in any frame. The Schwarzschild radius applies to the rest frame. In a moving frame, the black hole is Lorentz contracted in the direction of motion and all that good stuff.

In the rest frame, if you pack more mass into a sphere less than or equal to its Schwarzschild radius, you have a black hole. In other frames, that sphere becomes something else. So, in a frame whizzing by the earth at near light speed, it doesn't matter that the earth is contracted and more "massive" in SR thinking terms. Think about it. How silly it is to suppose that just because a hypothetical observer (who can be just a mathematical entity) whizzes by something at near light speed, that will cause another object to collapse into a black hole? That's just silly. Indeed, when you think about it, it's an absolute contradiction of the spirit of relativity (that the invariants are all that matters).

Transforms of the gravitational field are very complex, and what relativistically moving observers "see" in their own coordinates is a complex mess, but it's nothing more than a coordinate transform of a relatively simple thing in the rest frame.

The stress-energy tensor is invariant (integrating the sucker up is a problematic global operation of course). The space-time curvature that results from it is also invariant. It doesn't matter what frame/coordinates you use. Something that is not a black hole space-time in one frame is not one in any other.


-Richard

[Tensor]

In any case, I'm still interested to know what is considered the best test, to date, of the the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass.

The best test, so far, are the Lunar Laser Ranging tests, which are still ongoing. These show a accuracy of the Equivalence Principle to 2x10^-13

[Hannes]

First I want to apologize for not contributing yet to the discussion that Jean Tate started.

To understand Jar Jar fully I first have to tell someting about Mach's Principle. Please read the original manuscript "Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung" - Historisch-kritisch dargestellt. Ernst Mach 1912.

Look for a translation in English, it is completely free now from copyrights.
Here is some info on Mach in english: http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/mach.pr.html .

Next you'll have to understand the way Einstein understood relativity and gravity, but not in the form of math, but in contemporary available line of thought. But I'll start with information about gravity.

Gravity does not act on empty space. There is no gravitational force except when there is mass. This seems obvious, but is important.

Here are some possibilities for the speed of gravity:

1. Masses are spacially bound to fixed coordinates within an absolute "present" and are not dependent on the speed of light for the exchange of gravitational forces.

This presumes the concept of absolute time.The spacial position of far-away objects as we see in space is in no way related to their gravitational position. It could even be that an object we see today is not there anymore in the absolute "present". There is a great uncertainty on long distances at work here. There will be a need for a Big-Bang and a Big-Crunch. Inertia cannot exist in my opinion because the feedback of forces is timeless.

2. Masses are spacially bound, but with a double arrow-of-time. Speed is plus or minus lightspeed. Gravitational effects are acting within a time dependant frame which has the dimensions of a growing sphere.
Our present is having a gravitational effect on the object in the past and vice-versa. The gravitational position is exactly the same as the spacial position. The gravitational present does have an effect on the past, even if it's only having a minute effect. It is reacting to the past with -c and is growing as a sphere to past spacially configurations. Future gravitational fields do have an effect on the present too. You might say that past, present and future are not fully "documented". Still, the effects are small and inertia might be a cause of rewriting information. There is 2-way feedback and even overlapping possible. Inertia should have a partly non-linear character, although probably hardly detectable.

3. Masses are spacially bound to visible coordinates, but with a single arrow-of-time to the future. Only past gravitational effects are influencing the present. The future gravitational vectors here on earth must be divided to other objects [masses] nearby or at distance, acting like a virtual gravitational center. It is not the same mass which is attracting each other. Inertia will have a linear character, because present and future do not influence the past.

4. Masses are spacially bound to visible coordinates, but with a single arrow-of-time to the past.
Only future gravitational fields are having an influence on the present. The object we see [far star] has travelled along. The gravitational vectorial path is opposed to the line of travel.

5. Masses are not spacially connected, only the powers involved are. Arrow's-of-time are no matter of importance. We make a mistake if we think matter and gravity are connected. There are only localities with absolute spacial coordinates that have an influence on each other. It's rubbish, in my opinion.

Now where is Mach's Principle? I think option 3 is a viable option, so I take that one.

We create a situation where two objects are encircling each other at constant speed, at a distance of 1 lightsecond, about 300.000 km.

You might have a different view in this case in which only the universe is in motion and the 2 objects are at rest. There is no gravity - only the universe is turning around.

From the oppposite more logical point of view you can say there is gravity and we have to explain it with an arrow-of-time, to the future in our case.

We suggest that there is also a man in the middle watching it over. He sees that the 2 objects are exactly 180 degrees opposite to each other. But that is not what the observers in the 2 objects see from each other. Gravity takes time, it's on lightspeed. At a quarter of the orbit the virtual gravitycenter will have changed to 1/4 times 2 PI R at the curvilinear abscissa. This is possible at 235.000 km/s = 78% lightspeed. The virtual strength of the gravitational field is then r times sqr 2= ~212.000 km.

First this, then I continue with Jar Jar.

[Jean Tate]

The best test, so far, are the Lunar Laser Ranging tests, which are still ongoing. These show a accuracy of the Equivalence Principle to 2x10^-13

Thanks.

According to the Eöt-Wash site, and a 2008 paper, the best test of the WEP they have done beats the LLR by a factor of ~10 (0.3 +/- 1.8 x 10^-13), but with large error bars, and only relative to Be and Ti (and only here on the surface of the Earth).

I'm glad to see that Hannes has now joined the discussion.

[forrest noble]

Hannes,

Glad to see that you and Jean Tate could drop by. Hope it happens more often.

My perception of one of the problems with the JJ scenario involves differences between acceleration and velocity.

In the JJ scenario the acceleration never acceded 1G so the mass of the ship and JJ never exceeded their mass equivalence on Earth. Their "potential mass" was based upon their velocity. At close to the speed of light this potential would never be realized unless splat, at which time their close to immediate deceleration would make their mass equivalence momentarily very large.

Also the equivalency principle, as far as I know, has never been in question by any respected theorists, mainstream or not -- whereby SR and GR have always been under assault, especially now.

[DrRocket]

First I want to apologize for not contributing yet to the discussion that Jean Tate started.

To understand Jar Jar fully I first have to tell someting about Mach's Principle. Please read the original manuscript "Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung" - Historisch-kritisch dargestellt. Ernst Mach 1912.

Look for a translation in English, it is completely free now from copyrights.
Here is some info on Mach in english: http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/mach.pr.html .

Next you'll have to understand the way Einstein understood relativity and gravity, but not in the form of math, but in contemporary available line of thought. But I'll start with information about gravity.

Gravity does not act on empty space. There is no gravitational force except when there is mass. This seems obvious, but is important.

Here are some possibilities for the speed of gravity:

1. Masses are spacially bound to fixed coordinates within an absolute "present" and are not dependent on the speed of light for the exchange of gravitational forces.

This presumes the concept of absolute time.The spacial position of far-away objects as we see in space is in no way related to their gravitational position. It could even be that an object we see today is not there anymore in the absolute "present". There is a great uncertainty on long distances at work here. There will be a need for a Big-Bang and a Big-Crunch. Inertia cannot exist in my opinion because the feedback of forces is timeless.

2. Masses are spacially bound, but with a double arrow-of-time. Speed is plus or minus lightspeed. Gravitational effects are acting within a time dependant frame which has the dimensions of a growing sphere.
Our present is having a gravitational effect on the object in the past and vice-versa. The gravitational position is exactly the same as the spacial position. The gravitational present does have an effect on the past, even if it's only having a minute effect. It is reacting to the past with -c and is growing as a sphere to past spacially configurations. Future gravitational fields do have an effect on the present too. You might say that past, present and future are not fully "documented". Still, the effects are small and inertia might be a cause of rewriting information. There is 2-way feedback and even overlapping possible. Inertia should have a partly non-linear character, although probably hardly detectable.

3. Masses are spacially bound to visible coordinates, but with a single arrow-of-time to the future. Only past gravitational effects are influencing the present. The future gravitational vectors here on earth must be divided to other objects [masses] nearby or at distance, acting like a virtual gravitational center. It is not the same mass which is attracting each other. Inertia will have a linear character, because present and future do not influence the past.

4. Masses are spacially bound to visible coordinates, but with a single arrow-of-time to the past.
Only future gravitational fields are having an influence on the present. The object we see [far star] has travelled along. The gravitational vectorial path is opposed to the line of travel.

5. Masses are not spacially connected, only the powers involved are. Arrow's-of-time are no matter of importance. We make a mistake if we think matter and gravity are connected. There are only localities with absolute spacial coordinates that have an influence on each other. It's rubbish, in my opinion.

Now where is Mach's Principle? I think option 3 is a viable option, so I take that one.

We create a situation where two objects are encircling each other at constant speed, at a distance of 1 lightsecond, about 300.000 km.

You might have a different view in this case in which only the universe is in motion and the 2 objects are at rest. There is no gravity - only the universe is turning around.

From the oppposite more logical point of view you can say there is gravity and we have to explain it with an arrow-of-time, to the future in our case.

We suggest that there is also a man in the middle watching it over. He sees that the 2 objects are exactly 180 degrees opposite to each other. But that is not what the observers in the 2 objects see from each other. Gravity takes time, it's on lightspeed. At a quarter of the orbit the virtual gravitycenter will have changed to 1/4 times 2 PI R at the curvilinear abscissa. This is possible at 235.000 km/s = 78% lightspeed. The virtual strength of the gravitational field is then r times sqr 2= ~212.000 km.

First this, then I continue with Jar Jar.

Are you prepared to state and defend this "theory" in the ATM forum ?

[Hannes]

I have just started my first comment here DrRocket.

First tell me what is your personal opinion about the speed of gravity. Do you think it is important to know?

If yes, so then where in Mach's Principle and in Einstein's SR and GR equations is the speed of gravity taken into account?

[Hannes]

I agree that the use of invariant mass and the concept of "relativistic mass" leads to misunderstandings far to often. But those problems naturally arive due to the shadow of Lorentz' transformations in my opinion.
That the mass in the ceiling is not having an effect on Jar Jar is for sure, but it's Jar Jar's real fear. Nevertheless it is important that we understand the difference between heavy mass ("Schwere Masse") and inertia ("Träge Masse") first. It is far from easy to understand the difference. They are not the same but can be used in the same way mathematically according to Einstein.

If we translate heavy mass to inertia it might be more easy to grasp the fysical meaning.
But then we have to understand Mach's Principle also. It might be not fully understood, and that is where I am aiming at in my comments.

[Hannes]

In the note from Einstein their are some remarks.

The orbital results calculated by general relativity are instantanious. You do not need an arrow of time according to me. That is because I read Mach, Laplace, otherwise GR would have been faulty. Do not bother, read Carlip.

Jar Jar reads no further, impressed, trying to understand his situation further.

He read something about the Sombrero Nebula and Pioneer abnormality, he knows about Dark Matter too.
He also knows about lambda: Λ. And Einstein first calling it his biggest mistake. Why?

[PetersCreek]

Hannes,

Welcome to the BAUT forums. Please be patient after submitting a post. As a spam control measure, posts by new members may be held in a queue for moderator approval if they contain links, images, or certain keywords. Once you have a few more posts under your belt, this will trouble you no more, so please bear with us. You might also take some time to familiarize yourself with the rules, FAQs, and advice linked in my signature line below.

[Tensor]

If yes, so then where in Mach's Principle

Which Mach's principle? I know of at least 11 statements by Mach that have been attributed to him as his principle. How about we make sure we're talking about the same thing.

[Cheap Astronomy]

Next you'll have to understand the way Einstein understood relativity and gravity, but not in the form of math, but in contemporary available line of thought. But I'll start with information about gravity.

Gravity does not act on empty space. There is no gravitational force except when there is mass. This seems obvious, but is important.

This is not obvious. I think Einstein was clear that gravity is not a force, but a consequence of space-time curvature. Mass acts on space-time, but space-time does its own thing too (e.g. expands).

In regards to another point made above Lambda was not his biggest blunder, making it zero was (he assumed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting). His equation/s work just fine.

I still see no purpose to the mass in the ceiling even with the greater detail to the 'thought experiment' provided. The ceiling and floor are moving at the same velocity as JJB -and hence are in an extremely similar frame of reference - relativistic effects would be negligible.

(I wrote the black hole story by the way - Steve Nerlich)

[macaw]

Thanks everyone.

The "link above" is Can a Really, Really Fast Spacecraft Turn Into A Black Hole?

.

"Back on Earth, it can appear that a spacecraft which is approaching the speed of light, is indeed both gaining mass and shrinking in volume."

The above quote from Hannes shows basic misconceptions about black holes.
Black holes have a very large proper mass concentrated in a very small proper volume.

So, relativistic mass (dilation) and relativistic length (contraction) cannot "create" a black hole, no matter how large the relative speed.

[Hannes]

Now that we all agree that Jar Jar will not fall to the ceiling and understand that relativistic mass does not change local conditions in the rocket, we go on.

Because now I will state that what we have been investigating here is only the equivalence between acceleration and "heavy" mass. There is full equivalence here
, I totally agree.

Nothing in the rocket looks different to the Jar Jar's eyes.

But now we will have a look at Inertia, the other aspect of gravitation. According to Ernst Mach inertia cannot exist if there is no relation between the rocket and the rest of the universe. Inertia is the expression of forces between the atoms in the fast moving rocket and the masses in the rest of the universe.

Albert Einstein seemed to view Mach's principle as something along the lines of:
"...inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies..."

In Mach's manuscript you find on page 61 the description of the principle I am talking about:

"Die bestechendsten Gründe für die Annahme einer absoluten Bewegung hat vor vierzig Jahren schon C. Neumann

vorgebracht. Stellt man sich einen rotierenden, also Zentrifugalkräften unterliegenden und

abgeplattetenHimmelskörper vor, so kann durch das Verschwinden aller übrigen Himmelskörper an dessen

Zustand nichts geändert werden. Derselbe rotiert fort und bleibt abgeplattet. Ist aber die Bewegung bloß

relativ, so ist der Fall der Rotation von dem der Ruhe gar nicht zu unterscheiden. Alle Teile des Weltkörpers sind gegeneinander in Ruhe, und die Abplattung müßte also mit
dem Verschwinden der übrigen Welt zugleich verschwinden." -Basically I told the short version of it earlier.

But now we can clearly see the difference between heavy mass and inertia, because inertia has it's basic origin OUTSIDE the rocket whereas heavy mass or "schwere Masse" has its roots locally WITHIN the rocket.

Therefore they are addressing different frames of reference.

By performing a Lorentz transformation on the distant universe this inertia can also be transformed.
I think that equivalence here actually means that inertia will have grown during the trip. Jar Jar must hardly be able to move, his heart should have stopped beating a long time ago.

But then there would be no Equivalence. Because the effects of gravitation and accelerated motion can be distinguished from each other.

[Tensor]

I have to agree with Dr. Rocket. His comments in Post 23, Post 12, along with his comments Jean posted in post 5 make this look like ATM. Some of these comments are flat out wrong. Some are insinuations, with no kind of support.

[Ken G]

I've been holding back because I cannot tell exactly what Hannes is saying, there is both a bit of a language barrier and also a barrier of nonconventional choices being made within the common language of physics. The statements do end up sounding quite ATM, and even incorrect at times. So my question for Hannes is, can you express what you are trying to say in the conventional language of general relativity, and are you just trying to look at the same theory from an insightful new perspective, or are you actually suggesting there is something wrong in that theory that you think would come out a different way in a more correct theory?

[Hannes]

The things which are confusing for you all are the ideas of Jar Jar, not Einstein's or mine.

Jar Jar Binks fears about shrinking mass, space ships turning into Black Holes and so on. I was only teasing you guys with Jar Jars idea's. I thought you all would have understood that by now. Apparently not.

Einstein just explains in his note: "It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion." Read "Space-Time Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler or "The Principle of Relativity" from myself.

The real challenge is in understanding the nature of INERTIA or heavy mass, and its role in GR. I have given you some original information from Mach and adding some insights from myself to it.

Please let someone first give a reaction to the speed of gravity and about the arrow-of-time concepts I have been adding to the subject. There is nothing ATM about that, in my opinion. They are necessary in understanding the nature of gravity and inertia to fully understand my line of thought.

[Tensor]

The real challenge is in understanding the nature of INERTIA or heavy mass, and its role in GR.

Actually, the role of inertia in GR is "none". After all, in GR, it's a postulate that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent. If you are suggesting something different, then you are suggesting an ATM idea. Even your your definition "Heavy Mass" is a non-standard physics term.

I have given you some original information from Mach and adding some insights from myself to it.

None of which is pertinent to GR, that I can see. Mach's principle is not included in GR. And you haven't made clear why your insights are required to understand GR.

Please let someone first give a reaction to the speed of gravity and about the arrow-of-time concepts I have been adding to the subject. There is nothing ATM about that, in my opinion. They are necessary in understanding the nature of gravity and inertia to fully understand my line of thought.

How about you just state the following clearly. Tell us what you are trying to say in the normal physics and mathematical terms of General Relativity (GR), let us know if you are suggesting there is something wrong with GR and what specifically it is, and if you think you have something that will work better, and what that would be specifically.

[Tensor]

The real challenge is in understanding the nature of INERTIA or heavy mass, and its role in GR.

Actually, the role of inertia in GR is "none". After all, in GR, it's a postulate that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent. If you are suggesting something different, then you are suggesting an ATM idea. Even your your definition "Heavy Mass" is a non-standard physics term.

I have given you some original information from Mach and adding some insights from myself to it.

None of which is pertinent to GR, that I can see. Mach's principle is not included in GR. And you haven't made clear why your insights are required to understand GR.

Please let someone first give a reaction to the speed of gravity and about the arrow-of-time concepts I have been adding to the subject. There is nothing ATM about that, in my opinion. They are necessary in understanding the nature of gravity and inertia to fully understand my line of thought.

How about you just state the following clearly. Tell us what you are trying to say in the normal physics and mathematical terms of General Relativity (GR), let us know if you are suggesting there is something wrong with GR and what specifically it is, and if you think you have something that will work better, and what that would be specifically.

[Tensor]

The real challenge is in understanding the nature of INERTIA or heavy mass, and its role in GR.

Actually, the role of inertia in GR is "none". After all, in GR, it's a postulate that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent. If you are suggesting something different, then you are suggesting an ATM idea. Even your your definition "Heavy Mass" is a non-standard physics term.

I have given you some original information from Mach and adding some insights from myself to it.

None of which is pertinent to GR, that I can see. Mach's principle is not included in GR. And you haven't made clear why your insights are required to understand GR.

Please let someone first give a reaction to the speed of gravity and about the arrow-of-time concepts I have been adding to the subject. There is nothing ATM about that, in my opinion. They are necessary in understanding the nature of gravity and inertia to fully understand my line of thought.

How about you just state the following clearly. Tell us what you are trying to say in the normal physics and mathematical terms of General Relativity (GR), let us know if you are suggesting there is something wrong with GR and what specifically it is, and if you think you have something that will work better, and what that would be specifically.

[Tensor]

The real challenge is in understanding the nature of INERTIA or heavy mass, and its role in GR.

Actually, the role of inertia in GR is "none". After all, in GR, it's a postulate that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent. If you are suggesting something different, then you are suggesting an ATM idea. Even your your definition "Heavy Mass" is a non-standard physics term.

I have given you some original information from Mach and adding some insights from myself to it.

None of which is pertinent to GR, that I can see. Mach's principle is not included in GR. And you haven't made clear why your insights are required to understand GR.

Please let someone first give a reaction to the speed of gravity and about the arrow-of-time concepts I have been adding to the subject. There is nothing ATM about that, in my opinion. They are necessary in understanding the nature of gravity and inertia to fully understand my line of thought.

How about you just state the following clearly. Tell us what you are trying to say in the normal physics and mathematical terms of General Relativity (GR), let us know if you are suggesting there is something wrong with GR and what specifically it is, and if you think you have something that will work better, and what that would be specifically.