|Line 118:||Line 118:|
:- Existing experimental results constrain many theoretical speculations}}
:- Existing experimental results constrain many theoretical speculations}}
Revision as of 23:52, 19 November 2018
According to the model of the Universal Accelerator the earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. We are pinned down to the surface of the earth as a mechanical function of this acceleration. This is what creates 'gravity' as experienced on earth.
There are numerous pieces of evidence that the earth is accelerating upwards. One of the primary proofs for the Universal Accelerator is the unexplained coincidence that Inertial Mass is exactly equal to Gravitational Mass. This coincidence has been called "one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries in fundamental physics" and is a question which has vexed science for hundreds of years. Not only are the laws of motion the same for Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass, but the strong form of the equivalence principle declares that all laws of physics are the same. Why does the physics of gravity behave exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards? The Universal Accelerator answers this long-standing mystery, which has baffled generations of scientists, by positing that the earth is accelerating upwards.
Other pieces of evidence range from the fact that, despite great effort, the mechanism for gravity has not been discovered, the point that the current theories of gravity cannot explain much, to empirical proofs.
Inertial Mass Exactly Equal to Gravitational Mass
There are two ways of thinking about mass. According to inertial mass an object’s mass is its “resistance” to being moved, this being greater the more massive it is. The other way to think of mass comes from gravity: According to gravitational mass, the force of gravity experienced between two masses, such as an apple and the Earth, is proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them. This force causes a falling apple to accelerate. If, and only if, the two definitions of mass are exactly the same, the gravitational acceleration doesn’t depend on the amount of mass being accelerated.
Think about it: If, through the laws of inertia, a heavier mass has greater resistance to being moved, why should gravity accelerate both an elephant and a book at the same rate towards the earth?
We read the following introduction from a paper on the subject of the Equivalence Principle in Quantum Mechanics; emphasis is theirs:
“ Imagine that you are stationary, and standing on the surface of the earth. Gravity feels like a force that is holding your gravitational mass to the earth’s surface. Yet when you are standing in a rocket undergoing accelerated motion (far from gravitational fields, moving with an acceleration of 1 g), the principle of equivalence tells us that there is an identical force exerted against the rocket floor by your inertial mass. However, this force is now caused by your dynamic accelerated motion through empty space. While standing on the earth, however, you were definitely not in motion. Why should there be such a deep connection between what appears to be two completely different physical phenomena: a static force of gravity with no apparent motion, and a dynamic force due to the accelerated motion of your mass? In other words, why should you weigh the same in the rocket as you do on the earth?
The principle of equivalence encompasses this strange ‘coincidence’, and is one of the founding postulates of general relativity theory. In it’s stronger form, it states that all the laws of physics are the same in the above thought experiment. When stated in it’s weaker form, it implies that objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a uniform gravity field, and that only laws of motion of physics are the same.
Equivalence also means that the inertial mass, i.e. the mass defined by Newton’s law of motion: mi = Fi / g is exactly equal to the gravitational mass, which is mass defined by a completely different law given by Newton’s universal gravitational law: mg = Fgr2 / GM (where mi and mg are the inertial and gravitational mass of an object, Fi and Fg are the inertial and gravitational forces exerted on the object, g is the acceleration of the object, M is the mass of the earth, r is the distance from earth’s center, and G is Newton’s universal gravitational constant). Newton was well aware of this coincidence of mass equivalence, which we refer to here as the Newtonian mass equivalence principle.
The equivalence principle demands that that mi = mg. Why should this be true in our universe? It has been about 85 years since the discovery of the Einstein equivalence principle, and hundreds of years since the discovery of Newton’s mass equivalence principle. Yet, it is still not understood why inertial mass exists in the first place, or why a mass opposes acceleration with a back acting inertial force. More importantly, it is also not known why there are two totally different physical definitions for inertial and gravitational mass (instead of just one).
Furthermore, masses can have different temperatures (and therefore different energy content), and may be composed of different materials like lead, wood, water. Again, why should mi = mg, no matter what the material composition and the energy content that a mass may contain? In short, the principle of equivalence is one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries that exists in fundamental physics today! ”
PBS Equivalence Principle Video
A Globebusters episode discusses the Universal Accelerator as held by the Flat Earth Society. The team looks at a PBS video which states that it was Albert Einstein who came up with the idea of an upwardly accelerating earth. Watch the following video at the 3h4m16s mark for 15 minutes. Here is the video at that timestamp:
- - 1960's Frames of References Video (Abridged | Full)
- - SmarterEveryDay Baffling Balloon Physics
- - Einstein 1907 paper (translation) on the equivalence principle
Einstein's argument in the video is that Newtonian Gravity is curious in that it operates as if the earth were accelerating upwards. There are too many coincidences with Newton's gravity, Einstein says. It makes more sense if the earth is accelerating upwards.
Video Summary Breakdown
Firstly, according to Newtonian Gravity, all objects move at the same rate towards the earth uniformly. That is its defining feature, and this operates suspiciously as if the earth were accelerating upwards.
Secondly, objects in free fall experience an opposite "fake" force of gravity of the same magnitude to the reverse of inertial laws, in which they are exactly weightless. Another astronomical coincidence. Einstein says that the idea that the object is stationary and the earth is accelerating into it is the best conclusion and the best way to make sense of Newton's Gravity.
The Flat Earth concept comes in because it's not possible for the surface of the Round Earth model to continuously accelerate upwards. An upwardly accelerating surface suggests that the earth is flat.
The video presenter further states that seven years after coming up with the Equivalence Principle Einstein ends up adapting his upwardly accelerating earth theory to the Round Earth model by using non-euclidean bending space to achieve the accelerating earth illusion of gravity on a Round Earth. The end of the video says that Gravity is an illusion in GR. The author clarifies that "it turns out that inertial frames in curved space-time can do almost anything they want". Under the space-bending schema of General Relativity bodies like basketballs are made to make "straight line paths" to their destination. It is the environment that moves into the basketball, simulating an accelerating earth.
Towards the Center
There is an offhand comment in the video from the Newtonians that falling bodies would fall towards each other, since they are falling towards the center of a presumably round earth. However, it should be noted that this has not been met with experiment.
The Eöt-Wash Group, who have performed numerous highly sensitive Equivalence Principle tests, states the following:
“ We could imagine two apples floating on either side of the person; as the elevator approached the earth, the apples would approach each other. This happens because their paths, both toward the center of the earth, eventually converge. But this is not an effect that can be detected in a local experiment. ”
New Scientist Feature Article
A feature article from New Scientist declares that the mysterious equivalence principle coincidence is one of the primary problems holding back the progress of physics.
Sacrificing Einstein: Relativity’s keystone has to go
16 January 2013
“ Our hopes of finding a theory of everything depend on upsetting a balance that Einstein cherished ”
“ COINCIDENCE is not generally something scientists have much truck with. If two things are genuinely unrelated, there is little further of interest to be said. If the coincidence keeps turning up, however, there must be some deeper underlying link. Then it is the job of science to tease out what it is and so explain why there was no coincidence in the first place.
That makes it rather odd that a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence.
This coincidence is essential to the way we view and define mass. It is so fundamental to the world’s workings that most of us encounter its consequences every day without giving them another thought. Yet it has vexed some of the best minds in physics for centuries. Galileo and Newton grappled with it, and ended up just accepting it, rather than understanding it. Einstein went one better: he declared it a principle of nature. He went on to use this “equivalence principle” as the fundament of his general theory of relativity, still our best stab at explaining the mysterious force of gravity.
But there is a problem. If we want to find some bigger, better theory that can unify gravity with the other forces that dictate the world’s workings, the equivalence principle cannot stay. We must either unmask this coincidence – or radically rethink how physics can progress from here. ”
Equivalence Principle Tests
Galileo Galilei was among the first who experimentally realized that all bodies accelerate at the same rate. He is said by some to have dropped two spheres of different masses from the Leaning Tower of Pizza to demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass.
Between 1885 and 1909, Roland von Eötvös verified the equivalence principle with the accuracy of 11 significant figures. Modern tests in this family have increased it more than 17 significant figures. The Equivalence Principle is continuously tested, in many different scenarios, to the best ability of modern physics.
Equivalence Principle Passes Atomic Test
Incredibly sensitive experiments have been carried out, showing that the Equivalence Principle even applies on the atomic level.
“ Physicists in Germany have used an atomic interferometer to perform the most accurate ever test of the equivalence principle at the level of atoms. ”
Study Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0411052
Cryogenic Resonator Test
In 2017 a cryogenic resonator was used to make one of the most sensitive tests for the principle of equivalence and discount spacetime foam.
“ In their study published in Physical Review Letters, E. Wiens, A.Yu. Nevsky, and S. Schiller at Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf in Germany have used a cryogenic resonator to make some of the most precise measurements yet on the length stability of a solid object. Overall, the results provide further confirmation of Einstein's equivalence principle, which is the foundation on which the theory of general relativity is based on. And in agreement with previous experiments, the researchers found no evidence of spacetime foam.
...One of the most important implications of the null result is that it provides further support for the equivalence principle. Formulated by Einstein in the early 1900s, the equivalence principle is the idea that gravity and acceleration—such as the acceleration a person would feel in an upward-accelerating elevator in space—are equivalent
...The experiment detected virtually no change in frequency, or "zero drift"—more precisely, the mean fractional drift was measured to be about 10-20/second, corresponding to a decrease in length that the researchers describe as equivalent to depositing no more than one layer of molecules onto the mirrors of the resonator over a period of 3000 years. This drift is the smallest value measured so far for any resonator. ”
University of Washington Slideshow
A University of Washington slideshow goes over the various types of modern equivelence principle tests, including the classic Galileo Drop Test which tests if drop time is equal, the Newton-Bessel Torsion-Balance Tests which tests if periods are equal, and and the Eötvös Tests which testes whether angles are equal.
The author states that the Equivalence Principle is one of the most precisely tested principles in all of physics and, like New Scientist, identifies the mystery of the Equivalence Principle as the prime culprit which holds back breakthroughs in physics. The author concludes:
“ The EP is one of the most precisely tested principles in all of physics with many broad implications.
- - Most scenarios for new physics predict EP violation at some level
- - No evidence yet for a breakdown of the EP. For example:
- - the weight of gravity agrees with Einstein’s prediction to better than 1 part in 103
- - assuming CPT symmetry, anti-H falls with the same acceleration as H to within 2 parts in 1010
- - Existing experimental results constrain many theoretical speculations ”
Vertical Michelson-Morley Experiment
Q. Why, in the context of the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac Experiments, which suggest a motionless earth, do we not observe a changing velocity of light due to the Universal Accelerator?
A. Recent amateur experiments have suggested that when the Michelson-Morley device is turned on a vertical axis, that fringe shifts, which represent a changing velocity of light, are observed. The experiments are described by the 'Liquid Gravity' website, which speculates on an alternative form of gravity.
Aside from experimental evidence and massive coincidence, one may reason that the earth is accelerating upwards simply because that is what we observe it to be doing.
In contrast to other gravitational challengers, the mechanism of the upward acceleration of the earth is directly observed and experienced. Consider the following experiments:
- Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet. Take note of any graviton puller particles or bending space that you observe during the experiment.
- Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this this you should simultaneously feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball. Again, take note of any observed graviton puller particles or bending of space that you observe in this experiment.
The above experiments may appear to some to be futile, but to the empiricist the fact that one mechanism is observed and not others is significant. While the proposed mechanisms of "graviton puller particles" and "bending space" versions of gravity in Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, which Scientific American describes as 'whooping coincidence', provide equivalent, if absurd, explanations to the results of the above experiments, those things are are completely undiscovered and unobserved, and so, are decidedly less empirical. We can see that the earth moves upwards, while we must imagine that there are hypothetical puller particles or odd properties to space. The above results and interpretations of the experiments apply not only to our human experience, but to our most sophisticated man-made instruments as well.
See Versus Imagine
We can imagine many explanations for the phenomenon of gravity, but they will be completely hypothetical and frivolous. None are as strong as something we can directly observe and experience. In contrast to the mechanisms of its opposition, which are entirely unobserved and unexperienced by any man or machine, the mechanism of the upwardly accelerating earth can be directly observed and experienced by all.
The power source for the Universal Accelerator is beneath the earth or the earth's possible superstructure, pushing it upwards, and is thus, not experienced. The power source for gravity, however, should be all around us, and its mystery inexcusable. Why should something that is allegedly all around us be undetectable by all of science?
State of the art physics has dedicated itself to finding a slight inequality in the Equivalence Principle. Why does gravity behave exactly, on all physical levels, as if the earth were accelerating upwards? It is widely expected that unveiling this deep mystery would lead to a profound breakthrough in physics, usher in a new scientific revolution, and give fundamental insight into the workings of gravity and the forces.
The Flat Earth Society proposes that there is no profound and mysterious coincidence. These exacting and increasingly sophisticated tests speak to, not an increasingly mysterious answer, but to an increasingly obvious and apparent one. An upwardly accelerating earth is the best explanation, and is dutifully supported by experimental evidence of the highest caliber. Any contradicting form of gravity will, therefore, need to answer for the stated coincidences.
Further, perhaps even more extraordinary, as per the strong equivalence principle, are we to believe that all physical laws, some very different to each other — electrodynamics, electromagnetics, fluid dynamics, buoyancy, chemical kinetics, &c. — are all perfectly compensated for, as with the example of inertial laws above, to justify why gravity operates exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards? These questions are certainly deserving of answers. Who, among gravity's learned proponents, or any challenging gravitational theory, is to explain such a thing?