"Daniel Weston" wrote in message
...
For reasons I do not quite understand, gravity slows a clock, but
acceleration does not.

Acceleration does also. If one conducted the Pound-Rebka experiment in an
accelerating spacecraft one would obtain exactly the same result. Indeed
the EEP is usually what one uses to analyze the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Thanks
Bill

Can anybody utilize this fact to design an
experiment that the rocket ship traveler could use to determine whether
he was accelerating or in a gravity field?

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
If m_g and m_i were not fundamentally indistinguishable for any and
all bodies, what could we say about contrasted local bodies' free fall
paths in vacuum, difference/average?

We could say "[snip crap] Idiot."
Androcles.

**take that atom by its self.
****First I want you to understand how nutz the electron can
orbit. * You can pull the orbit smash is make a square with oints and
just take a magnet and fool with paterns .
/////////
******Imagne its the ONLY atom and you are going to smash
the electron field in one side and make the field swing out on the back
side.
****But wile you do this ,,watch the center point of te atom.
* Thats
where all the mass is orbiting the center of the atom.
**When you push the field the center resist motion and sags in the
field wile you push on the field and make it smash in on one side and
swing out on the other.
**The electron wount move the atom but will change the energy te
nutrons orbit in .
****The nutron has less displacement in the field on one side
than the other . * * * The Gain in mass is not equal on boath
sides of the atom.
****The gain in mass is pushing the wieght of te atom in gravity
The
atom pushes its self down the energy slope.
****Resistance to motion is the gain in mass resisting motion.
If you look at the shape of the field of the atom wile falling or
beeing pushed you see the center of the atom is near one side of the
field where the field is thin.
EMF is another manipulation of the gain in mass beeing controled as wave
interaction
afects the energy slope accross an atom. Get more gain in mass on one
side of the atom then the other and its moving .
**This small % of the mass of the atom is the gain in mass from one
side of the atom to the other side.
**1/2 the atom pushes the other 1/2 .

Daniel Weston wrote:

For reasons I do not quite understand, gravity slows a clock, but
acceleration does not.

What's the basis of your assertion?

Gravitational redshift is due clocks at different locations
exchanging information about their "rates" by exchanging light
signals which have a constant frequency wrt the coordinate time
in the underlying spacetime. But the clocks' proper times
run at different rates wrt the coordinate time.

That's just a description of how the Pound-Rebka experiment
was designed.

If you want to "design" an experiment that shows that acceleration
doesn't do this, then design it yourself. The Equivalence Principle
just tells you that gravity and acceleration are LOCALLY
indistinguishable. It doesn't tell you anything about what
separated clocks will behave.

Can anybody utilize this fact to design an
experiment that the rocket ship traveler could use to determine whether
he was accelerating or in a gravity field?

See above.

John Anderson

In sci.physics, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
N
wrote
on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:12:27 -0700
HZ4Qd.38279$Yu.16977@fed1read01:
Dear The Ghost In The Machine:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley

wrote
on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:35:54 GMT
uz3Qd.66922$EG1.22600@attbi_s53:
St. M wrote:
An accelerating spaceship gives the
astronauts the sensation of weight. Can
we say that this accelerating motion
simulates gravity or is it real gravity
that is being produced?


No experiment can tell the difference in a closed environment...


Well...there is the issue of the curvature of the spacetime
caused by the gravity and/or acceleration, but it looks
extremely small.

I see three effects.

[1] Accelerating elevator. The bending of spacetime is flat,
in the sense that no matter where one goes in the car, the
curvature has the same vector, namely, pointing straight down.

And the elevator is made of real, deformable materials, so that the floor
will "dip" into the center. You can't really be sure that way either.
Maybe a laser level could be configured to tell the difference...

Hard to say. As I said, the effect is extremely small.

After all, the Earth is a spherical shell 6.378 * 10^6 m
in radius. That translates into a floor bulge of about
6.378 * 10^6 * (1 - cos(theta/2)), where theta is the subtended
angle of the width of the elevator in a circle of that radius.
If we assume 2m in width, one gets about a 80 nm bulge.

This is less than 1/5 the wavelength of green light (500 nm).


[2] Planet. The bending is generally spherical, and points
to the mass center.

[3] Centripetal acceleration. The bending is concave, and
points away from the spin center. Rama (Arthur C. Clarke's
fictional spacecraft) and _2001_ (again, Arthur C. Clark,
brilliantly adapted by Stanley Kubrick) are good examples
of this effect, though I've heard of no contemporary
spacecraft which attempt to spin to cause this sort of
pseudo-gravity. (Earthbound carnival rides, of course, use
this effect to alter perceptions, just for the fun thereof.)

I thought Spacelab was so configured? A manned Mars mission
will probably need to be.

I'm not sure they ever bothered with Spacelab, although there
was that famous picture of the astronauts running around the
circular bit (which was probably storage lockers). I agree
that a manned Mars mission will need artificial gravity,
and probably a nice large quantity of calcium supplements. :-)

(Not that Martian gravity is all that strenuous, but presumably
we will bring them back someday...)


David A. Smith


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Bill Hobba wrote:

[snip]


It can and has been. Indeed Uncle Al is conducting an experiment to
test it
as we speak.

Speak for yourself here. Uncle Al is doing real work. You just spew
whatever you read in texts. This is the fallacy of an appeal to
authority. Al is authority in this, you nada.

I doubt you understand what he is doing.

[snip]

As usual you are very confused about the scientific process. Of
course
saying such will simply illicit your usual incoherent diatribe.

As usual, you accuse of confusion when you have no argument against.
Newton's EP is experimentally confirmed to a few parts in a trillion,
look at the 1993 experiments by the university of Pisa physicists and
led to a lift on the Catholic Church ban on Galileo's index.

You are too busy trading shares to know these things. When the market
is flat you come into usenet and accuse people of confusion until
volatility starts and you dissappear:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...01eba1f a0f8e


Bye crank

Mike






Bill


Mike

Mike wrote:

Bill Hobba wrote:

[snip]


It can and has been. Indeed Uncle Al is conducting an experiment to
test it
as we speak.

Speak for yourself here. Uncle Al is doing real work. You just spew
whatever you read in texts. This is the fallacy of an appeal to
authority. Al is authority in this, you nada.

No, Uncle Al is a autodidact in physics. The physical experiments are
being performed by collaborating academics. One doesn't require a
license to think - but one very much *does* require a license to
practice.

The parity Eotvos experiment is "obvious:"

1) Do different local test masses fall differently? Big important
question.
2) What does "different" mean? Look it up.
3) What are all the ways test masses can be different? Make the
table.
4) Is there any difference at which nobody has looked? Yes,
opposite parity test masses.
5) How can test mass parity be ab initio quantified? Find a
mathematician who does the work.
6) Identify and calculate identical composition extremal opposite
parity test mass candidates.
7) Give a paper/publish to secure academic collaboration for doable
experiments.
8) The expert disinterested party performs the parity test mass
experiments SOP composition test masses in existing qualified
apparatus. Uncle Al never touches the stuff nor visits the lab, at
least until it is over.
9) Observe the empirical answer.

The only innovative actions are (3) and (4). Almost no professional
feels the need to start from scratch on an inquiry. To that which
others have been blind, so all.

I doubt you understand what he is doing.

Pretty much nobody qualifies there. The physics (easy part), math
(one academic), programming (four code poets), and chemistry (Uncle Al
and a crystallographer) are not embodied within one mind. There are
about a dozen Severely and Profoundly Gifted collaborators, and
another dozen talents who lent support and volunteered resources.
There are no errors in any of it (OK - the sign of Pearson's
correlation). Which way reality operates will be determined by
observation.

[snip]

As usual you are very confused about the scientific process. Of
course
saying such will simply illicit your usual incoherent diatribe.

As usual, you accuse of confusion when you have no argument against.
Newton's EP is experimentally confirmed to a few parts in a trillion,
look at the 1993 experiments by the university of Pisa physicists and
led to a lift on the Catholic Church ban on Galileo's index.

To 0.1 part-per-trillion difference/average U/Wash. Means nothing.
400+ years of all the validation in the world would fall before a
single reproducible empirical falsification. It cannot be in the bag
until all mathematical alternatives are exhausted.

Uncle Al says, "It's always in the last place you look."

[snip]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf