Einstein's Elevator II

To prove the Equivalence Principle, Einstein used a thought experiment. If inertia and gravitational acceleration are equivalent, an elevator's acceleration and the acceleration of gravity would be the same in all experiments. If you drop two masses in the elevator they fall at the same rate because the motion of the ship through it's field with both masses at rest in their frame when they are dropped is exactly equivalent to the flow of the field through us when gravity moves the two masses at the same rate if the ship is moving at the usual speed of the gravity of the earth. It's the same in Einstein's theory to say the field of the Earth is flowing through us to cause gravity or the Earth is moving up powered by the boost of millions of rockets, the motion of either is equivalent in relative motion. In Einstein's theory, no experiment can distinguish between the acceleration of masses in the elevator and the acceleration of masses in the earth's field. The acceleration of gravity is Equivalent to inertia. Einstein's theory arbitrarily says you would be unable to just look outside and see if you're near the earth or the stars. This is especially unusual if you consider how in relativity Einstein so often uses the sight of light to prove what he believes. Since no other way than measure of distance events by light is useful in his explanation seeing is more than believing.

And consider if instead of dropping two masses with simultaneous motion you drop two masses at say t1 and t2. In the earth's field at t1 the first mass will go 32 feet. If at t2 you drop the second mass it's in it's first second and goes 32 feet. The first mass is in it's second second so it drops 128 feet, so while in the first second the two masses are 32 feet apart, in the second second they are 128 feet minus 32 feet or 96 feet separate, and so on for the more seconds. On the elevator, if you drop a mass in the first second it will move in relative motion at 32 feet if the elevator moves up at the usual 32 ft sec acceleration. But the rock dropped in the ship is still at the same speed of the field around it, it's in its rest frame. While the ship is accelerating up to meet it, it is at the same rate it was travelling when it was released, in uniform motion the same way when the ships motors stop boosting, it stops all acceleration and goes in constant linear motion in it's rest frame. The same holds for the second stone dropped at t2. Relative to the first stone t2 is in uniform motion, at a higher speed of motion relative to the other stone, but unlike in the gravitational elevator the two stones or masses are not accelerating away from each other (even if the ship is in acceleration) like the masses dropped near the earth. This easily distinguishes between the two elevators even with what I consider the arbitrary limit of no outside vision allowed and is my second disproof of this part of Einstein's theory.
-
Einstein may have said, you must choose the inertial elevators frame of motion which is accelerated because the Equivalence of Inertia and Gravity says that just accelerated frames of reference are to be considered to be of worth, so Einstein was assuming only the evidence in support the claim he was trying to justify. By Einstein all accelerated frames are the same and the frame of the falling mass being not accelerated relative to the first mass in the elevator is with no comment by Einstein. But relativity asserts that all observers are equivalent, so if the acceleration of gravity produces the acceleration of the motion apart, and gravity is the same as inertia, for whatever reason, if the masses accelerate away near the earth they should for all observers in the elevator, not just some. Inertia is called pseudo gravity by some, because while it seems to act like gravity, all observers agree that the acceleration caused by gravity can't be transformed away like this just by choosing just the frame of reference to fit. If in usual life, a general claim is made and there is any major disproof found that disproves the claim, that much or all the claim is discredited. If the elevators were the same they would be exactly the same, and Einstein never says why they are unlike. Gravity converges to the one, and inertia expands out by way of centrifugal force to the many, and they aren't the same or heat would flow from cool to hot as often as hot to cool, bosses would act the same as employees, and would be the same. Gravitational and inertial mass are proportional, but there is a conversion factor needed to convert the gravity to inertia. If they were exactly the same gravity wouldn't need the huge mass of the earth to cause the same force of the distant elevator in the empty field. And there are other things that prove gravity and inertia to be nonequivalent. For instance while the inertia of the inertial elevator can be reversed by reversing the starship motor, in an elevator near the earth there is almost no probability of this. To choose the frame of the accelerating inertial elevator makes Relativity "fit in" with both elevators, but unlike the inertial elevator there is no frame of reference that can transform away the increase of distance of a gravitational acceleration between the masses or stones dropped.

To go past the inertial elevator Einstein assumed uniform motion was not a valid frame of rest, that is, not all observers are equivalent. This seems rather unusual because this was Einstein's main claim of relativity!

While Special Relativity is well proven, I think gravity is not about relativity so much because the earth is more at rest than the moon, and the sun is more at rest than the earth and moon. Gravity may not be about uniform motion because it wouldn't be quantised with the speed of the waves "frozen in" in special relativity at the given constant speed of linear motion like light is to make the speed of light constant by way of my generalization of Maxwell's idea that the speed of light he predicted well is based on the force between the charged particles, constant electric field, constant speed of light, itself faster or slower depending on the density of the field determined by the charges. Uniform motion and the speed of light might be constant by my other elevator causology, the charges like the weight and counterweight to freeze both the speed of light and the motion of the observer forward to overcome the friction of the field. Even so contrary to Einstein, when you move sideways and change direction like in a circus wheel, you feel the inertial pressure of the field. The field is still there as Maxwell thought, it's more passive in uniform motion by the balance of the electric field. Gravity is an acceleration so it may have overlapping nonquantisized waves of many power levels that continually exert force. Though light and the constant speed of linear motion have no force in the rest frame and no observer is more at rest or more valid in Special Relativity, the force of gravity can't be cancelled by this ruse, so I believe Einstein was wrong about gravity. More evidence has shown up for faster than light wave motion in recent experiments like Chin's and in cosmology, e.g. The Wilkenson See also my Physics SYNOPSES Page and my Physics Site Map for more of the evidence and experiments to prove or disprove what I consider a more comprehensive augmentation of Maxwell's causology based on general densities of the fields determining the top speeds of all forces, not just the speed of light taken on faith by Einstein. Maxwell's use of the field density revived by me, plus its use in all other physics, by what may be the deeper way of life makes me believe there is no need to assume all physics are in quanta, or quanta of just the power level of the speed of light, my feline is radiant! (The way quanta would operate would be by continuity so the lower power field of the matter waves of the electron orbitals are not in quanta by way of the lower power (nonquantisized and more continuous) field that would be the only way they would be able to jump from orbit to orbit, if they were truly quantised, they couldn't change.) A lower power field with the more general unifying cause of wave density determining speed of the waves would be necessary to have all the physics of the cosmos unified by conservation of energy. All is not quanta, so while this can prove special relativity by Maxwell's method, relativity can't be used to prove the idea that the speed of light itself can be derived from relativity, or that the top speeds of other forces may not be faster than light. The speed of light in relativity is axiomatic, but this idea of Maxwell's is in a more general form I name General Wave Dynamics (GWD) may be used to predict not only the speed of light but even perhaps the speed of gravity and the speed of the fractional subatomic particles that would lighten up to travel that much faster than light according to changes in the field density. (See my Physics synopses link at bottom of this page or Click Here For Muy Cool Synopses And Experiments..)

-
A useful spinoff of this motif may be that gravity is continually doing labor at a good price with the flow of force rather than the quantity of motion at any rate not balanced in relative to out.. I yawned off one evening when I heard Einstein's usual train in the distance at the time and station and I was about to zonk out. I thought, the train is making a lot of effort to climb. What if some of the downward force it's overcoming were turned sidewise? This would be a source of power from the gravity. Then I realized that if the train's downward force was used to generate heat by a sandwich layer or other use of methods of converting the pressure of a weight to a flow of electricity the use of this technology would be a way to make any heavy machine more efficient. It would use the same source of the gravity the earth or sun use to create heat by pressure, gravity powered machines! This is the source of geothermal heat.
~
More about Gravity Power
..
Einstein's Elevator III A Second Disproof.
..
Click Here For Muy Cool Synopses And Experiments..
..