SELFPROOF 0113 - EINSTEIN'S EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLECURRENT PARADIGM
The original equivalence principle, as described by Einstein, concluded
that free-fall and inertial motion were physically equivalent. This
form of the equivalence principle can be stated as follows. An observer
in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of
the Earth and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. ( Wikipedia - 02 Mar 2012)
COMMENTARY
In the Current Paradigm, the
effects of Einstein's equivalence principle are demonstrable but the
underlying mechanisms are not understood. The Malta
Template, by coming at the problem from the "opposite direction", can
describe what happens. Consider the following:
To put the properties of the graviton into context:
- Gravitationalmass is the gravitypull of a graviton. Gravitypull is a constant in that it is always on and always attracting.
- Inertialmass
is the rejectivity of a graviton. Rejectivity is an absolute, being only apparent when gravitons collide, at the moment of
physical
contact.
In the light of the above, here is Einstein's illustration reworked to show what happens mechanically:
- The observer is in a windowless room on the surface of Planet Earth.
- The
Earth and the observer are structures of mainly
solidbonded gravitons with each graviton having the same measures
of gravitypull and rejectivity.
- The observergravitons and the planetgravitons are subject to the following multiprocess:
- The
combined gravitypull of the planetgravitons is greater than the combined
gravitypull of the observergravitons so the gravitypull of the planet
dominates.
- The gravitypull of the planetgravitons constantly attracts the observergravitons.
- Because rejectivity is an absolute, the planetgravitons constantly collide with the observergravitons.
- Through
constant collision, the solidbonded planetgravitons resist the
downward movement of the solidbonded observergravitons.
- Thus
the movement of the observer toward the Earth (gravitationalmass)
is countered by the resistance of the Earth (inertialmass).
- Thus,
in the multiprocess, the inertialmass of the Earth constantly dominates
the gravitationalmass of the observer to a value of 1g.
- Now consider the same observer in a windowless room within a small spaceship.
- The
spaceship and the observer are structures of mainly solidbonded
gravitons with each graviton having the same measures of gravitypull
and rejectivity.
- The observergravitons
and the spaceshipgravitons are subject to this multiprocess:
- The spaceshipgravitons (energised by the motor) are accelerating at a constant 1g.
- The observergravitons (not being energised) are not accelerating.
- Because the spaceshipgravitons are constantly accelerating they are constantly colliding with the observergravitons.
- Through the collisions, energy is constantly transferred from the spaceshipgravitons to the observergravitons.
- The transfer of energy is sufficient to accelerate the observergravitons at a constant 1g.
- Thus
the resistance to acceleration of the observer (inertialmass) is countered by the acceleration of the
spaceship (actually a resistance to the nonacceleration of the observer and so also inertialmass).
- Thus, in the multiprocess, the inertialmass of the spaceship dominates the inertialmass of the observer to a value of 1g.
In
each of the above examples, the observer experiences 1g and due to the lack any other information, cannot know why. Einstein's
illustration was intended to demonstrate the equivalence of two
"unalikes" - freefall (gravitationalmass) and inertial motion
(inertialmass) - but he was unaware that multiprocesses are involved, thus: The 1g experienced by the observer in the room on the Earth is not 1g of freefall because a freefalling
object experiences 0g. The experience is actually 1g of
resistance to freefalling, a consequence of the dominance of the inertialmass
of the planet over the gravitationalmass of the freefalling observer.
The
1g experienced by the observer in
the spaceship is also due to inertialmass, specifically the dominance
of a moving inertialmass over a stationary (or differently
moving) inertialmass.
In both
instances it is inertialmass that dominates so the equivalence is
actually of two "alikes". In the context of what Einstein was
trying to demonstrate, this is an equivalence of less
value. Semantically,
while both multiprocesses deliver the same
1g the only relationship between them is that they both use
the same gravity scale to describe the observer's experience. This
means the observer's 1g experience when standing on the
ground and
1g experience when accelerating in a
spaceship is coincidence,
not equivalence.
CONCLUSION
The
Malta Template describes the mechanisms underlying Einstein's
equivalence principle without
recourse to unproven physics, unjustifiable assumptions, or
complex mathematics. That the description sits comfortably within
the current knowledgebase without contradicting any empirically established
fact means it is selfproved until such time as it can be improved.
SEE ALSO:
Selfproof 0109: Rejectivity This
description of Einstein's equivalence principle works because gravitons
have rejectivity, a property not found in the Current Paradigm.
It should be found, not least because there is not one empirically
confirmed object that does not have
it.
Selfproof 0124: Gravitons, Mass, and Galileo Einstein's
was not the first description of an equivalence. Galileo's is a notable earlier example and was certainly revolutionary
in its day. Here is a description of the mechanisms underlying
Galileo's equivalence principle.
|