Notices
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Equivalence Principle

  1. #1 Equivalence Principle 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31
    Interesting...!!!



    http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/ether_pri...quivelnce.html



    tsolkas


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    a. According to the fundamental “Law of the magnetic field formation” (See “Ether and Magnetic Field” on www.tsolkas.gr), observer (Ο) who in the case of Fig. 1(a) is inside the accelerating chamber, will observe a magnetic field of strength Β > 0, which is attributed to electric charge q of sphere m.
    This is flawed. The "Law of the magnetic field formation" uses the Biot-Savart law, but that law cannot be applied to a single particle. It can only be applied to the flow of particles through a wire (eg: a current).

    If we take the idea you're trying to present, instead of nitpicking, I can still show the argument to be flawed. Suppose you had a permanent magnet and a coil of wires wrapped around the room. We're using the same idea, but instead of inducing a magnetic field using a current, we're using a magnetic field to create a current. This is easier to actually build a working model. By your logic, the spaceship's motion will induce a current in the coil of wire, but the "stationary" room on the planet's surface won't. In fact, neither setup will induce a current in the wire. You can probably do this experiment yourself and verify that this is the case. Just construct a coil of wire, and superglue a permanent magnet to it. Then attach an ammeter to the coil of wire. Then shake the coil with your hands like it's a martini. No current. Current can only be induced using relative velocity. If you can unglue the magnet, you can induce a current by moving the magnet through the inside of the coil, or vice versa.

    Also, as long as your refuting the last 100 years of physics, you should try to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. It demonstrated the speed of light to be c at different points in Earth's orbit (when Earth was moving in different velocities relative to the luminiferous aether). Which means either 1) The experiment was flawed (don't count on it, it's been independently verified numerous times) 2) The luminiferous aether follows the Earth's orbit around the sun, which follows an orbit around the galactic center, etc. etc. 3) The speed of light is the same for all inertial frames.

    If you're going to be a crackpot you should at least spend the time to explain known experimental data. It's just common courtesy.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    If you're going to be a crackpot you should at least spend the time to explain known experimental data. It's just common courtesy.

    Or post more than just a link and stimulate conversation properly, this is directed at the OP specifically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •