[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Harry, > >> From: Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ... > >> In the alternative approach I should have said _speed_ instead of >> _velocity_, as velocity implies speed with a direction. >> >> Also, instead of a ball, imagine it is *you* who is thrown up >> but you carry a speedometer. The speedometer always reports a >> positive speed. Like the speedometer in a car or the air speed >> indicator in a plane, the instrument always reports a positive >> speed. In the alternative approach, the relative velocity of >> the ground is of no interest. What matters is what the >> speedometer says over time. > > I suspect my thick headedness still doesn't grasp something essential here. > > Ok, I'm imagining *ME* being thrown up into the sky and I'm holding onto a > speedometer. I understand you're telling me that the speedometer reports "a > positive speed". A "positive speed" relative to what? I'm currently assuming > this "positive speed" is in relationship to the ground - but then you also > state that the "relative velocity of the ground is of no interest." So, I'm > thrown into a state of mild confusion here! ;-) This is where I'll say > something stupid here like "everything is relative!"
Imagine a frictionless vertical plane that you slide over as you are thrown up. It is your speed w.r.t to that plane that is indicated. > Perhaps you can help clarify (to me) exactly what the mechanism is that allows > you to define *MY* speed, after I have been thrown up into the sky and have > started falling back towards the ground, as: "positive speed". In this > exercise it's obvious that all things thrown up (including myself) will > eventually fall back down. When I begin falling back it no longer seems > accurate to describe my ultimate desination of splatting against the ground as > "positive speed" anymore. Quite the opposite, IMHO. So, hopefully, I have > clarified the confusion I'm continuing to have concerning your definition of > "positive speed". No worries. In this experiment you get to land on a big cushion. ;-) >>> - which brings up Einstein's >>> comment that "Gravity" and "Acceleration" are essentially >>> the same phenomenon. Please correct me if I error on this >>> last statement but I believe Einstein has made that >>> statement. >>> >>> I don't see the "discontinuity" you are proposing. >>> >>> Can you clarify? >>> >> >> Yes Einstein made that claim, but I don't think it is true. >> I believe there is a way to distinguish gravitational >> acceleration from engineered acceleration through this >> alternative approach. >> >> Harry > > IMHO, one of the biggest confusions perceived about the distinction between > "gravity" and "acceleration" is the notion that perceived "motion" must be > involved, or at least measurably observed i.e.: "Motion" to induce the effects > of acceleration. Obviously, at first glance no "motion" is observed as we > stand still on Terra Firma feeling the effects of "gravity." From that > perspective it is easy to conclude that "acceleration" and "gravity", while > sharing many interesting characteristics, MUST somehow be fundamentally > different phenomenon. > > There is, however, a thought experiment I can offer that suggests that > "gravity" is just another aspect of "acceleration", a thought experiment that > I hope some will find amusing if not a tad mind boggling! In fact I wager that > not very many theorists have perceived the thought experiment I'm about to > suggest here. So, all you vortexians you're about to get a little peak into my > mad little mind! > > FIRST STEP: > Imagine you're standing on the surface of a very large balloon. The internal > volume of the balloon is constantly being fed additional air. This obviously > causes the balloon to expand, and if you're standing on the surface of that > balloon you will sense the affects of acceleration as you're pressed down. If > the balloon is as big as the Earth then an observer would be hard pressed to > distinguish the effects of "acceleration" causing the balloon to expand from > the effects of "gravity". > > SECOND STEP: > Ok, now, take this thought experiment to the next level. Assume these > inflatable balloons I speak so glibly about are actually every single atom in > the universe. IOW, every single atom in the universe is ever soooo-slowly > expanding. This includes all the atoms making up your body. In relative terms > if all atoms in the universe are slowing expanding it might turn out to be > impossible to distinguish the effects of "acceleration" from our perception of > "gravity" because in this thought experiment one really is NOT experiencing > "gravity". In truth one is experiencing the effects of "acceleration" even > though it appears that "gravity" is holding one to the ground. Not only that > because all atoms are slowing expanding in relationship to the flat curvature > of surrounding space this implies that ALL matter is being attracted (slowly > accelarated) towards all other matter. If the Earth is expanding under my feet then I should soon be able to touch the Moon. (Sooner if the Moon is also expanding.) > Walla! Gravity explained! When can I pick up my medal! > > Of course, I don't claim that my mad little thought experiment is the ultimate > holy grail that truly explains the dirty little secret called "gravity". I'm > sure there are many flaws in my mad theory that many will be more than happy > to point out. In fact, I hope they do! One thing that I wonder about is how > would electromagnetism, particularly EM frequencies be affected by this model > of a slowing expanding atomic structure. I guess they would have to be slowing > expanding as well. What happens to the constant speed of light: Is it slowing > expanding as well? Things might get a little messy. I really haven't had a > chance to take my thought experiment any farther than step ONE and TWO. > > In conclusion, Harry, I apologize in the sense that I don't believe I'm > helping you make your case as I arrogantly attempt to suggest my own zany > theory that would seem to contradict aspects of ours! ;-) > > I look forward to further deliberations. > > Regards, > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > Harry
