A SECOND DISPROOF Of EINSTEIN'S EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE
. In his General Theory he says if you had a cosmic elevator and accelerated it in a distant field from gravity, no experiment would find any distinction between falling masses in the room inside the elevator far from massive fields, and an experiment in an elevator with falling masses and the gravity elevator not moving in a gravitational field. If both elevators have acceleration of 32 ft/sec and you drop different masses they would land on the floor of the elevator at the same moment so Einstein believed the earth's surface has equivalent motion relative to the different masses. Einstein thought if the earth's surface had millions of Saturn boosters lifting the earth's surface up to stop the masses that would reach the ground at the same moment, the field's relative motion is of most import and the masses have no import. The inertial elevator far from massive orbs was the proof of relativity (no not elevator tennis shoes without elevators!) and this same rate of fall was how inertia and gravity, the far and near fields, were the same. All accelerated frames of reference whether of gravity or the earth's field if, for example both are 32 feet, are exactly the same in Einstein's vision of the universe. The motion of different masses in the inertial elevator in motion far from gravity of this type was with both masses at rest relative to the field inside and outside the starship, with Einstein they were at rest in their rest frame and not in relative motion. Both masses in the gravitational elevator are also at rest in their rest frame and so feel no force in falling, as I say in Einstein's Elevator II. The tidal forces and just looking outside the elevator are already disproofs of Einstein's theory that no experiment disproves the relativity of gravity, and here is another,
If you have the two weights on the floor of both elevators, while the gravity of the earthbound elevator can be cancelled by moving in the frame of the acceleration downward, the distant elevator's field is cancelled by constant motion in it's rest frame. So gravity is cancelled by change but inertia is cancelled by other inertia or lack of change. Inertia and gravity are the opposite, they aren't equal or on the earth you would weigh the same in high or low latitudes.
The proof of the equivalence of inertial and gravitation of relativity was that different masses fall at the same rate in the earth's field. If you take two distinct masses and lift both to the same height, you have to use more force to lift the heavy mass than the light one, and when you drop them they fall at the same rate, the heavy mass releases just that much more energy as you put into it when you lift. If Einstein assumed the masses are the same it's disproven by how much force is exerted or released. In Einstein's Universe by Nigel Calder he asked, "Why does the law of inertia work horizontally where the greater mass with more resistance moves slower than the light mass with the same force, but not with masses in the usual 32 ft/sec when they fall?" Why would they fall at the same rate if dropped and move sidewise at another? You make the level masses move at the same speed by just using more force for the heavy mass than the light mass so they move at the same speed. And if two distinct masses are accelerated with the same force they move at different rates, and if you add more force they move at more unlike rates than this. I liken gravity to mass in general, and inertia to energy. Like the two different masses here in motion, if you have more mass, the linear motion is slower and if you have more inertia, or energy, the motion through the room or cosmos is faster. (The worth of a biz show is always higher than its cash value!) So mass accelerates in angular motion and energy is more constant in motion. If you have a heavy mass like the above with the equation F=ma it has more mass but less energy, and the light mass has more energy but less mass. For equal force they are distinguished and so mass and gravity and energy and inertia are not equivalent and by GWM (my own General Wave Physics) relativity of motion is disproven except in constant frames at the usual speed they're already at. Both mass and energy are no doubt made of motion because momentum is always conserved, and since energy is conserved and energy is measured mostly by motion, mass and energy are made of motion. Mass would be angular motion and energy linear motion because mass attracts to hold in such as a massive body like the earth from expansion, and energy being light like the light mass of F=ma would be linear.
Mass and energy are comparable to waves and particles, both are the most general distinction imaginable between what the world is made of, and so a causeology of one type is of worth to the other. Waves and particles aren't the same if both are impossible at the same place and time, and like E=mc2 they are unified if they are both made of motion. So waves and particles are both alike and not the same. Half the time Relativity is of value for constant speed waves of light, and half the time disproven for acceleration, like with my observation the elevators. The Famous E=mc2 holds well, you take the mass and it converts to the exact amount of atomic power. While mass and energy are both of motion of angular and linear momentum, one main advantage of my extension in GWM of Relativity would be in proof of where the extra mass of subatomic physics is from. If the protons and other subatomic motes spin at just the speed of light all the way from the lower power outer electromagnetic field in, the field is at the constant top speed of light of Einstein and so is with no more power available because by the above theory Relativity is about rest frames and not about acceleration because it describes the constant speed of light alone, not acceleration which Relativity either ignores in the well proven Special Relativity or fails to prove in the Equivalence Principle. The Rate of Mercury's fall changes with time and I think this is disproof of the Equivalence Principle due to the masses of the Equivalence Principle also falling at other than constant accelerations, and so too are all the other proofs of General Relativity if based on accelerations where the speed of light changes, not uniform motion where the speed of light is constant. I think all the "proofs" of General Relativity are proof of gravity and how it accelerates, and disproof of Einstein as much as gravity is considered.
One main use of faster than light motion of gravity may be for high speed communication, fast computer chips, or even faster than light travel, another is in inventions like the atomic motor. If massive subatomic particles like the proton spin faster than the speed of light inside (if mass is spin and the hadrons have more mass than electrons or other electric charges) more power via the flex of the field would perhaps be available than Einstein's causeology would imply. The higher mass density and thus faster than light spin in the field might be tapped by a beam like an electron beam that would go deep enough inside the field of the proton to cause a change of the beam's wavelength than otherwise by just the speed of light more mass more motion at faster than light inside the hadron. (If mass is spin and is always found in half integer units by the accelerators, the reason it's just half the speed of light would be because by relativity, the outside electric field of the particle when both spin in clockwise or anticlockwise motion is limited to the speed of light. The two opposite motions of the field nearest to both spins are in opposite motion so the longer distance field is here at the speed of light via Special Relativity's lower energy/speed of light limit, this is the highest speed the outside field can go so the maximum speed of particle spin is just one half the speed of light and this limits all the spins to half the speed of light except at near radii to the proton.) The spin inside the hadron may be faster than light because if mass is spinning energy with momentum conserved, and all the particles are found with just units of half integer spin, all would have the same mass. Either mass is not spinning energy which would disprove conservation of linear and angular momentum, or just the outside of particles would spin at the maximum speed of light, and the inside would spin at higher speed. I hold that all mass would spin at with the limit of the spin of the clockwise and counterclockwise spin of the field at most at the speed of light if all was in units of E=mc2 where the speed of light is well involved instead of its more general equivalent form F=ma, allowing other speeds both slower and faster than light (if mass is small, the acceleration is any speed including faster than light by gravity's lower density than the electric field). This is why the older explanation is much more in use yet to describe most motion, because it's more general and so Relativity and all the rest of physics may be derived from Sir Issac's gravitation by way of Maxwell's use of fluid resilience of the field based on more usual physics he used to predict the exact speed of light. In F=ma if the mass density (intrinsic strength) were approaching 0 the acceleration, a approaches infinite speed, and isn't held constant by the speed of light. Maxwell based the prediction of the speed of light on the resilience of the field where the mass density is a self attraction, for reduced density of the linear motion of gravity, for gravity the predicted speed is much higher, and for its opposite increase of density for subatomic physics, with an acceleration also the opposite, and two minuses of acceleration and higher density making a plus, with considerably higher density in subatomic physics, the speed of spin could be considerably higher than the speed of light in my generalization of Maxwell's physics via GWM.
Since the speed of light is constant and Maxwell based his prediction of it on the density of the field created by constant electric charges, if the charges had any sort of instability "like radioactivity" this (indeed all acceleration) would be disproof of relativity. Using the assumption of internal faster that light spin of heavier particles than electrons, the rates of radioactivity can be predicted, based on the higher and higher speed spins having more centrifugal force, causing the decay at higher rates. This idea of the field flexing and moving at faster than light to have radioactive events is not allowed by Einstein, and this simple extension of Maxwell's proof of the speed of light may predict the half lives well.
EXERCISE WITHOUT VIVARIN
What would save a mars visitor if he or she was in the space suit and fell down? How about airbags on arms, chest and back, or just an airbag on a track that would roll below the visitor, and boom, he's lifted up, leveled on the other side! On Mars you weigh I think 40 pounds and if the blast were big the visitor may reach the lift of Venus! Or a computerized machine may aid the space suit if Venus is expecting and it's her maternity. Another way to achieve this that's been devised is via gyroscopes to both store energy for like heating and life support, and they also would keep the wearer from falling over much like the use of gyroscopes they have devised to make it so a bicycle is more safe.
MORE ABOUT THE ATOMIC MOTOR And RFGM
A good use of combining the atomic motor and the Reciprocating Force Generating Machines (RFM) that have been invented would be for a fast Mars rover. An atomic power source like the motor would power small or big centrifigal force lifting devices like the RFM. (Or other machines of similar type that uses just the top of the wheel generating the upward lift by being just a reciprocating slice of the wheel, so the rest of the centrifugal force is not stopping it). Perhaps a small Focus Fusion machine of the type Lerner is building may be a good power source, but my atomic motor would be low temperature so not need shielding and may be cheaper to build in a few months. The rover would lift in the field, like the moon is held up against the earth's gravity by its centrifugal force, but with more acceleration, power to lift and accelerate the rover to high speeds by turning the uncancelled spin of the wheel at the right angle and so on, and because it's of low weight. This would be a rover that would go anywhere on Mars or other planets fast and if it were wired to TV links and robot arms, or other such tools, it would have much more dexterity than usual rovers and ablity to lift and transport large weights. So it would be of real value to roam the globe and much reduction of weight/power ratio, it would be much cheap to send these robots more distances than chips have bytes. Both the atomic motor and the RFM are not yet prototypes but with possible uses like this, and possible combinations in almost any type of machine they may be worth research.
"About Benjamin Franklin, the good thing about him was, he never disagreed with anyone." And two out of three of the English surveyed in 1777 said, He wasn't in dispute with the English about army life, he was just positive a lot about war! They wish he just wouldn't decide who he was in support of!
What's sleepwalking for sleeplearners? When you walk in the room where the bed is! I see these ads for rugs that they say improve the look of your room, my rooms must wear power lense opthomology!
What does a movie goddess say when she talks in her sleep? She says YAWN! YAWN! STRETCH! AHHHH!
.Bell, of Bell telephone tried to sell the rights to the telephone for 100,000 to W Union and a year later they would have been rich just to make the same purchase for 25 million, and Bell said What if Anjela Scott owns 2 answering machines with 27 rooms!
