Dies ist mein erster von mehreren Artikeln, in denen ich über weitverbreitete Mythen der Physik herziehe, die von vielen Menschen und auch von einigen, aber nicht allen Physikern, gesponnen werden. Mein erster Artikel behandelt die Lichtgeschwindigkeit.
Eines der Axiome (Grundannahme, Postulat Anm. des Übers.) von Einsteins spezieller Relativitätstheorie ist, dass die Vakuum-Lichtgeschwindigkeit eine absolute Konstante c ist. Sie ist unabhängig von der Geschwindigkeit der Lichtquelle oder einem Beobachter. Der erste weitverbreitete Mythos, den ich ansprechen möchte, ist, dass c eine messbare Größe ist und dass man möglicherweise die spezielle Relativitätstheorie widerlegen kann, indem man in verschiedenen Bezugssystemen unterschiedliche Lichtgeschwindigkeiten misst.
Gelegentlich liest man in den Medien, dass manche Wissenschaftler Phänomene beschreiben, die zeigen sollen, dass sich Einstein geirrt hat. Zuletzt hat ein Artikel vom Physiker J.D Franson von der Universität Maryland Aufsehen erregt. Sein Artikel wurde als Andeutung verstanden, dass Einsteins Axiom verletzt werde. Das ist eine Fehlinterpretation. Der Autor hat das nicht behauptet. Stattdessen behauptet er, dass Lichtstrahlen innerhalb der Sonne stärker abgebremst werden als nach Einsteins Berechnungen. Sein Vorschlag würde eine Anomalie der Zeitverzögerungen zwischen Neutrinos und sichtbaren Licht, die bei der Supernova 1987a gemessen wurden, erklären.
Fransons Berechnungen sind so fragwürdig wie die Daten, die auf diese Anomalie hinweisen. Jedoch ist das nicht das Thema dieses Artikels. Stattdessen möchte ich die physikalische Bedeutung des Parameters c klären, der in so vielen physikalischen Formeln auftaucht, um den Mythos zu zerstören, dass eine genauere Messung der Lichtgeschwindigkeit die Relativitätstheorie widerlegen könnte.
Licht verbreitet sich nicht immer mit der Geschwindigkeit c. Im Allgemeinen verbreitet es sich in einem Medium langsamer. Und, wie Einstein zeigte, verlangsamt sich das Licht auch, wenn es die Sonne oder ein anderes starkes Gravitationsfeld passiert. Franson behauptet einigermaßen fragwürdigerweise, dass Licht wegen Quantengravitationseffekten, die Einstein nicht kannte, stärker abgebremst wird. Selbst wenn Franson recht hat, hat das keine Auswirkung auf die Axiome der Relativitätstheorie.
Nun, nach der speziellen Relativitätstheorie verbreiten sich masselose Partikel mit der Geschwindigkeit c. Photonen, die einen Lichtstrahl bilden, scheinen präzise die Masse 0 zu haben und es wird gewöhnlich angenommen, dass sie sich mit der Geschwindigkeit c ausbreiten. Wenn es sich jedoch eines Tages herausstellt, dass Photonen eine kleine, von Null verschiedene Masse haben, bewegen sie sich mit einer niedrigeren Geschwindigkeit als c, so wie jedes andere Teilchen auch, weil die Geschwindigkeit einer Masse von seiner Energie abhängt. Außerdem sagen manche vorgeschlagenen Theorien zur Quantengravitation selbst für masselose Photonen eine andere Geschwindigkeit als c voraus.
Der Punkt ist: „Lichtgeschwindigkeit“ ist eine falsche Namensgebung der Größe c. Licht breitet sich nicht immer mit dieser Geschwindigkeit aus, nicht einmal in einem Vakuum. Nach der speziellen Relativitätstheorie wird sie präziser mit „Einsteins Maximalgeschwindigkeit“ bezeichnet. Das ist die Geschwindigkeit, über die hinaus kein Partikel beschleunigt werden kann. Die Theorie erlaubt Partikel, die sich schneller als c fortbewegen, aber nicht langsamer als c werden. Diese sogenannten „Tachyonen“ wurden jedoch, obwohl sie theoretisch möglich sind, noch niemals beobachtet.
Seit mehr als einem Jahrhundert wurden tausende Experimente durchgeführt um die spezielle Relativitätstheorie detailliert zu überprüfen und bisher hat sie jedem Test widerstanden. Diese Tests beinhalteten viele Phänomene, nicht nur die Lichtgeschwindigkeit. Im Jahr 1983 wurde durch eine internationale Übereinkunft Einsteins Postulat in das operative Rahmenwerk der Physik aufgenommen, indem die Bedeutung des Raumes neu definiert wurde. Die Entfernung zwischen zwei Punkten im Raum wurde definiert als die Zeit, die ein Partikel mit Einsteins Maximalgeschwindigkeit c benötigt, um die Strecke zwischen diesen Punkten zurückzulegen.
Üblicherweise wird das erklärt als „die Zeit, die ein Lichtstrahl im Vakuum benötigt, um die Strecke zwischen den Punkten zurückzulegen“, aber wir erkennen, dass das nicht genau der Definition entspricht.
So wie die Zeit wird auch der Raum mit einer Uhr gemessen.
Früher, im Jahr 1967, wurde die Grundeinheit der Zeit, die Sekunde, neu definiert als die Dauer von 9.192.631.770 Perioden der Strahlung, die der Übergang zwischen zwei Energieniveaus eines Cäsiumatoms im Grundzustand bei einer Temperatur von 0 Kelvin hervorruft. 1983 wurde die Grundeinheit der Entfernung im Internationalen Standard der Einheiten („SI – System“, Anm. des Übers.), das Meter, festgelegt als die Entfernung, die ein Partikel, das sich mit Einsteins Maximalgeschwindigkeit c fortbewegt, in einer 1/299792458 Sekunde zurücklegt. Noch einmal: Ich habe die originale, immer noch offizielle Definition präzisiert.
Kurz zusammengefasst ist das Meter nun nicht mehr wie ursprünglich als eigenständige Größe definiert, sondern es wird mit derselben Atomuhr gemessen, die auch für die Zeitmessung herangezogen wird. Das schreibt die grundlegende Annahme von Einsteins Modell fest, dass Zeit und Raum voneinander abhängige Teile eines vierdimensionalen Raum-Zeit-Kontinuums sind.
Das Ergebnis ist, dass der Wert der Größe c davon abhängt, welche Einheiten man für die Messung von Entfernungen und Zeit verwendet. Wenn man Zeit in Sekunden und Entfernungen in Metern misst, dann ist per Definition c= 299792458 Meter pro Sekunde. Wenn man die Zeit in Jahren und Entfernungen in Lichtjahren misst, ist c= 1 Lichtjahre pro Jahr. Und wieder ist c nicht notwendigerweise die Geschwindigkeit des Lichts oder eines anderen materiellen Substanz.
Man kann jetzt weiterhin die Lichtgeschwindigkeit im Vakuum messen, wenn man will. Wenn die Messinstrumente ordentlich nach einer Atomuhr kalibriert sind, wird man jedes Mal 299 792 458 Meter pro Sekunde erhalten. Wenn das nicht der Fall ist, wird das beweisen, dass dieses Licht nicht mit der Geschwindigkeit c unterwegs ist und nicht, dass Einstein geirrt hat. Einsteins Theorie kann sich möglicherweise eines Tages als falsch erweisen, weil die Wissenschaft so funktioniert. Aber diese Tatsache wird nicht durch die Messung der Lichtgeschwindigkeit erkannt werden.
Übersetzt von Erwin Nüßler, Günter Dantrimont
Kommentare
Antwort auf #1 von tkoeller:
> Und dass der Zahlenwert der Lichtgeschwindigkeit von der Wahl der Einheiten abhängt ist eine Aussage, die an Trivialtät schwer zu überbieten ist...
Der Himmel ist blau. Morgen wird die Sonne schon wieder aufgehen. Zwei Gegenstände, die eine positive Masse haben, üben eine Anziehungskraft aufeinander aus. Die Aussage ist leicht an Trivialität zu überbieten :-)
Antworten
Zitat der Artikel:
> Wenn man die Zeit in Jahren und Entfernungen in Lichtjahren misst, ist c= 1 Lichtjahre pro Jahr. Und wieder ist c nicht notwendigerweise die Geschwindigkeit des Lichts oder eines anderen materiellen Substanz.
Ich glaube, dies ist nicht wahr. Hier ist c die Geschwindigkeit des Lichts, jedoch nicht notwendigerweise die maximale Geschwindigkeit Einsteins. Denn Licht legt ja pro Jahr genau ein Lichtjahr zurück, hat also genau die Geschwindigkeit c; wenn es jedoch eine kleine (wenn auch sehr geringe Masse hat), so gleicht seine Geschwindigkeit nicht der Maximalgeschwindigkeit.
Antworten
Der Begriff 'Axiom' (der allerdings auch im Originalartikel verwendet wird) ist hier fehl am Platz, denn die Relativitätstheorie ist keine axiomatische Theorie. Dass der gemessene Wert für die (Vakuum-) Lichtgeschwindigkeit konstant ist und insbesondere nicht vom Bewegungszustand von Lichtquelle und Beobachter abhängt, ist eine empirische Tatsache, keine Annahme oder Postulat.
Ein Meter ist definiert als die Strecke, die das Licht im Vakuum in 1/299 792 458 Sekunde zurücklegt. Es wird also explizit auf die Vakuumlichtgeschwindigkeit abgestellt. Eine Definition, die sich (wie im Artikel formuliert) auf 'ein Partikel, das sich mit Einsteins Maximalgeschwindigkeit c fortbewegt' bezieht, wäre ziemlich sinnlos ohne eine Angabe, wie das konkret zu messen ist. Und hier kommt dann eben doch die Vakuumlichtgeschwindigkeit ins Spiel.
Und dass der Zahlenwert der Lichtgeschwindigkeit von der Wahl der Einheiten abhängt ist eine Aussage, die an Trivialtät schwer zu überbieten ist...
Antworten
Blöd nur das zu Einsteins Zeit keine exakte Messung der Lichtgeschwindigkeit existierte....
Die bis dahin ermittelten Werte waren alles andere als konstant....
Insofern ist das Wort Axiom schon ganz richtig.... Außer du glaubst das Einstein zeitreisender war und die Messungen aus den 20er Jahren schon kannte als er seine Theorie formulierte....
Antworten
Tolle Wissenschaft.....
Ich definiere einen Meter mit Hilfe einer in Meter pro Sekunde gemessenen Geschwindigkeit....
Willkommen im Land der selbsterfüllenden Zirkelschlüsse....
Erst messen wir wie lange das Licht für einen Meter braucht um DANACH ERST zu definieren wie lang ein Meter eigentlich ist....
Ich glaub ich werd auch Physiker und definier mir ein paar Wahrheiten....
Wie wär’s zb mit: Ein Meter ist die Länge eines Meters? Nicht schlecht oder? Sofort mit der ersten Definition den EXAKTEN Wert angegeben!
Antworten
Speed of Light : Reexamination
Plane waves of light (wavelength is constant) are coming from just above. An observer is moving horizontally at different speed. Speed relative to the waves does not vary. But speed relative to photons or light ray will vary (both will be real existence). With the formula : light speed = f λ, speed of waves can be shown. However, speed of photon and light ray will not be shown. Because of large speed of light, this problem is not noticeable.
In outer space, plane waves of a star light are coming. An observer is at a standstill. Speed of light waves and photons (light ray) relative to the observer will not be the same (in general). By the way, speed of light waves and of photons (light ray) relative to the aether frame will be the same (as a physical constant : not c, maybe).
Sorry, I cannot receive E-mail. I do not have PC.
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html
Antworten
Lorentz contraction
Plain waves of light (wavelength is constant) are coming from the upper right 45 degrees. Two bars of the same length are moving to the right and the left at the same speed. The number of waves hitting the bars is the same. Lorentz contraction is unthinkable.
Antworten
Constancy of speed of light
They say, it stands up on an observer in every inertial frame. Yes, when the light source shines in that frame, it is true.
Some man mistook this fact natural for a great discovery. And it is believed widely.
Antworten
Lorentz contraction
In a moving passenger car, MM experiment is being done. There is a considerable difference in length between two light paths diverged by half mirror. Lorentz contraction will not be.
Below is new URL of my web site.
http://lifeafterdeath.vip/eng.html
Antworten
A site on anti relativity
A web site written by member voluntees of Japan science council is now being published (in Japanese). Below is URL.
http://reriron.kage-tora.com
Antworten
Equivalence principle
Two forces the same strength are acting on a particle from the opposite. The two are inertial force, tension and gravity. Different combinations are three. Forget the equivalence principle.
Antworten
Equivalence principle
From the roof of elevator cabin, a body is hung with a string. The elevator begins acceleration upward. Can the elevator distinguish between gravity and inertial force ?
Antworten
Equivalence principle
An elevator in free fall is explained fully by Newton. There is no room for Einstein.
Antworten
Constancy of speed of light
In an area where propagation of light follows the emission theory, it is constant relative to the light source. In an area where propagation of light follows aether, it is constant relative to aether. So, it cannot be constant relative to moving observers.
Antworten
Inertial force
Inertial force is depending on m. So, it is not fictitious.
Antworten
Basis of special relativity
We seem to measure c by the light source situated on the same inertial frame. A web site says reasonable basis of constancy of c cannot be found in web (with three words).
Antworten
Inertial force
On a slope (no friction), a body m is sliding down. Action of gravity is mg. Then, how about the reaction ? It is resolved to two vectors. Inertial force is not fictitious.
Antworten
Reexamination of propagation of light (I say again)
In outer space, a mirror is reflecting a star light ray. Speed of reflected light relative to the mirror is constant. Speed of incident light relative to the mirror is not constant (the latter is constant relative to the aether).
Antworten
Inertial force is not fictitious
On a plane, there are two bidies. One is at a standstill, the other is accelerating. Acceleration (a) and inertial force (ma) both are not fictitious.
There are two disks. One is not rotating, the other is rotating. Acceleration and inertial force both are not fictitious.
Antworten
Acceleration
From nothing, "a" seems not to emerge. By acceleration of body relative to aether,. "ma" will emerge. Qualitatively and quantitatively.
Antworten
Light is propagated in two ways
Propagation follows the emission theory is propagated in vaccum space and propagation follows aether is propagated in aether space. A mirror in outer space that is reflecting star light ray shows above.
Antworten
Acceleration (I say again)
On a plane, a straight line is drawn. On this line, two bodies are receding. One is at a standstill, the other is accelerated uniformly. On the one, inertial force is emerging but not on the other. All is shown by a and ma.
But what distinguishes acceleration and nonacceleration ? In above picture, uniform isotropic aether will be hidden. This picture is not a picture of geometry.
Antworten
Space is rest frame
Into space, let us draw plural vectors of acceleration a. Space will be rest frame absolute.
Antworten
About space
Every motion is possible to show as a motion relative to luminiferous aether. This rest frame cannot be emerged by means of dynamics. But space will be uniform isotropic field also to dynamics.
Antworten
About space
Every motion is possible to show as a motion relative to luminiferous aether. This rest frame cannot be emerged by means of dynamics. But space will be uniform isotropic field also to dynamics.
Antworten
No one realizes
In air, all the effect of aether is excluded. No one seems to realize this simple picture. Like Michelson.
Whether the result of Fizeau measurement (on light speed : with gear) varies in the direction of the optical axis relative to the celestial sphere ? And how about when it is done on the moon's surface ?
Antworten
Glass and light (I say again)
From the right, star light is coming. Two cubes of glass are moving toward the star at different speed. In the glass, speed of light is c/n : the same. Because in the glass, light emitted from particles follows the emission theory.
By the way, let's see two lights before arriving (see from the glass). Wavelength is the same. Frequency and light speed are not the same.
Antworten
Aether
Speed of light relative to medium (water or air): is constant. Speed of light relative to aether (physical substance will be) will be constant also. Aberrations show this.
Antworten
Propagation of light (I say again)
Light is propagated in three ways ( as follows).
1 In mediums, speed of light is c/n. MM experiment (done in air) is nonsense?
2 In outer space, a star light is reflected by a mirror. Speed of incident light is constant relative to aether.
3 In outer space, a star light is reflected by a mirror. Speed of reflected light is constant prelative to the mirror.7
In three pictures above each, speed of light to a moving observer follows Galilean transformation.
Antworten
Aether
Aether exists undoubtedly. However in laboratories on the earth, no effect caused by aether drift seems to be observed (on such as particles). Aether is mysterious yet.
Antworten
All of light speed (I say again)
All of light speed is shown by aberrations. One is that in outer space, speed of light is constant relative to aether. Every motion of light sources is cancelled. The other is that light speed is not constant relative to the moving earth.
Antworten
There is a web site as follows. "Orders of magnitude (acceleration) - Wikipedia". GRT will be nonsense.
Antworten
Acceleration and nonacceleration
A passenger car is accelerating (uniformly). A body is hung from the roof, a body is placed on the floor (no friction) and a station building. Physics seems not to distinguish the three.
Antworten
Time dilation
Ahead of us, a light source is shining. On the left space, two space ships are passing each other (horizontally : at the same speed). How is difference of frequency of light observed by two space ships explained ?
Antworten
Time dilation
In outer space ahead, two space ships are receding to the right and the left (at the same speed : aether is invalid). On the outside of each ship, the same light source is shining and this light is observed by facing ship. Time dilation (twin paradox also) will be impossible.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
Mercury revolving is divided in two (hemisphere A facing the sun and the other B). Inertial force is A<B and gravity is A>B (center of gravity is not on the orbit).
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
Yesterday's post must be the most natural explanation of perihelion shift of Mercury. Because the value of perigee movement of the moon is remarkable (around 8.85 years). On the other hand, value of asteroids will not be found. Common explanation is not acceptable.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
Perihelion shift moves forward constantly. If cannot be explained by gravity of other planets.
On asteroids, no perihelion shift will be observed. Some size is needed.
Cause of perigee movement of the moon is written to be the sun. Not acceptable. Because it will be the same phenomenon to perihelion shift of planets.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
The value of perihelion shift of planets is constant. It will not be three body problem or many body problem. And it will be the same to binary star.
Antworten
Time dilation
Two passenger cars are passing each other. At the front of side wall of each car, the same light source (frequency is the same also) is settled and light ray is emitted backward at 45 degrees. Each ray is reflected by mirror sticked on the side wall wholely and is coming back. Time dilation is impossible.
Antworten
MM experiment
How about MM experiment done in still water ?
Antworten
Eddington experiment (on solar eclipce : 1919)
Eddington experiment is said to find the bending of star light by gravity of the sun. But the additional exam seems not to be done. Surface gravity of the sun is 28.02g and that of Jupiter is 2.53g. Gravity of position apart from each surface (at each radius) is a quater of surface gravity each. Experiment of Jupiter will be possible.
Antworten
Äquivalenzprinzip (sage ich noch einmal)
Eine Aufzugskabine beschleunigt horizontal (keine Reibung: bei 2 g). An jedem Massenpunkt (an jedem unendlich kleinen Bereich) beträgt die Beschleunigung 2 g.
Antworten
Äquivalenzprinzip (sage ich noch einmal)
Eine Aufzugskabine beschleunigt horizontal (keine Reibung: bei 2 g). An jedem Massenpunkt (an jedem unendlich kleinen Bereich) beträgt die Beschleunigung 2 g.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
What are the causes of perihelion shift of planets ? Speed of revolution ? Speed of rotation ? Slope of rotation ?Mass of planet and its distribution ? Mass of satellites and these distribution ? Gravity of the other planets will perhaps be weak and position is not stationary.
Imagine that long radius of Mercury separates the space of the solar system in half. Probability of the existence of the other planets in the left and right is the same. Perihelion shift at constant speed will be impossible (common view is wrong).
Antworten
Gravity lense
Gravity lenses are said to be a positive evidence of GR. However if gravity of gravitational source can be estimated, which is real GR or Newton’s theory will be clarified.
Antworten
Is light speed constant!?
To the upper right at 45 degrees in still water, plane waves of light is propagated. Above the water surface is vacuum. Value of inclination of waves in vacuum can be determined. And also speed of light waves relative to moving observer who moves in vacuum horizontally or vertically can be determined.
How about when there is air above the water surface ? When air is stationary relative to the water, apparent difference in looks will not be found.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
“It can be safely said that gravity of other planets has no effect on the perihelion shift of Mercury”. It’s in a website.
Imagine that with long radius of orbit of Mercury, the space of the solar system is divided into left and right. The probability that other planets exist on the two is equal. There will be no shift of perihelion in one direction at constant speed (common view is wrong).
But main cause of perihelion shift of Jupiter and Saturn will be mutual effect of gravity. Each perihelion is shifted every moment.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
There is a model of Mercury. A long lod penetrates a true sphere and at the both ends of the lod, weights are set. This model is rotating horizontally and is moving on the orbit of Mercury (two planes fall on). Main forces acting on the weights are gravity of the sun and inertial force (centrifugal force). And each force acting on the outside weight and inside weight is different.
Inertial force pulls the orbit to the outside. But actual orbit of Mercury is pulled to the inside. Gravity of the sun acting on the two weights is inversely proportional to the square of the distance (not come out even. not plus minus zero). In Mercury, the action of gravity will be superior.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
A model of Mercury is shown previously. Now, there are plural models. Length of lord and mass of weight each is different. These are revoleved around separately on the real orbit of Mercury. Maybe, all will be explained by Newton’s theory (including 575 arcsec).
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
Value 5.75 arcsec/year seems to be an observed value. In a website, contribution of other planets to this value is shown. These are added simply !! And value 5.75 arcsec (and contributions) seems to be constant every year !! On these problems, further explanation seems not to be done.
I say again, other planets will not be main cause of this value 5.75 arcsec.Jkf
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury (I say again)
Imagine that two Mercuries are revolving on an orbit. One is located at the perihelion and the other is at the aphelion. Gravity of the sun acting on the two is different because distance is different. In addition, there will be difference corresponding to the size of sphere (hemisphere inside > hemisphere outside). The strength of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. This will be main cause for perihelion shift of Mercury. The effect of other planets must be slight and unstable.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
Let’s reconsider the main cause of perihelion shift again. On Mercury or Venus, main cause will be the size of sphere. On Earth or Mars, effect of satellite is added. On asteroids each, effects of size is negligible. On Jupiter or Saturn each, the powerful and unstable effect of the other will act. On Uranus or Neptune each, slight and unstable effect of the other all planets will act. Anyway, common view on Mercury is wrong.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
This is the top of tall tower. Two rods of equal mass and different length are arranged vertically (heigth of center of gravity is the same). Now, two rods start to fall at the same time. The fall of center of gravity will not be the same. Because the strength of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. This will be the main cause for perihelion shift of Mercury.
Antworten
Mercury has an own size as a sphere. Therefore, the sun’s gravity will have a different effect on Mercury than it does on the center of gravity. Actual orbit will be different from that the center of gravity must follow. On Mercury, it will be the main cause of the perihelion shift.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
The perihelion shift of the earth is 11.45 arcsec / year. Main cause will be its size (size of sphere). It is the same to Mercury. In addition, the earth has a moon as a satellite that Mercury does not have. The inertial force of the moon and gravity of the sun acting on the moon are also considerable. And like Mercury, effect of other planets must be slight and unstable.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
In an binary system (formed by main star and companion star), periapis is shifted also. Motion of companion star (apsidal shift) will be depending considerably on its size. Common view (says main cause is pertubation of other planets) will be invalid.
Main cause of perihelion shift of Mercury is said to be gravity of the other planets. But position of other planets move (also position of perihelion of Mercury moves). If so, values 5.75 secarc/year is unthinkable. Main cause lwill be in Mercury itself. And also it will be the same on values of perihelion shift of the other planets.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
In Mercury, the non-uniformity of the Sun’s gravity (in the size of Mercury) will be the main cause of perihelion shift. Even in artificial satellites, the effects of non-uniformity of the Earth’s gravity (the position of the center of mass and the center of gravity are different) are also mentioned.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury (rewritten)
Mercury is moving on the revolution orbit. The sun’s gravity is equal to the centrifugal force. Because the two are action and reaction. Following are some explanations. Centrifugal force follows Mercury’s mass. But in addition, gravity is affected by the size of Mercury (and acting position of gravity is different). These are caused by the non-uniformity of gravity (in the space occupied by Mercury). And after perihelion passage, orbit will be pulled inward (from its original orbit).
High tide level twice a day is the same. Gravity and centrifugal force caused by the moon will be action and reaction. Centrifugal force is not fictitious.
Antworten
Moon and Earth (rewritten)
Suppose the moon and the earth is two-body problem. And imagine, the earth is revolving (not rotating) around the common center of gravity with the moon. The orbit is a perfect circle. If lunar attractive force acting on the center of gravity of the earth is action, the centrifugal force of the earth is a reaction. And the strength of the two will be equal. This will be also true for the earth as a whole.
In an illustration, the earth is drawn next to moon. Imagine two points on the surface of the earth closest to the moon and farthest from the moon. The difference between lunar attractive force and the centrifugal force of the earth at above two points will be almost equal and therefore the resultant force will also be almost equal. This will explain that the level of high tides twice a day are almost equal.
Note: Is the law of action and reaction valid for celestial bodies on elliptical orbits ?
Antworten
Moon and earth (an essay)
In an illustration, the moon and the earth are drawn side by side. Because of the lunar attractive force, seawater is bulged in the left and right edges of the round earth. The bulge is symmetrical. Two resultant forces pull two bulges (to the opposite direction : outward). Two resultant forces each are composed of the lunar attractive force and the centrifugal force caused by earth’s orbital motion (moves around the common center of gravity with the moon). Two resultant forces will be equal strength. This will explain that the level of high tides twice a day are generally the same.
Also, the lunar attractive force acting on the earth’s center of gravity (not the center of mass) and the centrifugal force caused by its orbital motion (mentioned above) will be action-reaction and will be equal.
P.S. Is action-reaction in the sky exactly equal ?
Antworten
Moon and earth (rewritten again)
Allow me to rewrite again.
Moon and earth are supposed to be two-body problem. Also it is supposed that the common center of gravity of moon and earth is situated outside the earth. And the orbit of earth is a perfect circle, and earth is a perfect sphere. In the illustration, the surface of earth closest to moon is A and the surface farthest from moon is B. At the two points A and B, the strength of resultant forces of moon’s gravity and centrifugal force (of earth) will be the same (act to opposite directions). Otherwise, earth cannot stay on orbit of perfect circle. This will explain that the level of high tide twice a day are the same.
Antworten
Moon and earth (an essay)
As moon passes overhead, high tide (one of two high tides a day) will come after a short delay. But why ? Why is seawater with a low specific gravity bulged ? Newton imagined that moon will continue falling. Earth will continue falling also. And seawater will cotinue falling too. So, it doesn’t matter how specific gravity is.
Antworten
Moon and earth (an essay)
Moon and earth are supposed to be two-body problem. In the illustration, the surface of earth closest to moon is A and the surface farthest from moon is B. At the two points A and B, the strength of resultant forces of moon’s gravity and centrifugal force (of earth) will be the same (act to opposite directions). It will be proved by the sameness of high tides.
Also it will be proved by stability of orbits of each body.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury (an essay)
Some wide binaries are separated by one light years. And many wide binaries are at most (as much as) by 1000 au. These motion will be treated as mass points (a point). On the other hand, many close binaries are found out also. What are physicists who repeat nonsense on perihelion shift of Mercury ?
Antworten
Moon and earth (an essay)
Moon and earth are supposed to be two-body problem. Also supposed that common center of gravity of the two is outside of earth : the orbit of earth is perfect circle : and earth is a perfefct sphere. The strength of moon’s attractive force acting on earth and centrifugal force due to revolution of earth are equal in total (as action reaction : as centrifugal force and centrepital force).
The points on the surface of earth closest to moon is A and the surface farthest from moon is B. It will mean that the forces acting on the two points AB must be offset. It will explaine that level of high tides twice a day is the same.
Antworten
Perihelverschiebung von Merkur (wieder)
Die Hauptkräfte, die auf Quecksilber wirken, sind nur die Anziehungskraft der Sonne und die Zentrifugalkraft. Die der Sonne zugewandte Hemisphäre von Quecksilber soll A sein und die andere Hemisphäre ist B. Die Anziehungskraft der auf die beiden einwirkenden Sonne ist A> B und die Zentrifugalkraft ist B> A. Nach dem Aussehen der Perihelverschiebung wird die auf Merkur als Ganzes wirkende Anziehungskraft etwas stärker sein.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury (an essay)
A celestial body called Vulcan is revolving on orbit of Mercury. It has the same mass and revolution cycle as Mercury. And diameter is twohold (the both stars are uniform in density). Since the sun’s gravitational field is non-uniform, the sun’s gravity acting on both stars will be slightly larger in Vulcan and smaller in Mercury. The value of perihelion shift also likely will be similar. In short, the size of the celestial body (close to the gravitational source like Mercury) will be the main reason for the perihelion shift.
Imagine a cone with evenly spaced concentric circles on its surface. The non-uniformity of gravity will be exponential non-uniformity.
Antworten
Propagation of gravity
The propagation of gravity will be done in an instant. For this, here are two reasons. One reason is that two-body problem, many-body problem are true for celestial bodies. The other reason is that the whole solar system is in an uniform linear motion and planets are in elliptical revolution on their revolution planes.
Antworten
Inertial force, centrifugal force, centripetal force (an essay)
Between accelerated motion and non-accelerated motion (uniform linear motion), there is an immovable distinction. And accelerated motion is always accompanied by an inertial force (corresponding to the vector of motion). These are based on the existence of absolute rest frame.
A motion of a disk rotating is an acceleration motion. And the disk is accompanied by an inertial force called centrifugal force. It is said that centrifugal force depends on the situation of observer. But the physical phenomenon (centrifugal force) cannot be influenced by observers. Centrifugal force will show the same value to everyone.
The wiki defines centripetal force as “the force that moves an object in a curved motion”. But is that the correct definition? Is mere external force centripetal force also? Isn’t tension, tensile stress, gravity, etc. all the same? Is there any commonalities (grouped together)?
Antworten
Centrifugal force : reconsidering
Two mass points a and b (with large difference of mass) are in motion of two-body problem (a large, b small). One picture is in outer space, and the knot of a,b is gravity (b is in a circular motion). The other picture is on a plane (no friction), and the knot is tension of a string (the mass of the string is zero). In the two pictures, the centrifugal force of b is a vector that is on the extension line of a,b. The reaction is gravity in one picture and tension of the string in the other picture. Where and how is the centripetal force?
Tension of the string between a and b is constant. Gravity is not constant.
Antworten
Inertial force is not fictitious
Three passenger cars are moving in different accelerated motions. These are shown with the formula, F = ma, 2F = m2a, 3F = m3a. Inertial force will not be fictitious (even for those in the passenger car).
Antworten
All about inertial forces
A body is hung by a string from the roof the passenger car accelerating to the right. The string is leaning to the lower left. The leaning of the string depends on the equilibrium of forces. The string is under tension. The leaning of the string is the same for one outside the car and for the other inside the car. Inertial force is not fictitious to them.
Antworten
About inertial force
Inertial force seen from the accelerated frame is said to be fictitious. Who brought it (for the first time) and when? This my doubt is still suspending. This is brought after advent of general relativity ? They seem to say that inertial frame in an elevator in free fall is the same to accelerating passenger cars (also to acceleration in general). Also they seem to say that this problem is within the framework of Newtonian mechanics.
Antworten
About inertial force
In the action-reaction law, inertial force is always a reaction. Attention, action is a force and reaction is also a force. The accepted view that inertial force is fictitious force and has no reaction is unacceptable.
Antworten
About inertial force
A body is placed on a plane (no friction). The body has two strings (zero mass), the left string is tied to a wall and the right string is pulled by the force ma to the right.
Then the left string is removed. The body begins accelerating by force ma to the right. There is no change in the tension of the right string. According to the action-reaction law, inertial forces cannot be fictitious.
Antworten
About constancy of speed of light
Is light speed constant or not ? It will depend on experiment. In an experiment, it is constant (invariable).In an experiment, it is not constant (variable).
Antworten
Space-time vs light
Humans cannot vary space-time frame at all. Nothing can vary space-time frame at all. And the space-time frame is one and only. On the other hand, light is one of poor actors moving always. Constancy of speed of light and Lorentz transformation are completely fake.
Antworten
Space-time vs light (rewritten)
On frame of space, none seems to act. On frame of time, none seems to act.
On the other hand, light seems to be one of actors acting given action only. So, constancy of speed of light and Lorentz transformation the two will be fake.
Antworten
Formula of Doppler effect (of starlight)
Starlight is propagated through aether and arrives. Ather can be regarded as the same medium as air. Therefore, formula of Doppler effect of starlight will be the same as formula of Doppler effect of sound (in air). And the part where the light propagation follows the emission theory can be ignored.
Antworten
Constancy of speed of light
Basic problem seems to be left in speed measurement (also in wavelength measurement) of light. A thought experiment below will be free from the problem.
Remind Fizeau measurement of light with one gear. This thought experiment done on moon’s surface is with two gears. A device telescope-like is pointed at a star, and star light is visible through two gears (the two are placed on front and rear of the device). When two gears start rotation (rotation speed of the two is the same), and speed increases, starlight will disappear.
Note: By measurements of plural stars, existence of aether will emerge.
Antworten
Space and time will be absolute (a supposition)
Perhaps, space and time each will be absolute. Each will not be affected by any phenomenon or situation (at all). If so, relativity is impossible.
Antworten
Constancy of speed of light (Reexamination)
Constancy of speed of light is not possible always. No, it will be possible limitedly in the following two events only. Btw, speed of light in mediums is not subject of this reexamination.
1) A geometric point and a light source are in the same inertial frame. Distance between the two is supposed to be within a few light seconds.
2) A geometric point is stationary in aether frame. Light propagated in aether comes to this point. Distance from the light source is supposed to be more than a few light seconds.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Antworten
It will be impossible
Constancy of light speed will be impossible. It will be clear if the formula c = f λ is looked at.
Equivalence principle will be impossible. It will be clear if the formula F = m a is looked at.
Antworten
Allow me to rewrite my post above.
Constancy of speed of light (Reexamination)
Constancy of speed of light is not possible always. No, it will be
possible limitedly in the following two events only. Btw, speed of
light in mediums is not subject of this reexamination.
1) A measurement point and a light source are stationary in the same
inertial frame. Distance between the two is within a few light
seconds. Speed of light is c.
2) A measurement point is stationary in aether frame. Light
propagated in aether is coming to this point. Distance from the
light source is more than a few light sveconds. Speed of light will
not be c.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Antworten
Supplement to my post above
1) In space far from light source, propagation of light follows aether frame. See again various aberrations.
2) In space close to light source, propagation of light follows the emission theory. See again various facts.
3) In outer space, a mirror is moving at a uniform speed. Plane waves of light of a star are reflected by this mirror. 1) and 2) must be seen as facts.
Antworten
Aether
Existence of aether (uniform isotropic) is precondition for Newton's first and second laws of motion. There can be no other explanation.
Antworten
Aberration (reexamination)
Aberration is caused by various motions of Earth relative to stationary aether (uniform isotropic). Light that enters upper air of Earth (from aether) is bent in the direction of motion of Earth. As a phenomenon, aberration is completed in the upper air. The same as refraction.
Therefore, illustration of raindrops and an umbrella is NG. Result of Airy’s experiment with a water-filled telescope is only natural. It is said that apparent displacement of stars is displaced in the direction of Earth’s motion, but in fact, it will be the opposite. You can check this by drawing light bending (in upper air) on a paper.
Antworten
Free fall (reexamination)
Problem of free fall in an elevator will be problem of resultant force of inertial force and gravity (nothing else). In any local area, it will be so also.
Note: Inertial forces acting on every local area of the cabin (supposition: mass of every local area is m) is the same ma.
Note: External force (gravity) and inertial force acting on entire cabin are equal (Newton’s second law and third law of motion). How about in local area ? To image will not be difficult.
Antworten
Supplement to my post (above)
Even in a resultant force, inertial force is inertial force, and gravity is gravity. Vector follows own law each and is inviolable.
Cabin is made by a 3D printer. Material is uniform.
On a plane (no fliction), elevator cabin is moving in a uniformly accelerated linear motion (to the right). Inertial force acting on every local area (mass is m) of the cabin is the same ma (vector is the same also).
Antworten
Free fall (an essay)
An elevator cabin is falling in free fall. Cabin is made up of n mass points (with the same mass of m). Free fall is supposed to be a uniform acceleration.
Inertial force acting on each mass point is the same ma. No exceptions. On the other hand, magnitude of gravity acting on each mass point is not the same slightly. Difference depends on the position of the mass point.
P.S. For the entire cabin, magnitude of inertial force and gravity is equal.
Antworten
Lorentz contraction
Plane waves of starlight (wavelength is constant) is arriving from upper left 45 degrees. Two spacecrafts are sailing in the right and left directions. Number of waves hitting the front and rear ends (A and B) of each spacecraft is the same. Therefore, number of waves existing between A and B is invariant (for both spacecrafts, regardless of lateral motion). Lorentz contractions will be impossible.
Relativity of simultaneity will be impossible also.
Antworten
Free fall (an essay)
Rewriting of my past post (two above)
An elevator cabin is falling in free fall. Cabin is made up of n mass points (with the same mass of m). Imagine a single moment of falling.
Inertial force acting on each mass point is the same ma. No exceptions. On the other hand, magnitude of gravity acting on each mass point is not the same slightly. Difference depends on the position of the mass point.
P.S. For the entire cabin, magnitude of inertial force and gravity is equal.
Antworten
Free fall (an essay)
Rewriting of my past post (Sep 6 2021)
An elevator cabin is falling in free fall. Cabin is made up of n mass points (with the same mass of m). Imagine a single moment of falling.
Inertial force acting on each mass point is the same ma. No exceptions. On the other hand, magnitude of gravity acting on each mass point is not the same slightly. Difference depends on the position of the mass point.
P.S. For the entire cabin, magnitude of inertial force and gravity is equal.
Antworten
Speed of light (an essay)
The defined value of speed of light is based on measurements (with wavelength and frequency) done by Evenson et al. in 1973. Error is 1.1 m / s in pramai. Now measuring instrument is separated into a measuring part and a light source part. When one of them is moved at a constant speed higher than above error (in the direction of light path), different value will be obtained.
Antworten
Acceleration and non-acceleration
A passenger car is moving in an accelerated motion to the right. A light source is set at rear of the car and a measurement device is at front. The number of light waves in the car will be higher than before accelerating. The difference between acceleration and non-acceleration will be physical difference.
P.S. Inside of the car is vacuum.
Antworten
About Light
Allow me to re-post as an essay.
◎ How are light waves propagated ?
1) Emission theory (for a few seconds only)
2) On aether (after the above)
◎ How are light sources visible ?
1) For celestial bodies beyond a few light-years, effect of emission theory is too small to be found (e.g. binary stars). So, every celestial body is visible to be stationary on aether (celestial sphere). Also by various aberrations.
2) Moon is by emission theory.
3) Celestial bodies in solar system (excluding moon) are depending on planetary aberrations. Also, depending on other aberrations (but, is secular aberration offset ?).
◎ Motion of light relative to observers
Same as bodies. Follows Galilean transformation. Constancy of speed of light cannot be hypothesized. By the way, light waves (speed = fλ) and photons (rays) are basically different. Especially in outer space.
Antworten
Time delation
A point light source is shining (frequency is constant). Two spacecrafts are moving away from the light source in opposite directions at the same speed (three are on a straight line). Two spacecrafts are receiving light of the same frequency. There is no time delation.
Antworten
Gravitational time dilation
Laser beam (frequency is constant) emitted from the ground is reflected by the mirror at the top of the high tower, and returned to the ground. Frequency at these three points is the same. There is no time dilation.
Antworten
Acceleration and non-acceleration
A passenger car is accelerating to the right. In the car, lights (frequency is constant) are emitted from light source settled on rear and front walls, and at the center of the car, interference fringes are observed. Varying of interference fringes will reflect varying of acceleration. Sagnac effect like will also occur in a straight line.
Antworten
Acceleration and non-acceleration
A passenger car is moving in a uniform accelerated motion to the right. In the car, a ray of light emitted downward from the roof will be bent to the left (as a parabola). Defference of acceleration and non-acceleration is not relative (but absolute).
Antworten
Inertial force is not fictitious
On a plane (without friction), a body is pulled to the left by two strings and to the right by one string. The tension of each string is the same F. That is, the body is accelerating to the left. Inertial force is not fictitious (Newton's third law of motion holds at the left end of the body).
Antworten
34 notices on anti-relativity
Shown below (notices are mine, selected) will be simple, certain and acceptable (sorry, in Japanese : 1-36 excluding 11&36).
http://www.asyura.com/0306/idletalk2/msg/1242.html
Antworten
Selected notices in English
28 selected notices (anti relativity) in English are added in a site below. Yes, these are selected.
http://www.asyura.com/0306/idletalk2/msg/1242.html
Antworten
Aberration on the moon
Many of widely accepted explanations for aberration will be right if these are on the moon. Illustration of raindrops and an umbrella will be OK. But as already mentioned, aberration on the earth is completed in the upper atmosphere. The explanation for aberration of earth must be rewritten.
Aberration (both on the moon and on the earth) is incompatible with constançy of the speed of light, and existence of aether is a prerequisite.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury (an essay)
Perihelion shift of Mercury is about 574 arcsec per century, and main cause is said to be perturbations due to the gravity of other planets (Venus is about 280 arcsec, Jupiter is about 150 arcsec).
There is a question. At the left end and the right end of the orbit of Mercury (a view from above), force that accelerates and decelerates Mercury by perturbation by other planets will be equal (in probability). Especially in the span of the century. Main cause will not be gravity of other planets.
P.S. Perturbations of other planets will be caused only by the position of these on the orbits (nand speed of gravity will be infinite).
Antworten
Accelerated motion & light
On the moon’s surface, a passenger car is accelerating to the right. A starlight (horizontal) is passing through a hole A in the front wall, and reaches B in the rear wall of the passenger car. Frequencies of A and B will be the same. Therefore, number of waves existing between A and B will be constant (even at different accelerations). Above is not only for uniform acceleration but also for non-uniform acceleration.
On the moon’s surface, a passenger car is accelerating to the right. A light emitted from light source A’ in the front wall reaches B in the rear wall. What is frequency of A’B ? How many waves exist between A’B ?
Antworten
Stationary aether
In outer space, an observer (in an inertial frame) is measuring light of stars. The number of stars being measured is reasonable and there is no clumping of stars on celestial sphere. What is measured is frequency and wavelength of each star’s light, i.e., speed of light. The results will reveal the existence of stationary aether.
Note: Existence of stationary aether is not in doubt due to aberration.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
In Wikipedia (in Japanese version : “Apsidal precession” 近点移動), there is
a table named “Perihelion shirt of planets of solar system”. These are observed values and these seem to varies greatly depending on the distance from the sun and the
presence or absence of satellites. Newcomb’s table and explanation
of relativity would be NG.
A planet called Vulcan is revolving the orbit of Mercury. Assume
that mass is the same and diameter is half to Mercury. The
gravitational force of the Sun and the centrifugal force due to the
orbital motion each would be Mercury > Vulcan > mass point.
Newcomb’s table (of perturbation values of the planets acting on Mercury) should be nonsense.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
Mercury is perihelion shift and binary star is periastron shift. Two shifts are smooth and in one direction. Two each must be considered to be a two body problem.
See again that table (in 近点移動). Values are observed values. And these each will be two body problem.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
Recurring orbits seem to show that this is a two body problem.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury (an essay)
Scaled models of Mercury and Vulcan (three above) are falling in free fall. Magnitude of acceleration is probably Mercury > Vulcan > mass point. At the beginning of falling, centers of gravity of three models are at the same horizontal level.
A web-site says, periastron shift are many in close binaries. This will be a two body problem.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
5.75, 2.04, 11.45. These are observed value of perihelion shift of Mercury, Venus, and Earth (in a table of a website. Value are in arcsec/year. Table covers to Neptune). The decrease in Venus will be due to distance from the Sun, and the increase in Earth will be due to the Moon.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
Here is a close binary. A companion star approaches the main star and is passing the periastron on orbit. Actual orbit of companion star is different from orbit of mass point of it. Difference will be due mainly to size of companion star (mass distribution).
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury
In a close binary, gravity of main star is acting on companion star. Magnitude of gravity is inversely proportional to square of distance. Therefore, if size of companion star is large, gravity that acting is somewhat larger (even if mass is the same).
Note: Here is a horizontal line. From the right, gravity of main star is acting. On the line, we see three masses. Mass of right and left is m/2 and middle is m (interval is the same). Magnitude of gravity acting will be m<m/2+m/2.
Antworten
Reviewing the Heliocentric Theory
Motion of earth is various, such as rotation, revolution, uniform linear motion of solar system, and others. And there is aberration to each. These are reflection of motions relative to uniform isotropic aether. Qualitative and quantitative.
Antworten
Newton's Third Law of Motion
As an action and reaction, there are two examples about gravity. One is normal force. The other is Inertial force in free fall. The two should be accepted qualitatively and quantitatively.
Antworten
Newton’s Third Law of Motion
Does gravity always act as action? Is inertial force always reaction? It is a problem statement. As an example, there is an elevator cabin in free fall (mass is m).
Antworten
Galaxy Rotation Curve
Allow me to post an idea about the above. It is contraction of the size of galaxies. But in Wikipedia (in English), there seems to be no mention.
Antworten
Galaxy Rotatin Curve
Is it because gravitational sources (that revolve galaxy) also extend over the disk of galaxy ? Is it because the state of inverse square law of gravity is different from that of solar system ?
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (repost)
Size of Sun relative to Mercury will be main cause of this problem (however, will be incompatible with Newton's spherical shell theorem).
There are two drawings in which Mercury and gravity source (considered as a point) are drawn. In one drawing, gravity source is Sun and its mass is m. Distance from Mercury is 100. In the other drawing, there are two alternative gravity sources to the sun, Mass is m / 2 each. Distance from Mercury is 99 and 101(aligned on a straight line extending from Mercury). Magnitude of the gravity acting on Mercury is the latter > the former. It can be ignored on Neptune.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (repost)
In a drawing, a fixed star F homogeneous true sphere and a planet P orbiting nearby are drawn. F acts gravity on P. Is magnitude of gravity on P dpending solely on mass m of F and distance r between FP ? No, the size of F may also have a slight effect. This will be main reason for the perihelion shift (secondary reasons are omitted). Newton's spherical shell theorem may not be perfect.
Square of 99 is 9801. Square of 101 is 10201. See above my post.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (Gleanings)
It is said that magnitude of Sun's gravity acting on orbiting Mercury depends only Sun's mass m and distance r between the two. But in reality, in addition, there will be an effect of Sun's size. Gravity will be slightly greater. Therefore, Mercury's orbit that has left aphelion will be slightly inward (and r will also be shorter), and then, perihelion will be shifted.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (correction)
Sorry, I ask to delete my post (gleanings) and replace it with following.
It is said that magnitude of Sun's gravity acting on Mercury depends on Sun's mass m and distance r between the two. However, in reality, Sun's size will have effect. Noticeably on Mercury, which is close to Sun. Gravity will be greater slightly. Let's focus on orbit just after Mercury passes perihelion. Orbit will be slightly inward (r will be shorter also). This means that size of Sun shifts position of perihelion in the next around.
P.S. Orbit to be compared is orbit when Sun is a point.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)
Increase in gravity due to size of Sun will depend on distance r between Sun and Mercury. This increase in gravity will be larger at perihelion and smaller at aphelion. Is this the reason for perihelion shift of Mercury ? Sorry for my repetitive posts.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)
This is a thought experiment on close binary stars (imagine on a plane no friction). Imagine the same homogeneous true sphere with mass m. Main star is three spheres and companion star is two spheres (these are attached as a single unit). These are on a straight line. Gravity exerted and affected by and to each will depend on size of true spheres (of here and there). Forget the spherical shell theorem. Two-body problem is also complicated.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)
This is a guess. Because of size of Mercury (in its elliptical orbit), centrifugal force will be increased. And, as Sun is near, effect of size will be larger (other planets are more like point).
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (essay)
Mercury is revolving in orbit. Size of Mercury increases centrifugal force acting on revolving Mercury. This will be reason for perihelion shift of Mercury. The angle is about 5.75 arc-sec in a year.
Size of Mercury will also increase gravity of Sun (which acts on Mercury). But it will not affect direction of long axis of elliptical orbit (after a round: that is, it will be unrelated to perihelion problem).
Antworten
Allow me to revise my yesterday's post.
At each of Mercury's mass points, centrifugal force and Sun's gravity are canceled out. Like an elevator in free-falling. In formula of centrifugal force, "r" (distance between the two) is as it is. But, in formula of gravity, it is inversely proportional to square of distance of " r". Therefore, Mercury's size will increase effect of centrifugal force. Sorry, only I can is qualitative saying (and these are guess).
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)
This is an idea. In this problem, planets seem to be treated as a point. Now, planet is divided into two hemispheres. One is closer to Sun and the other is far from Sun (back to back). If the planet is far from Sun, centrifugal force and gravity each acting on two hemispheres will be the same(1/2). But, how about Mercury? We must imagine a spherical surface that centers on Sun, and this spherical surface coincides with center of Mercury ? And then, in whole Mercury, centrifugal force will be larger and gravity will be smaller. It is compared to Mercury as a point.
Sorry, please ignore my two posts immediately preceding this one.
Antworten
Perihelion shift of Mercury (an essay)
Another inference. Half mentioned already at end of May. Mentioned was problem posing about a single gravitational source and gravitational sources separated into two. Let's call this effect as the 99-101 effect. The 99-101 effect is equal to the two of binary stars. The 99-101 effect is a candidate for explanation of perihelion shift of Mercury. However, it is incompatible with attempt to explain by Sun's spherical surface. I don't know which one is hopeful.
If gravity source is close, size of gravitational source will increase gravity slightly. Then, Newton's sphericl shell theorem must be reviewed.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)
Centrifugal force is inertial force and cannot be the first cause of perihelion shift. The 99-101 effect mentioned above (tentative naming: contrary to Newton's spherical shell theorem) will be caused by size of Mercury, size of Sun, and distance between Mercury and Sun. On Mercury, these have effect on gravity and it will be the first cause. And then, direction of elliptical orbit may be shifted. At perihelion, this effect will be greatest.
Magnitude of perihelion shift of planets with satellite is far superior. This is probably because gravity of Sun acting on satellite in half orbit close to Sun is far superior.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)
Shift is smooth, like a hand of clock. Mainly, it will be two-body problem.
Antworten
Equivalence Principle
On a mass point, two forces of equal magnitude are acting from the left and right. Two forces are tension, gravity, and inertial force. Wnen, left and right are not distinguished, there are five possible combinations (there is no combination of inertia force and inertia force). Is the equivalence principle still insisted upon ?
Antworten
Accelerated Motion is not Fictitious
A horizontally long container is filled with fluid. This container is being accelerated to the right. In the container, pressure of the fluid will be high on the left and low on the right (effect of gravity is separated question). Accelerated motion is not fictitious.
But is this worth writing down ?
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious
The same five bodies (mass m) are lined up sideways on a horizontal plane. Five bodies are tied with strings. Assume that horizontal plane is zero friction, and mass of strings is zero. On right most body, force of 5ma is acting and five bodies start a uniform linear accelerating motion toward the right. Tension acting on four strings are, from right to left, 4ma, 3ma, 2ma, and 1ma. For any observer.
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious
In addition to acceleration, there are jerk, snap, etc. And accordingly, inertial force must be varied. Inertial force cannot be fictitious.
There must be absolute rest frame, so there are acceleration, jerk, snap, etc. In wikipedia (Japanese), in “Acceleration”, there is a table titled “Comparison of magnitude of acceleration”. Many examples of acceleration are shown in 18 division by magnitude.
Antworten
Equivalence Principle
Starting is to accept inertial forces as inertial forces. In a free-fall elevator, inertial force and gravity acting on the entire cabin is equal. As Newton’s third law of motion shows. Magnitudes of inertial force and gravity acting on each mass point (assume fluid) in elevator are as shown by Newton. That’s all.
Eh, the equivalence principle? Will be worthless at all.
Antworten
Equivalence Principle ?
A body is suspended by a string from roof of a passengercar. The same two passengercars started at the same jerk at the same time. Tension of string is increasing, and string broke at about the same time (for both person in the car and on on the ground). Inertial force and gravity will not be equivalent.
Antworten
Moon and Sun (Hypothesis: Restated)
Assume that sun’s light follows emission theory for a few seconds only. Matter of those on few seconds will be indistinguishable from earth. That is, sun is being in aether. So, light-time correction. And, light-time correction will be offset by secular aberration.
Assume that moon’s light follows emission theory for a few seconds only. So, visible position of moon is exactly where it is. Just like sun. But the mechanism will be different.
Antworten
About Light
In outer space, frequency and wavelength of two star lights (coming from the opposite direction) are measured (at the same time). Sum of the speed of two lights will be constant. It is 2c or close to 2c.
Above shows that in outer space, light is propagated relative to aether. And, speed of light relative to an observer is not constant.
Antworten
Michelson-Morley Experiment
In a book Theory of Relativity by Pauli, W 1958, it’s written as follows (quoted from English version ; in 1-6). “Rather should one say that for an observer moving with medium, light is propagated as usual with velocity c/n in all directions”. It seems to be the “very and true explanation” for M-M experiment (done in air) !!
There is Einstein’s saying the same as above Pauli’s. Therefore, probably, he said that he didn’t know M-M experiment (and he mutters, "It (done in air) is nonsense and I have no obligation to talk about it”).
Antworten
Secular aberration
This is what comes into my mind. Three aberrations; daily, annual, and secular seem to form a closed necklace drawn in one stroke. Pearl are 365 (assuming star is visible even during day time).
The star change its position at all times. Trajectory drawn on celestial sphere in one year will not be a ellipse but be an extended necklace with pearls.
Antworten
Does Aether Exist ?
Two spacecrafts are sailing from left to right in outer space. It is as far apart as Mars. Speeds are v and 2v. Two spacecraft flash at the same and long time interval. What is interval between the position of flashes on the celestial sphere as seen from the Earth ?
Antworten
Local Inertial Frame (repost)
Inertial frame or non-accelerating frame, is a frame that is non-accelerating with respect to aether. So, in free-falling elevator, there is no inertial frame, even locally. Term “local inertial frame” will be nonsense.
In the elevator, equal acceleration due to falling is acting on every mass point. There are no exceptions. Even locally.
There can be composition or partial composition of inertial force and gravity. But the two are inviolable to each other. Inviolable, qualitatively and quantitatively.
Antworten
Aether (repost)
All kinds of aberration are caused by motion of Earth. Qualitatively, quantitatively. For example, cycle of annual aberration is 365 days. It is reflection of motion of Earth. On the other hand, any motion of star's side has no influence. Only position on the celestial sphere is valid. These facts will be explainable only by aether.
For an observer stationary with respect to the aether frame, there will be no aberration.
Antworten
Elevator Cabin and Inertial Frame
On a plane (no friction), an elevator cabin is accelerated horizontally by tension of a rope. Tension of rope is controlled so that horizontal acceleration is the same as free fall. Not only at infinite small area (local area), but also on whole area of this elevator cabin is inertial frame ?
Antworten
Equivalence Principle
An elevator cabin is slowly falling due to gravity of an asteroid below. In addition, a rope is extending below the elevator cabin, and the rope is under artificial tension. Let us assume that acceleration g due to gravity (uniform acceleration) is equal to acceleration a due to tension. The equivalence principle should be forgotten.
Antworten
Gravitational Acceleration
Gravitational acceleration is a compound word. But is it worth it? About acceleration, what is special ? Nothing, will be.
Antworten
Relativity of Simultaneity
On the moon's surface, a passenger car is moving to the right. From the point at the center of ceiling, light rays are emitted at 45 degrees downward to the left and right. So, on the floor, there are two points of light. Position of two points are symmetrical for an observer in the car and stands on the moon's surface. This drawing should be understood by the emission theory.
Antworten
Absolute Rest Frame (proposal)
Accelerated motion, non-accelerated motion (uniform linear motion) and combined motions of a body all will be motions relative to absolute rest frame.
1) Uniform linear motion of a body is through.
2) Accelerated motion of a body will have corresponding inertial force.
Absolute rest frame can be easily measured (as aether drift) using light.
Antworten
Absolute Rest Frame
Newton’s Bucket” is a thought experiment that assumes the existence of absolute rest frame because of the rotational motion accompanied by inertial forces. Let’s take the thought experiment one step further. Inertial force must occur by “all motions except uniform linear motion” of a body with respect to absolute rest frame. Without exception. And inertial force is real existence in physics.
Note: Uniform linear motion and other motions can be superposed. And, superposition is very universal.
Antworten
Absolute Rest Frame & Aether Frame
It would be easy to reveal the aether frame by optical means. By measuring aether drift. On the other hand, non-accelerated motion, accelerated motion (uniform linear motion and all other motions) of bodies are distinguished. And accelerating bodies show inertial forces. This is probably due to absolute rest frame. Aether frame and absolute rest frame each will probably be one and only, homogeneous, isotropic. And perhaps the two are the same frame. One thing two functions. Surprising.
Antworten
A Light clock
A light clock is working in a moving passenger car. Light path of light clock is illustrated vertically (in drawings). But this light clock leans somewhat to the right (or to left). So, to an observer stands on the ground, zigzag of light path (saw-tooth like) warps. Two kinds of dilation ? And if two clocks work, and these lean differs ? Ok
Antworten
An Intermittent Ray of Light
Imagine that an incoming star light is intermittent (on and off: by human work). An observer is observing this ray of light. It will be certain that observer’s motion (in the light ray direction) does not affect anything of coming ray (intermittency, wavelength, amplitude, waveform, etc). So, in the equation c = f λ, it is f and c that vary for the moving observer.
Antworten
Murmur, Again
Starlight is coming from outer space. When an observer moves in the direction of the light path, frequency of the starlight varies. For light, there is a formula c = f λ. Which one, c or λ, varies with the above frequency varying ?
Antworten
Binary Star & Aether
Speed of light coming from approaching and receding stars of binary star is the same. This will be one of evidence of the existence of aether.
Note: However, as for evidence, aberrations (caused by motions of Earth relative to aether) will be more definite.
Antworten
Light is Propagated in Two Ways
In outer space, a starlight is reflected by a mirror. There is a formula c = f λ. Now, the mirror is stationary. In comparing of incident light and reflected light, f is the same. And usually, c & λ are different.
Now, the mirror moves in the direction of the light path of incident light. In the formula on incident light, λ is constant. And c & f will be variables. And in the formula on reflected light, c is constant. And f & λ will be variables.
Antworten
Light is Propagated in Two Ways (supplement to above post)
◎ Statings on the formula: c = f λ are from the view point of the mirror (stationery or in uniform linear motion).
◎ Light will follow the emission theory for a few seconds only, after leaving light source. And then light follows aether.
Antworten
Gleaning (wavenumber, invariant)
In outer space, a starlight is coming. When an observer moves in the direction of light path, frequency varies. But, according to this, in the formula c = f λ, does wavelength λ vary ? Unbelievable !
There is a word "wavenumber". It is the number of waves in a unit length (1 cm or 1 m) and is called Kayser. Like 25,000 K (visible red). This wavenumber and wavelength are reciprocals of each other. Therefore, since the wavenumber is an invariant, the wavelength will also be an invariant. That is, the wavelength cannot be varied with the motion of an observer. It is the speed of light that varies.
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious Force
Inertial force is not fictitious force. See, Newton’s third law of motion (law of action and reaction). Also see, formula F = ma in the second law of motion. This is a big problem.
P.S. There are two types of motion: uniform linear motion and all other motions. In the latter, inertial forces appear during the motion, and corresponding to the motion.
Antworten
Equivalence Principle
In free-falling elevator cabin, and at the especial local area, gravity and inertial force are equal in magnitude. This seems to be the reason for the equivalence principle. However, at many local area, gravity and inertial force are not equal in magnitude. Is it possible that the principle is based on this one especial local area ?
Antworten
Equivalence Principle
When a mass point is accelerated, inertial force appears. Its vector can be at our will. On the other hand, gravity acting on a mass point is unrelated to the accelerated motion of this mass point. And, the vector is not at our will. In summary, inertial force and gravity are two different things, like water and oil (even if the vector of the two acting on a mass point happen to cancel each other out).
Antworten
Inertial Force
◎ Inertial force is reaction of Newton's law of action-reaction (the third law of motion). It is not a fictitious force.
◎ In the entire elevator cabin in free-falling, gravity and inertial force are action and reaction. And the two are equal. So, it is not surprising that in this cabin, there is a local area where the magnitude of gravity and inertial force are equal. In this local area, magnitude of inertial force is not zero. That is, this local area is not an inertial frame.
◎ There are two points that are not in relative motion. It is impossible to say for one to be an inertial frame and for the other an accelerated frame. There can be no such thing as a local inertial frame.
Antworten
About the speed of light
As for speed of light, constancy of speed of light, and the formula c = f λ seem to be all. But is it so simple ?
A ray of light is propagating through aether. An observer is moving in a uniform linear motion lerative to this ray at various angle. The speed of the observer relative to aether is also varies. And, the observer's motion can be accelerated motion, jerk (on a straight line), or can be curvilinear motion. Besides, there will be areas where the propagation of light follows emission theory.
In short, there will be no reason to treat light specially. It's so simple.
Antworten
About the Speed of Light
For light that is propagated in aether, speed of light waves and ray (photons) relative to an observer will be different (usually). And, for light that is propagated according to emission theory, above will be the same (different also, usually).
Antworten
About the speed of light (supplement to the above)
Plane waves and rays (photons) of light from the first-magnitude star, Sirius are propagating through outer space. An observer is moving in various motions. Speed of plane waves and light rays (photons) to the observer will be different (usually).
Antworten
Gravity and Time Dilation
There are two mirrors. One is on the ground, one is 22.6m above. These are facing each other. A laser beam is emitted downward from the left end of the upper mirror, forming letter W, and is coming to the upper right (beam is in vacuum). Frequency at five points will be the same. There will be no time dilation due to difference of gravity.
Note) A few translated books say that (outline), when the distance between two points on the light path remains the same, the frequency of two points are the same (assuming frequency of the light source is constant).
Antworten
Aberration on the Moon
Major aberrations observable on the moon's surface are four. Two are corresponding to daily, annual aberrations of earth. Two are annual, secular aberrations of earth themselves (in common). These four aberrations show that aberration are caused by the motion of the telescope on the moon's surface relative to aether. Qualitatively, quantitatively. Motion of telescope is motion relative to aether.
On the moon's surface, a water-filled telescope will show what Airy imaged (but if light receiving surface is glass, it will follow the refractive index of the glass). Also on the moon's surface, picture of tilted umbrella and rain drops (raindrops are photons) will be valid.(invalid on earth).
Antworten
Local Inertial Frame (Monologue)
In all areas of a free-falling elevator, formula F ≒ ma ≠ 0, or F = ma ≠ 0 will consist. So, there will be no inertial frame, even locally.
In a free-falling elevator (assumed to be a rigid body), coexistence of inertial frame and accelerated frame will be impossible, even locally.
Antworten
Motions Relative to Aether (monologue)
1) Rotary motion: Two same disks are rotating. If the rotary speed is the same, the same inertial force will appear. Regardless of the direction of plane of rotation. It must be because of aether (homogeneous and isotropic).
2) Curvilinear motion: Two same spheres move in curvilinear motion. Two curves are the same in size and shape. If two spheres move at the same uniform speed (from the same starting point), the same inertial force will appear. Regardless of the direction of curve. It must be because of aether (homogeneous and isotropic).
3) Accelerated motion on straight lines: Two same spheres move on two straight lines. If motions are the same accelerated motion, the same inertial force will appear. Regardless of the direction of the straight line. It must be because of aether (homogeneous and isotropic).
4) Uniform linear motion: Two same spheres move in uniform linear motion. Inertial forces do not appear. Regardless of the direction of straight line. It must be because of aether (homogeneous and isotropic).
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious (partially reposted)
Gravity acts on everything equally. And if there is action, there is reaction. As stated by Newton’s third law of motion. Below are some examples.
F = mg (free fall)
F = normal reaction
F = air resistance (falling at terminal speed)
F = air resistance + inertial force (falling before terminal speed)
Is F in F = mg fictitious ? The claim of fictitious will not hold.
Antworten
Newton's Third Law of Motion
A body of mass m is suspended from ceiling by a string. From below, this body is pulled by another string. Tension of this string is 2 mg. So, the tension of upper string is 3 mg. That is, action-reaction of upper string is both 3 mg. Mass of the body is basically irrelevant.
Antworten
Inertial force is not fictitious (monologue)
On a plane (no friction), there is a body mass 3m. It is pulled by a string from the left and is accelerated. Tension of the string F is 3ma. Now, suppose there is another body to the right of this body. Two bodies are tied with a string. Also suppose the mass of the left body be 2m and the mass of the right body be m. The force F that pulls the left string is the same. So, tension on the left string will be 3ma and tension on the right string will be ma.
Antworten
Inertial force is not fictitious (is something wrong ?)
Formula, F = ma, is well-known formula. Now, dividing both sides by m. It gives F/m = a. F on the left side is the force (external force) in "Newton". Both F and m are physical quantities. Both will not be fictitious. Therefore, a and inertial force ma will not be fictitious also. Is there anything wrong with the above ?
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious (Continued)
In previous post, both sides of formula F = ma are divided by m. Now, alternatively, F = ma are divided by a. Then, formula F/a = m is given. This will also show that a and ma will not be fictitious.
Also, two formulas F = ma and F = mg may not be compatible with the assertion of gravitational mass and inertial mass ("Both are completely different phenomena" on Wikipedia "mass" in Japanese. Also, not be compatible with existence of two idioms).
Antworten
Inertial Resistance is not Fictitious (again).
Let's review formulas, F = ma and F = mg.
Dividing both sides by m gives a = F/m and g = F/m. Therefore, a = g.
Thus, mass acting as gravity and mass acting as inertial force are (assumed to be) the same. Also, quantitatively as m. This is also guaranteed by Newton's third law of motion.
Antworten
Inertial Resistance is not Fictitious (again)
Not a few explanations of law of action and reaction begins with two bodies. Misleading explanation. This law is the law at point of action of force. And, it is the law that action and reaction are equal, and direction of force is opposite.
A body is pulled by a string. At every point on the string, tension is the same. That is, action and reaction have the same magnitude and opposite directions. This is the same when the body is uniformly accelerated by the string. Both forces are true forces. It is Impossible that one (inertial resistance) is fictitious.
Antworten
Free Fall (Monologue)
A large number of particles are floating in vacuum space. To our eyes, these are visible as a cube or an elevator cabin. Suddenly, a gravity source appears below and the elevator-like thing starts free-falling. As time passes, the elevator-like thing gradually changes its shape.
The above can be explained by Newtonian mechanics.
Antworten
Local Inertial Frame ? (again)
A homogenous disk is rotating vertically. Gravity from below. Therefore, inertial force (centrifugal force) and gravity act on each mass point of the disk. When the rotation speed of the disk exceeds a certain magnitude, a mass point appears where vector of inertial force and gravity are canceled (as total). But it is only natural. It seems to not be note worthy.
In free falling elevator, mass point where vector of inertial force and gravity are canceled (as total) appears also. Physically, it would be the same phenomenon as a rotating disk.
Antworten
Free Fall
A body is in free fall. Assume that this body is a homogeneous rectangular. Inertial force is acting on every local area. Therefore, there can be no local inertial frame for this body.
Inertial force and gravity are canceled each other partially and sometimes totally. But canceled is action not existence.
Antworten
Equivalence principle (again)
For gravity and inertial force in free-falling elevator, acceptable explanation will be Newton's law of action and reaction. Equivalence principle should be forgotten.
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious (again)
The same five bodies (mass m) are lined up sideways on a horizontal plane. Five bodies are tied with four strings. Assume that horizontal plane is zero friction, and mass of strings is zero. On right most body, force of 5ma is acting to the right and five bodies start a uniform linear accelerating motion toward the right. Tension acting on four strings are, from right to left, 4ma, 3ma, 2ma, and 1ma.
Tension in the string above will be the same to an observer of any frame of motion. Inertial force (accelerated motion) is not fictitious.
Antworten
Selected Posts on Anti-Relativity
◎ Michelson-Morley Experiment
It (done in air) is nonsense. In air, light is propagated at c/n. So, the result of M-M experiment (done in air) is only natural.
In a book "Theory of Relativity" by Pauli, W 1958, it's written as follows (quoted from English version ; in 1-6). "Rather should one say that for an observer moving with medium, light is propagated as usual with velocity c/n in all directions".
◎ Speed of Light
The defined value of speed of light is based on measurements (with wavelength and frequency) done by Evenson et al. in 1973. Error is 1.1 m / s in pramai. Now measuring instrument is separated into a measuring part and a light source part. When one of them is moved at a constant speed higher than above error (in the direction of light path), different value will be obtained.
◎ Propagation of Light
In outer space, a starlight is reflected by a mirror. There is a formula c = f λ. Now, the mirror is stationary. In comparing of incident light and reflected light, f is the same. And usually, c & λ are different.
Now, the mirror moves in the direction of the light path of incident light. In the formula on incident light, λ is constant. And c & f will be variables. And in the formula on reflected light, c is constant. And f & λ will be variables.
1. In outer space, a star light is reflected by a mirror. Speed of incident light is constant relative to aether.
2. In outer space, a star light is reflected by a mirror. Speed of reflected light is constant relative to the mirror (the emission theory).
In two pictures sbove each, speed of light to a moving observer follows Galilean transformation.
◎ Aether
All kinds of aberration are caused by motion of Earth. Qualitatively, quantitatively. For example, cycle of annual aberration is 365 days. It is reflection of motion of Earth. On the other hand, any motion of star’s side has no influence. Only position on the celestial sphere is valid. These facts will be explainable only by aether.
Antworten
Selected Posts on Anti-Relativity (2)
◎ Lorentz Contraction
Plane waves of starlight (wavelength is constant) is arriving from upper left 45 degrees. Two spacecrafts are sailing in the right and left directions. Number of waves hitting the front and rear ends (A and B) of each spacecraft is the same. Therefore, number of waves existing between A and B is invariant (for both spacecrafts, regardless of lateral motion). Lorentz contractions will be impossible.
Relativity of simultaneity will be impossible also.
◎ Aberration
Aberration is caused by various motions of Earth relative to stationary aether (uniform isotropic). Light that enters upper air of Earth (from aether) is bent in the direction of motion of Earth. As a phenomenon, aberration is completed in the upper air. The same as refraction.
Therefore, illustration of raindrops and an umbrella is NG. Result of Airy’s experiment with a water-filled telescope is only natural. It is said that apparent displacement of stars is displaced in the direction of Earth’s motion, but in fact, it will be the opposite. You can check this by drawing light bending (in upper air) on a paper.
◎ Inertial Force is not Fictitious.
The same five bodies (mass m) are lined up sideways on a horizontal plane. Five bodies are tied with four strings. Assume that horizontal plane is zero friction, and mass of strings is zero. On right most body, force of 5ma is acting to the right and five bodies start a uniform linear accelerating motion toward the right. Tension acting on four strings are, from right to left, 4ma, 3ma, 2ma, and 1ma.
Tension in the string above will be the same to an observer of any frame of motion. Inertial force (accelerated motion) is not fictitious.
◎ Equivalence Principle
For gravity and inertial force in free-falling elevator, acceptable explanation will be Newton’s law of action and reaction. Equivalence principle should be forgotten.
Antworten
Selected Posts on Anti-Relativity (3) that
◎ Light Clock
A light clock is working in a moving passenger car. In books or in other illustrations, light travels back and forth vertically, but this light clock slightly leans to the right or left. So, the zigzag (sawtooth) of light path seen by an observer on the ground warps. Two kinds of dilations ? And how about if two light clocks with different lean work ?
◎ Time Dilation
In outer space, a spaceship is sailing horizontally. Plane wave of light (wavelength is constant) of the first-magnitude star Sirius is coming from directly above. Phenomenon of time dilation can not be valid.
◎ Relativity of Simultaneity
On the Moon's surface, a passenger car is moving to the right. From the center of the ceiling of the car, light rays are emitted to directly below and diagonally downward to left and right at 45 degrees. And three points of light are reflected on the floor. Three points are symmetrical to observer on the Moon's surface also. Relativity of simultaneity will be invalid.
◎ Perihelion Shift of Mercury
The perihelion shift moves in one direction and its speed seems to be almost constant. Like the hands of a clock. Main cause of the shift seems not to be gravity of other planets. Main cause will be two-body problem of Mercury and Sun. Not as points, but as spheres.
Antworten
Selected Posts on Anti-Relatiyity (4)
◎ Speed of Light
For speed of light, the constant speed, and the formula c = fλ seem to be all. But is it really that simple?
A beam of light is propagating through aether. An observer is in uniform linear motion at various angles relative to this beam. The speed of the observer relative to aether also varies. Observer's motion can be accelerated motion, jerk motion, or curvilinear motion. Also, speed of light wave and light ray (photon) will generally be different.
No, to light, special treatment must not be given. Then, all must be simple.
◎ Aether
In outer space, frequency and wavelength of two stars light are being measured. Two stars are in opposite directions (antipodal point) on the celestial sphere, and the measurements are done simultaneously. The sum of the two values will be 2c or a constant close to 2c.
The above will show the motion of the observer relative to aether.
◎ Accelerated Motion and Aether
Accelerated motion will be absolute motion against aether. Accelerated motion and inertial force are two sides of the same coin. Gravity is not involved and is irrelevant.
That is, we are surrounded by aether.
◎ Acceleration and Non-Acceleration
The passenger car is accelerating uniformly to the right. In this car, a ray of light (frequency is constant) is emitted from the rear to the front. The number of light waves existing inside the car will be higher than when the car is stationary. That is, there will be apparent difference between non-acceleration and acceleration.
Ray of light is emitted from the ceiling of the passenger car downward. If the passenger car is accelerating, the ray draw a parabola. That is, there will be apparent difference between non-acceleration and acceleration.
◎ Local Inertial Frame
An elevator-like but homogeneous rectangular body is in free falling. Suppose this body consists of many local area of mass m. So, inertial force acting on each local area is mg. That is, local inertial frame will be impossible.
Gravity and inertial force are cancelled out partially or sometimes totally. But, it is action that cancelled out, not existence.
Antworten
Selected Posts on Anti-Relativity (5)
◎ Doppler Effect of Light
Frequency of incoming light varies with the motion of an observer. In the formula c = fλ, it is clear that the speed of light (for the observer) cannot be constant.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (again)
Shift of perihelion is in the direction of Mercury’s own revolution, and speed of shift is constant. Like hands of clock. Main reason will be two-body problem.
How is Sun’s gravity acting on Mercury calculated ? Will be by Newton’s spherical shell theorem. But is this theorem right ? Has anyone raised any objection ?
Gravity of Sun acting on Mercury depends on square of the distance between them. On the other hand, centrifugal force due to orbital motion of Mercury depends on distance between them. Therefore, the size of Mercury and Sun will also play a role. But it is contrary to the spherical shell theorem
If the above is right, because the two bodies are close, size of Mercury and Sun will increase the magnitude of gravity. And orbital motion of Mercury will be accelerated.
Antworten
Spherical Shell Theorem
A homogeneous sphere, the source of gravity, and a line of action of gravity extending horizontally through the center of the sphere are drawn. At a fixed point, on left side of the line of action, not far apart, magnitude of gravity is calculated. Now, let the gravity source be the left and right hemispheres, and the gravity originating from the two hemispheres is calculated. Magnitude of gravity depends on the square of the distance. Therefore, sum of the gravity originating from the two hemispheres will differ from the magnitude calculated by the spherical shell theorem.
The above is on the Sun's gravity only.
Antworten
Spherical Shell Theorem (Continued)
In figure A, let distance from the center of sphere to fixed point be 50. And in figure B, let distance between the center of sphere and center of gravity of two hemispheres be 1. In figure B, in the formula of gravity, denominators are square of 49 and 51. These are 2401 and 2601. Contrary to expectations, size of the sphere seems to reduce the magnitude of gravity.
Therefore, gravity seems not to be the cause of perihelion shift of Mercury. Size of Mercury will increase centrifugal force.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (again)
There is a figure of Mercury. Mercury is drawn as a circle. Plus, the center of it and an arc are drawn. This arc passes through the center and is extending symmetrically upward and downward. This arc is part of circle centered at the center of Sun that is located on the right of this figure. Therefore, the area of Mercury divided by the arc is left > right. Thus, actual magnitude of centrifugal force of Mercury due to its orbital motion will exceed the magnitude calculated as a point. Probably, this will be the main reason for perihelion shift of Mercury.
Note : For planets with satellites, perihelion shif seems to be larger. This will be due to centrifugal force.
Note : There must be more unknowns in perihelion shift.
Antworten
Spherical Shell Theorem
Let me revise my post as follows. Two posts back.
There are two figures A and B that draw Sun and Mercury. A shows Mercury on the line of action of gravity of Sun extending from the left. Distance between two stars is 50. In B, Mercury is divided into two hemispheres, left and right. The distance between center of sphere (of A) and the center of gravity of two hemispheres each is 1. In B, denominators of formula for magnitude of gravity are 49 and 51. And squared are 2401 and 2601.
Magnitude of gravity is 2500 in A and 2501 in B. Size of sphere seems to be related to magnitude of gravity. Spherical shell theorem will not be valid. Main reason for perihelion shift of Mercury will be its size.
Note) In this post, only gravity of Sun is under consideration.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (Supplement)
Story will be started from aphelion. Starting is addition of centrifugal force (because of the size of Mercury), which causes orbit to be outside the original orbit. Then, very slight rotation of long axis and short axis, i.e., the elliptical orbit (centered on the forcal point where Sun is located) will continue.
Note: It is said that Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of a few centimeters per year. Perhaps, size of Moon will add centrifugal force on Moon’s orbital motion.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (problem posing)
I said earlier that this story should start from aphelion, not perihelion. Yes, size of Mercury will increase centrifugal force and will rotate the orbit of Mercury in the direction of revolution. It will also increase size of orbit and increase momentum of Mercury.
Moon is said to be receding away from Earth. Although it is on order of a few centimeters per year. There are not a few sites on web. Many of them say that reason is slowing down of rotation of Earth. And total angular momentum of Earth and Moon must be conserved. But is relationship between Earth and Moon still the same today ? I guess what I said in the first half of this post applies to Moon as well.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (Labyrinth)
This problem could be discribed as a problem in which Mercury's elliptical orbit rotates slightly in the direction of Mercury's orbital motion. Like hands of a clock. Reason for rotation may be due to the fact that Mercury is not a point but a sphere that has a size (mass distribution). But beyond that, it is a labyrinth for me.
Is the reason for rotation lies in perihelion or in aphelion ? Or is it in neither ? And, if the reason lies in aphelion, is it due to addition of centrifugal force ? Or is it due to weakening of gravitational pull of Sun ?
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (reconfirmation)
As posted before, the size of Mercury as a sphere would be the core to this problem. Allow me to reconfirm.
Divide Mercury into two the same spheres (two are contacted). Two centers of sphere lie on the line of action of Sun’s gravity. Distance between Sun and centers of two spheres are 49 and 51. Magnitude of Sun’s gravity is F=GM/r^2. Therefore, the denominators of magnitude of Sun’s gravity acting on the two spheres are 2401 and 2601.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (Summary?)
Two laps of elliptical orbit of Mercury is drawn. Ellipse B after perihelion must be drawn outside previous ellipse A. However, in many figures such as web, it is inside. Ellipse is rotating around Sun. Many figures must be wrong.
In other words, state of ellipse nearby perihelion must be the same as that of nearby aphelion (the same qualitatively). Nearby these two points, Mercury will be affected by excessive acceleration due to its size. Acceleration will be caused by centrifugal force or gravity or by both.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (unfamiliar figure)
I found a figure unfamiliar on web. About two Mercury's orbits are shown. New orbit is outside the previous orbit twice and inside the previous orbit twice during one round.
Note) This site is in Japanese. image page. big red sun. 水星の近日点移動
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (again)
In many figures, Mercury's orbit is outside the previous orbit for some extent after aphelion, and inside for some extent after perihelion. Unacceptable.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (long axis)
Long axis of Mercury’s orbit is slowly rotating. That is, Mercury will follow an orbit outside its previous orbit after passing either perihelion or aphelion (for some extent). This is not so for perihelion in many figures.
Antworten
Equivalence principle (as an impression)
In laboratory experiment, inertial force is something that we can control. In a laboratory called thought experiment, we can control falling of an elevator cabin also. On the other hand, it seems that gravity is beyond our reach. In other words, inertial force and gravity will be different things.
Even outside laboratory (whether within our reach or not), inertial force and gravity may be different thing.
Antworten
Equivalence Principle
Two bodies of the same mass m tied by a fairly long string are in free fall to Jupiter. Two bodeies are back and forth, and increasing tension of the string is informed to Earth. Inertial force and gravity are different things.
Comet Shoemaker-Levy, which fell to Jupiter in 1994. It was broken into at least 21 pieces in falling.
Antworten
Mars & Aether
Annual aberration of Mars is based on its revolution period of 1.881 years and average orbital speed of 28.07 km/sec. That is, aberration is mainly caused by motion of observer relative to the aether. Qualitatively and quantitatively. Needless to explain.
Other aberrations of Mars are also.
Antworten
Aether
In outer space, three pinhole cameras are pointed in X, Y and Z directions (these are in uniform linear motion, the same as Sun). Cameras are pretty large. In the camera, on the inner wall, on the opposite side of the pinhole, disks rotate once and receiving position of star lights are recorded.
Recorded position of star lights on three disks will not be true circle. These may indicate motion of the pinhole cameras relative to aether.
Antworten
Apology and Cancellation
My previous post "Aether" seem to be invalid. Sorry.
Antworten
Pinhole Camera
In outer space, a starlight is coming from the right. This ray enters the pinhole of a pinhole camera and is reflected upward by a mirror set at 45 degrees upwards in the camera.
When the camera moves to the right or left (at a uniform speed), the position where reflected light hits the upper inner wall of the camera will move. Incident light is propagated in aether, and reflected light follows emission theory.
Note: Speed of lincident light and rleflected light relative to the mirror are generally different. So, angle of the two are also. λ are also).
Antworten
Gravity (gravitational field) and Time
There is optical path of triangle ABC with top A of tall tower and mirror BC placed on the ground (as vertices). Laser light emitted from light source set at A (frequency is constant) is reflected by BC and returns to A. Frequencies of laser light at ABC will be the same. Time dilation due to gravity will be impossible.
Antworten
Speed of Light Varies
On the Moon's surface, plane waves of Sunlight are arriving horizontally from above to two passenger cars. There is a small pinhole at the center of ceiling of two passenger cars, and on the floor, there is a spot of light that passed through pinhole.
Two passenger cars are moving on the Moon's surface at different speeds (in x direction). For an observer inside the passenger car, position of light spot on the floor will be different. This difference in position will be the same for an observer stands on the Moon's surface.
Antworten
Two Formulas for Speed of Light (in vacuum)
First formula, v=fλ: It is speed of light relative to aether, and v is constant. Area is where light follows aether frame. That is, more than a few light seconds away from light source.
Second formula, c=fλ; It is speed of light relative to light source, and c is constant. Area is where light follows emission theory. That is, within a few light seconds from light source.
Note) First formula is the same as formula for the speed of sound in air (depending on f and λ).
Note) In outer space, a starlight is passing through a tube. In the center of the tube, a plate of glass is placed. In front of the glass, the starlight follows aether frame, and in back of it, starlight follows emission theory.
Note) A starlight is moving in aether. It is possible that v and c move at the same speed. Usually, v will be below c.
Note) For a moving observer, speed of light must be reconsidered (starting with the Doppler effect).
Antworten
Correction (on today’s post : on the third note)
A starlight > A light source
Antworten
Local Inertial Frame (again)
Every mass point is either in an inertial (unaccelerated) frame or accelerated frame. If a rigid homogeneous cuboid is in free-falling, every mass point is in accelerated frame. In this cuboid, there can be no inertial frame, even locally.
P.S. This difference is not fictitious but absolute.
Antworten
Inertial Force and Gravity are Different Things
1) For inertial force, space is homogeneous isotropic. Gravity is not (gravitational field exsists).
2) For inertial force, every position in space is the same. Gravity is not (gravitational field exsists).
Antworten
Local Inertial Frame (rewritten)
An elevator cabin is in free falling. Let's assume that every local frame of this cabin is the same (mass m). There can be no local inertial frame.
Antworten
Local Inertial Frame (additional)
A homogeneous cuboid made of atomic silver (atomic weight 107.9) is in free falling. Magnitude of inertial force acting on every silver atom is the same. There can be no local inertial frame.
Antworten
Inertial Force and Gravity are Different Things (rewritten)
◎ Inertia Force
1) Between inertial force and motion of a mass point in space, there will be direct connection.
2) Position in space has no meaning. Space is homogeneous isotropic.
3) Absolute space is required.
◎ Gravity
1) Between gravity and motion of a mass point in space, there will be no direct connection.
2) Position in space has meaning. As a gravitational field. Space is not homogeneous isotropic.
3) Absolute space is not required.
Antworten
Inertial Force and Gravity are Different Things (additional)
It is argued that inertial force and gravity are equivalent. However, in light of the followings, the two will not be equivalent. Even if vectors as action cancel each other out, vectors as existence do not disappear. Qualitatively, quantitatively. These are composing and decomposing of forces.
◎ Inertial force corresponds to accelerated motion of a mass point in homogeneous isotropic space.
◎ Gravity corresponds to position of a mass potint in space modified by gravitational fields.
Antworten
Inertial Force and Gravity are Different Things (additional)
In light of the followings, inertial force and gravity will not be equivalent.
◎ Inertial force: It is emerged in an accelerated motion (of a mass point) in space.
◎ Gravity: It does not emerge in an accelerated motion (of a mass point) in space.
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious
Gravity acts on a body as a vector. At a local area in free falling elevator, vector of gravity and vector of inertial force (vector of action, not of existence) will cancel each other. In that case, inertial force will not be fictitious.
Antworten
Gravitational Acceleration
Well, “gravitational acceleration” is “magnitude of gravity on the surface of Earth ?” asked an Alien.
Idiom (compound word) “gravitational acceleration” seems to be meaningful only in limited situationon. Free fall, gravity at the surface of Earth, etc. Is it an idiom of physics ?
If gravity and inertial force are different things, gravity and acceleration are also different things. Will there be qualification of idiom ?
Antworten
Centrifugal Force is not Fictitious
The same four spheres, connected to the ends of two rods are rotating on a plane (no friction). Asuume the bar as a cross and the whole as a disk. At any point on the rod, magnitudes of the centrifugal force and centripetal force are equal, as shown by Newton’s third law of motion. That is, centrifugal force (and centripetal also) is not fictitious to an observer in any frame.
P.S. Original text of the third law is said, it is not on two bodies, but on every point of action of force.
Antworten
Inertial Resistance/Inertial Force (rewritten)
Every mass point is placed in aether frame. When it is forced to move other than uniform linear motion (including zero speed) relative to aether frame, it shows resistance called inertial resistance. Inertial resistance is commonly said to be inertial force. Inertial force will correspond to the motion of mass in aether frame, qualitatively, quantitatively.
Antworten
Centrifugal Force is not Fictitious
Allow me to alter some of previous post. Previous setting was four spheres and two rods. Now, on two spheres and one rod (in X direction only), mass is two times (without deflection). Then, at close to the center, magnitude of centrifugal force and centripetal force will be about two times. Also, magnitude of centrifugal force and centripetal force will correspond to rotational speed.
Antworten
Centrifugal Force is not Fictitious
About centrifugal force, allow me to post one more. A disk and the same ten spheres (evenly spaced around the disk) are rotating on a plane (no friction). Spheres and outer edge of the disk are connected with strings of the same length. Each string will show the same tension. Tension will be a sign that centrifugal force is not fictitious.
Note) Centrifugal force and centripetal force will work on the string (on every point) as Newton’s third law of motion.
Antworten
Speed of Gravity Propagation
Speed of gravity propagation is said to be the same to speed of light. But is it true ? Something can’t be found in thought experiments ? How about Sun and Mercury ? Solar system is said to move in the direction called sun facing point (on the celestial sphere). So position from which gravitational force of Sun acting Mercury will be the position some back in time. If so, this effect will slightly acuumlate (like free falling).
In Encyclopaedia Britannica 1969, there is a passage as follows (in item “Gravitation” ; original text). “If the action of gravitation were not absolutely instantaneous”(omission)”All experiments and observations were, however, consistent with the law, from the short distances employed in laboratory experiments to the long ranges used in interplanetary calculations”. It says, action will be instantaneous.
Antworten
Speed of Light
This is supplement to the former post (searchable by name Evenson). Half of measurement results of speed of light waves will exceed c.
Antworten
Newton’s Three Laws of Motion
Uniform linear motion (aether can be emerged in an optical way), uniform circular motion, inertial force, action and reaction are all existence graspable qualitatively and quantitatively. These are not fictitious.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury
On cause of titled, formerly, I advocated two views (because of the size of Mercury). One is that Mercury is divided in the same two spheres and placed back and back (distance from Sun are 49 and 51). If magnitude of gravity acting on the two is greater, perihelion shift will be explained. But, it seems to be invalid. Because, m/49^2 + m/51^2 = 2m/50^2. Surprising ! Newton's spherical shell theorem seems to be true.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (continued)
So, my hope is on the other alone. Allow me to repeat again.
There is a figure of Mercury. Mercury is drawn as a circle. Plus, the center of it and an arc are drawn. This arc passes through the center and is extending symmetrically upward and downward. This arc is part of circle centered at the center of Sun that is located on the right of this figure. Therefore, the area of Mercury divided by the arc is left > right. Thus, actual magnitude of centrifugal force of Mercury due to its orbital motion will exceed the magnitude calculated as a point. Probably, this will be the main reason for perihelion shift of Mercury.
Note : For planets with satellites, perihelion shif seems to be larger. This will be due to centrifugal force.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (rewritten)
In a figure, Mercury is drown as a circle. In addition, in the figure, center of the circle and an arc extending vertically through the center are drown. Arc is a part of orbit. The arc divides Mercury into left and right, and the area is left > right (Sun is in the right). This figure shows that actual magnitude of the centrifugal force exceeds magnitude calculated for Mercury as a point (see formula of centrifugal force, ignore rotation). Perihelion shift of Mercury may be due to Mercury’s size.
Antworten
Decelerated Motion
Fwrom a passenger car moving to the right, a rope is extending to left, and on it, constant tension is acting. Then, the passenger car is decelerating. And, when the ground speed of passenger car falls in zero, tension of the rope is still constant. So passenger car starts accelerating to the left. But, there will be no difference in situation in before and after in the passenger car. There will not be much meaning in the ground speed of passenger car.
As written above, everything is accelerated motion and decelerated motion does not exist. But “counter-jerk motion” where degree of accelerated motion withdrawing may be possible.
Antworten
Moon’s Retreat
Moon is said to be moving away from Earth by several centimeters per year. As proposed formally (posted two above,. by me), size of Moon will increase its centrifugal force (compared to calculated as a point). This additional amount will be divided in rotation of long axis and in extension of long axis of orbit of Moon. Is Mercury moving away from Sun too ?
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury
Size of Mercury will increase gravity and increase centrifugal force quolitatively also. Of the two, gravity is probably the main factor. Because, increase in gravity shift aphelion in the direction of revolution. On the other hand, increase in centrifugal force shift aphelion in the opposite direction of revolution.
The formula for gravity F = mM/r^2 probably shows that magnitude of gravity is related to the size of Mercury (but surprisingly small).
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury
[Size of Mercury increases gravity during orbital motion]
Mm/r^2 is formula for gravity. There are models for Mercury and Sun. When, 2Mm is 100 and r is 50, gravity is 0.04. Next, two spheres (with half of mass of Mercury each) are lined up on the line of action of Sun's gravity. Mm is 50, r is 49 and 51. Then, gravity is 0.0400479.
[Size of Mercury increases centrifugal force during orbital motion]
See my post posted on March 15, 2023 (or around).
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury
There is one more problem. Size of Mercury send out surplus force. But where does this surplus force go ?
In figure of perihelion shift of Mercury, its destination seems not to be found. Ah, perhaps the same phenomenon as Moon's retreat (Moon's orbit is expanding) will be destination. This surplus force probably turns and expands Mercury's elliptical orbit each time.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (rewritten, from my post, posted on Sep 16 or around)
There is a figure of Mercury and its orbit. Mercury is drawn as a single point. But actually, Mercury has a size, and this size will slightly increase magnitude of gravity and centrifugal force of Mercury. Now, limit our consideration to half of orbit from perihelion to aphelion. Increase in gravity will shift aphelion in the direction of revolution. On the other hand, increase in centrifugal force will shift aphelion in the opposite direction of revolution. In increase, gravity will exceed.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (supplement)
Size of Mercury will cause the difference in its gravity and in its orbit. It will rotate long axis and shift perihelion (in the direction of revolution).
But, will size of Mercury cause difference in its centrifugal force ? This difference probably correspond to the difference in motion (caused by difference in gravity).
Note) How does gravity cause bodies to move ? In phenomenon such as perihelion shift of Mercury, we seem not to grasp it enough.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (imagine)
Size of Mercury will increase Mercury’s gravity. The main result will be slight expansion of orbit, and followed by shift in perihelion. Therefore, centrifugal force also increases. Newton’s third law of motion will be inviolable.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (rewritten)
Allow me to rewrite my previous post.
Shift of perihelion is constant. Then, a doubt arises. What is momentum of Mercury ? Is it increasing ? Is it decreasing ? Is there no increase or decrease ?
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (estimate)
Two Mercurys are revolving. One is in the orbit of Mercury and the other is in the orbit of Venus. In the former, magnitude of shift of perihelion seems to be larger. This is probably because effect of Mercury's size is greater in the former.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (continued)
Imagine Mercury is revolving in the orbit of Neptune. Size of Mercury seen from Sun is almost a single point. So, magnitude of perihelion shift as two-body problem will be slight. And are perturbations outstanding ?
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (supplement)
Imagine that two Mercurys are revolving in the orbit of Venus and Neptune. At two perihelions, Mercury moves in the same vector (direction and speed) as Venus and Neptune. Magnitude of Mercury's shift of perihelion will be smaller than that of the two. Because size of Mercury is smaller than that of the two.
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (and free fall)
Towards Earth, two bodies with the same mass are in free fall. One is assumed to be a single point (with no size), and the other is a long pole (falling vertically). Also assumed that gravity of Earth is constant at g. As posted formerly, magnitude of gravity of Earth acting on two bodies will be former < latter slightly. As example, in my former post, it was 0.04 < 0.0400479. So latter continues to fall in advance. In a broad sense, orbital motion is considered to be free fall. It seems that the shift of perihelion of Mercury is caused by its size.
P.S. See 0.0400497 as problem presentation. It is also problem presentation to Newton's spherical shell theorem.
Antworten
Shift of Perihelion and Vernal Equinox of Earth (fake ?)
A drawing shows Sun, Earth, and orbit of Earth. It also shows shift of perihelion of Earth (in the direction of revolution, annually) and shift of vernal equinox (in the opposite direction of revolution, annually). Shift of vernal equinox is said to be caused by precession of rotation axis (of Earth). Precession of rotation axis ? Really ? Shift of vernal equinox seems to be caused by extra centrifugal force due to size of the Earth. There is no other reason than that it seems to fit well.
Note: Perihelion is said to take about 110,000 years, and vernal equinox takes about 26,000 years to complete one revolution.
Antworten
To yesterday's post, my former two posts are related. Following is one of the two.
There is a figure of Mercury. Mercury is drawn as a circle. Plus, the center of it and an arc are drawn. This arc passes through the center and is extending symmetrically upward and downward. This arc is part of circle centered at the center of Sun that is located on the right of this figure. Therefore, the area of Mercury divided by the arc is left > right. Thus, actual magnitude of centrifugal force of Mercury due to its orbital motion will exceed the magnitude calculated as a point. Probably, this will be the main reason for perihelion shift of Mercury.
Antworten
To yesterday's post, my former two posts are related. Following is one of the two.
There is a figure of Mercury and its orbit. Mercury is drawn as a single point. But actually, Mercury has a size, and this size will slightly increase magnitude of gravity and centrifugal force of Mercury. Now, limit our consideration to half of orbit from perihelion to aphelion. Increase in gravity will shift aphelion in the direction of revolution. On the other hand, increase in centrifugal force will shift aphelion in the opposite direction of revolution. In increase, gravity will exceed.
Antworten
A web-site with figures related to problem above appears using following keywords. Sorry, in Japanese.
近日点の移動 国立天文台暦計算室
Antworten
Title of the page of the National astronomical observatory (of Japan) ephemeris computation office is shown below. Sorry for repeated addition.
暦Wiki/近日点の移動-国立天文台暦計算室
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (summary)
In a web-site in English titled "Perihelion Precession of the Planets", there is a table on observed rates from Mercury (5.75 seconds/year) to Neptune (0.36 seconds/year). In these, direction of precession is the direction of planet's revolution, and these magnitude are assumed to be constant. Let's assume this table is true. So, this phenomenon will be caused by two bodies: planet each and Sun.
Adams and Le Verrier predicted the existence of Neptune and its position on the celestial sphere (from the precession of Uranus's position). But it was temporary and exceptional precession (perturbation).
Antworten
Perihelion Shift of Mercury (is this A THORY ?)
Perihelion shift of Mercury is 575 seconds in 100 years. In wikipedia, there is a site titled "Perigee Shift" (in Japanese). In it, it's stated that 532 of the 575 seconds are caused by perturbations due to gravity of other planets, and remaining 43 seconds are caused by the effects of general relativity. Simply adding up gravity of other planets ? Is this A THEORY ?
Antworten
Motion of a Mass Point & Aether (again)
Every mass point is either in motion or not. Motion is said to be relative, but this will be only appearance. For mass points in motion, there are motions in which vector of motion (magnitude and direction) vary and motions in which vectors are without varying. In motions varying, inertial force that vary (qualitatively or quantitatively) are recognized. In motions without varying, inertial force are not recognized.
The above will be depending on existence of a uniform isotropic aether in space. Every motion relative to aether (absolute rest frame) will be measurable by optical way.
Antworten
Kinetic Energy: Momentum: Force: Impulse (inference)
A homogeneous disk with mass M, diameter 2a, and uniform thickness is stationary (not rotating) with respect to the celestial sphere. Angular momentum of this disk is zero. It is zero for any observer in any motion.
There is a type of momentum called linear momentum, which is limited to motion in a straight line. A body of mass M is moving in a straight line. By analogy with rotational motion, there may be situations where linear momentum is zero even on a straight line (stationary on a straight line). All motion of a mass point can be understood as motions relative to aether (absolute rest).
Antworten
Kinetic Energy: Momentum: Force: Impulse (supplement)
Momentum is physical quantity that we can vary in laboratory. And the rotational momentum can be zero (no matter who sees it). The same will go for linear momentum. The two momentums will be adjoining. But we don't understand that, and we don't try.
Antworten
Kinetic Energy: Momentum: Force: Impulse (supplement)
Rotational momentum seems to be no matter. In the rotational motion of a body (imagine a disk), there is a state of speed zero (no rotation). And on both sides of it, there are plus and minus rotations. The two behave symmetrically. We can see the two qualitatively and quantitatively.
But what about linear momentum ? Even in the linear motion of a body, there will be a state of speed zero (no moving). And on both sides of it, there will be plus and minus moations. The two behave symmetrically. However, we cannot see the two qualitatively and quantitatively.
Antworten
Speed of sound is variable, and also, speed of light will be variable.
Equation v = λ f holds between sound source and the observer. v is speed of sound to the observer, λ is wavelength, and f is frequency to the observer. The observer is in motion, which causes the frequency in varying. In above equation, what is varying is v (λ is not varying).
Equation v = λ f will also hold between light source and the observer. It will be v that is varying.
Antworten
Doppler Effect and Variable Speed of Light
For Doppler effect of sound waves, following will hold. Speed of sound waves in air, which is medium for sound waves propagation, is constant. In other words, speed of sound waves is constant only with respect to air.
Doppler effect of light waves will be the same as that of sound waves. Medium of light waves is aether, which is uniformly isotropic. In other words, speed of light waves is constant only with respect to aether.
Antworten
Culculating Equation of Doppler Effect
Speed of sound waves is constant only with respect to air, which is medium of propagation. Speed of light waves will probably be constant only with respect to aether, which is medium of propagation.
Therefore, calculating equation for frequency of light waves observed by an observer must be the same as culculating equation for frequency of sound waves observed by an observer.
Antworten
Sound Waves, Light Waves and an Observer (summary)
Sound waves propagate through air, and light waves propagate through aether. Medium is uniformly isotropic, and speed of waves with respect to medium is constant. So, when a point-like wave source is stationary in medium, waves drawn on a plane are concentric circles. Therefore, if an observer is moving with respect to medium, speed of sound waves and light waves for the observer is not constant.
Note: Light waves using air as a medium propagate in the same way as sound waves.
Antworten
Propagation of Light (again)
Light propagates in two ways.
1) A reflector placed on moon’s surface is irradiated with laser light, and by reflected light, distance to Moon is measured. Error is a few centimeters. Laser light emitted from light source will follow emission theory for one second at least. This guess can be scored 90 points out of 100 points.
2) Various types of aberration. Light will follow reference frame of aether after passing through the region 1 above. This guess can be scored 120 points out of 100 points.
Note) In air,light propagates following to reference frame of air. So, MM experiments done in air is nonsense.
Antworten
Is speed of light constant? (again)
As posted preciously (one of which is possible to search by word Evenson), constancy of speed of light is impossible. Therefore, time dilation and Lorentz contraction are also impossible. Without a doubt.
Antworten
Aberration (again)
Space is filled with aether. For light, aether acts as a medium (as a reference frame). In other words, light propagates at the same speed through aether. Regardless of the direction of propagation. Earth is moving at different speeds with respect to aether. Therefore, speed of light with respect to Earth is different
Aberration is a phenomenon completed in upper atmosphere. It is the same as refraction. Result of Airy’s experiment (tube of telescope is filled with water) is only natural.
Due to aberration, it is said that visible position (direction) of celestial bodies shift beyond the direction of motion of Earth. No, shift will be behind the direction of motion of Earth. This will be clear by illustration of light rays in upper atmosphere.
Draw trajectory of position of a celestial body (on celestial sphere. returns to source every year). Ellipse of annual aberration will be warped by secular aberration. Daily aberration will be many small circles (365 pearls).
Antworten
Emission Theory (guess)
For a few seconds after emission, propagation of light will follow emission theory, and then follows the aether reference frame (as written before). In other words, from the aether reference frame, speed of light will vary, and energy of a photon will also vary. It is said that energy of light is proportional to its frequency.
Note) The above will be possible to explain accuracy of measuring the distance to Moon (by laser) and aberration without contradiction.
Antworten
Propagation of Light in Two Ways (again)
Annual aberration and daily aberration mean motion of Earth (with respect to aether). Aether is real existence. On the other hand, if the distance to the light source is not too far (no, even the distance to the Moon also !), propagation of light will follow emission theory. Both aether and emission theory will revive. As phoenixes some day. Relativity will fade away.
Antworten
Measuring Aether (again)
In outer space, frequency and wavelength of incoming lights from two stars (from opposite directions on the celestial sphere) are measured. To the measurer, speed of two incoming lights will be different. And it will mean the motion (in the direction of light path) of the measurer with respect to aether.
Note) If the measurer moves in the direction of light path, frequency and speed of two incoming lights will vary. Because, wavelength of two incoming light does not vary.
Antworten
Centrifugal force (again)
Rods of length 4r and 2r are rotating horizontally (in the shape of a cross). Assume that four edges
of the rod each has mass point of mass m, and the mass of the rod is zero. Tension (centrifugal force) acting on the rod is a true force.
The formula for centrifugal force is F = m v^2/r. And as Newton’s third law of motion shows, centrifugal force is an action and centripetal force is a reaction. The magnitude of the force is the same. The two are true forces.
Tension is centrifugal force, an effect of Newton’s third law of motion, and centripetal force is a reaction. The two are true forces. Rotational motion can be boiled down to accelerated motion and non-accelerated motion (including absolute rest). Frame will be the celestial sphere and the aether.
Antworten
Accelerated Motion & Inertial Force (again)
Accelerated motion and inertial force correspond qualitatively (also, in the direction of celestial sphere and of aether) quantitatively. This will lead to zero inertial force in non-accelerated motion. Without exception. In addition, let us assume that non-accelerating motion includes absolute rest.
Antworten
Measuring Aether (again)
In outer space, frequency and wavelength of incoming lights from two stars (from opposite directions on the celestial sphere) are measured. To the measurer, speed of two incoming lights will be different. And sum of speed of two lights will be 2c (or close to 2c : constant). In post three above, it is forgotten to note. Sorry.
Antworten
Accelerated Motion & Inertial Force (again)
Accelerated motion is absolute motion relative to aether frame. The two are two sides of the same coin. Gravity is irrelevant at all, and does not play a role in this problem.
Antworten
Accelerated Motion (again)
A passenger car is accelerating to the right (uniform acceleration). A light source (wavelength is onstant) at the rear wall of the car emits light, and on the front wall, frequency measuring device is settled. During acceleration, in the car, there will be more waves than before. In other words, accelerated motion is not fictitious (inertial force will not be fictitious also).
A ray of light is emitted from the ceiling of a passenger car directly below. When this car is accelerated, the light ray reaches the floor in a parabola. Difference between acceleration and non-acceleration is not fictitious.
Antworten
Local Inertial Frame (again)
An elevator cabin is in free fall. Imagine mass points placed regularly in the elevator. Vector of inertial force acting on each mass point is the same. Local inertial frame is impossible.
Two elevators are moving apart horizontally. One is in accelerated motion and the other is in non-accelerated motion. By an accelerometer, to tell which one is accelerating is possible. In the elevator with accelerated motion, there is no inertial frame, even locally.
Antworten
Accelerated Motion and Non-Accelerated Motion (again)
Difference between the two motions above will be the difference of motion with respect to aether frame. A mass point moving in accelerated motion is accompanied by inertial force, that corresponds qualitatively and quantitatively. A mass point moving in non-accelerated motion (uniform linear motion) is not accompanied by inertial force.
A saying are trying about inertial force and gravity. What can we say by comparing the two words ? Inertial force is inertial force, gravity is gravity and both are true forces ! That seems to be all that can be said. This is a short report.
Antworten
Equivalence Principle (again)
On the ground, a passenger car is moving with uniform acceleration to the right. In the car, a body hanging from the ceiling with a string is swinging to the left. The angle can be explained qualitatively and quantitatively using equations based on Newton’s laws of motion. What about equivalence principle ? Is there anyone who can ?
Antworten
Equivalence Principle (again)
Allow me to repeat the previous question,regarding two situations ◎ below. Two situations ◎ can be explainend qualitatively and quantitatively using formulas based on Newton’s laws of motion. The question is, how to explain equivalent principle ? Is there anyone who can ? .
◎ Forces of the same magnitude are acting on a mass point from the left and right directions. Types of forces are tension, gravity, and inertial force. Since there are no combinations of inertial forces and inertial forces, there are five combinations of forces (ignoring the difference between left and right).
◎ A body is sliding down inclined surface (no friction).
Antworten
Accelerated Motion and Non-Accelerated Motion (again)
All accelerated motion is accompanied by inertial force (it is reaction. See Newton’s third law of motion).
All non-accelerated motion is not accompanied by inertial force. It is the same for absolute rest (relative to aether frame).
Gravity is unrelated to this problem.
Antworten
Law of Universal Gravitation (rewritten)
Formula for the law of universal gravitation is F=GMm/r^2. Value r is the distance between centers of gravity of the two bodies (let’s call them spheres L and R). If r is 50, the squared is 2500. It is the first diagram.
Now, this is the second diagram. On a horizontal straight line, spheres L, R1, and R2 are lined up. If distance between L and R1 is 49, and distance between L and R2 is 51, the squared are 2401 and 2601. If these two are added and divided by 2, the value 2501 is gotten, which is slightly larger than 2500. In other words, the formula of universal gravitation doesn’t care about the size of the two sources of gravity, but in reality, there will be some effect, even if it’s a little ? Is Newton’s spherical shell theorem not perfect ? Is this the main cause of apsidal precession ?
Note) 2500 and 2501 are coefficients in numerator of the formula.
Note) Masses of R1 and R2 each are 1/2 of the mass of R.
Note) Assume that R1 and R2 are hemispheres of R (distance of centers of gravity is 2).
Antworten
Lunar Laser Ranging (again)
Distance between Moon and Earth is measured with millimeter precision. Measurement is based on the formula “distance = speed of light x round trip time / 2”. What is noteworthy here is that the direction of laser beam with respect to celestial sphere does not affect the measurement results.
Assume that the space where Moon and Earth exist is also filled with aether. Measurement results will differ depending on the direction of laser beam with respect to celestial sphere (according to the explanation of MM experiment).
However, aether does not affect the propagation of electromagnetic waves at the distance between Moon and Earth. That is, aether does not affect the propagation of electromagnetic waves for a few seconds after emission. Ritz’s emission theory is revived, although in a limited extent. For now, let’s take this as an assumption. There is no need to be worried about the framework of time or space.
Antworten
One-way Speed of Light/Isotropy of Aether (again)
English version of Wikipedia has an item titled "One-way speed of light". Word isotropic is found in 27 places.
However, if the light from multiple celestial bodies on the celestial sphere is recorded and analyzed in outer space, one-way speed of light will become disclosed. Probably easily. By established means of measuring aberration.
The position of bright lines and dark lines in spectrum of the celestial body's light will show the speed of celestial body's light and speed of light relative to Earth (and Aether drift). The isotropy and uniformity of aether will also be disclosed.
Antworten
Aether Drift (again)
Speed of light is the distance that light travels in one second, 299,792,458 m/s (defined value). Above value was obtained by measuring frequency and wavelength of laser light that is performed by Evenson et al in 1973 (error was ± 1.2 m/s).
Imagine frequency and wavelength of light coming from two fixed stars located at symmetrical points (at opposite ponts) on the celestial sphere. Measuring must be done simultaneously. Perhaps many of the measured speeds of light are different. If so, it will be possible to identify two points (on the celestial sphere) where the difference is greatest.
Note) Differences due to known mtion of Earth such as revolution and rotation must be excluded.
Note) Wavelength must be measured before the light enters mediums such as glass. Is it possible ?
Antworten
Hollow Tube and Speed of Light (again)
In outer space, starlight coming from the left is passing through a tube of length L (stationary horizontal). Frequency at the left and right ends of the tube is the same. This sameness is true even if the tube is moving at different uniform speed (in the left and right directions). In other words, number of waves that exist inside the tube (wave number × L) is invariable. There is no varying in wavelength of light. In the formula, c = f λ, it is f and c that vary. It is the first picture.
In the second picture, there are two tubes the same as above. The two are moving at a uniform speed. One is to the left and the other is to the right. As mentioned above, wavelength of light is the same. In the formula, c = f λ, f and c (of the two) are not the same.
Antworten
Wavelength Measurement (Aw)
Is wavelength of light traveling in outer space being measured as it is (on light before arriving) ? Isn't what is being measured light (extincted light) that has passed through a medium such as glass ? In internet (a bit), any site mentioned can not be found.
Suppose an observer moving in various motions in outer space is measuring wavelength of starlights. In the formula, c = f λ, f varies. Accordingly, c varies. However, we seem to believe, it is λ that varies.
We must distinguish the light before and after measurement device (before and after extinction).
Antworten
Wavelength Measurement (supplement)
A starlight is passing through horizontal tube in outer space from left to right. A flat glass plate is fitted in center of the tube. Imagine that this tube is moving at different uniform speed in left and right directions. For left and right light each, the formula v = f λ holds. Frome the perspective of the tube, f on the left and right sides are the same. But v will be different and λ will also be different.
There is an argument that v are the same. If so, λ must also be the same. However, λ on the left does not follow (does not be affected by) the motion of the tube. But λ on the right follows (is affected by). This difference must not be forgotten.
The wavelength of light and the speed of light each is not the same before and after extinction.
Note) For glass, extinction is done in the distance of 0.0002 mm.
Antworten
Extinction
Light entering glass from outer space has a speed of c/n relative to the glass. This equalisation in speed within the medium is called extinction, and is completed in a very small optical path length that differs depending on mediums. For glass, it is 0.0001 mm.
Imagine that the glass moves in various uniform linear motions in outer space. The speed of light coming the glass and leaving the glass are not the same (from the perspective of the glass).
Antworten
Speed of Light is not Constant Always (again)
From the left, a starlight is coming to a glass cube floating in outer space, and is leaving to the right. At the left and right end of the glass each, frequency of starlight is the same. Imagine that the glass is moving at various uniform speeds to the left and right. Then, v of light on the left and right will not be the same, and so will λ (the formula v = fλ is viewed from perspective of the glass).
Antworten
Value of Speed of Light (of starlight in outer space)
Light of two stars coming from the left and right is passing through a glass cube. This cube is floating horizontally in outer space. Inside the glass, formula c/n = f λ holds on starlight. Four values are known.
Two lights inside the glass are spectralized and the spectrum (distance between chosen atom or molecule A and B) is compared. The distance will be slightly different.
Note) For light in outer space, formula v = f λ holds. And value f is the same as f for the glass (from perspective of the glass).
Note) It seems that extinction does not conceal the difference of spectrum.
Antworten
Allow me to revise the first “Note” of my post (most recent). Sorry.
Note) For light before it reaches the glass, formula v = f λ also holds (from perspective of the glass). And value f is the same as f for the glass.
Antworten
Measuring λ of Starlight
How is λ of starlight measured ? One thing is certain. The λ before it enters measuring device is not be varied with the motion of measuring device. So, if measuring device is moved, it will become clear which λ was measured (which λ of starlight before extinction or after extinction).
Antworten
Speed of Starlight
A glass cube is floating horizontally in outer space. Two rays of starlight coming from the left and right are passing through the glass horizontally. Below is the difference between the two rays of light as seen from viewpoint of the glass (difference in formula v = f λ).
Difference inside the glass c/n = c/n f ≠ f λ ≠ λ
Difference just before entering the glass c ≠ c f ≠ f λ = λ
Difference just after leaving the glass c = c f ≠ f λ ≠ λ
Antworten
Speed of Starlight (Supplement)
Allow me to add to latest post. When the glass cube moves left and right….
Inside the glass, c/n is constant, and the other two are variable
Just before entering the glass, λ is constant, and the other two are variable
Just after leaving the glass, c is constant, and the other two are variable
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious (rewritten)
By a string, a body of mass m is hanging from the ceiling in the center of the passenger car. Body and the string are perpendicular. Next, the passenger car begins to accelerate to the right. Body and the string tilt to the left. This acceleration is usually constant. However, if an external force F continues to grow as time passes, the inclination of body and the string also continues to grow.
These pictures will be the same for one inside and outside the passenger car. And, the tension of the string which is reaction to the inertial force will be the same for the two also (and if the string breaks, it will be the same for the two also).
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious (rewritten)
An body m is suspended by a string from the center of the ceiling of a passenger car. If passenger car is accelerated to the right, string and body will tilt downward to the left. But, what if passenger car is jerk-moving? The inclination of string and body will continue to increase, the tension in string will increase, and eventually the string will break.
These situations and explanations of the situation must be the same for one inside and outside passenger car. Inertial force is not a fictitious force for one inside and outside the car. Inertial force in this case is action, and the reaction is the tension in string.
Antworten
Statics or Dynamics ?
A point (point of action) is pulled left and right by strings with a vector F, creating balance. Next, can the force on the right be considered an inertial force ? At right end of the right string, a body with mass m is placed. In other words, tension ma is acting on the right string. In this pictere, the whole is moving to the left with a uniform acceleration.
Note: This is a horizontal free falling.
Antworten
Compound Nouns
Gravitational acceleration, local inertial frame, inertial mass, gravitational mass. Only four compound nouns. Sorry for my shallowness. But, probably or clearly, these four will be forcible.
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious (rewritten)
Inside the cabin of a spaceship moving with uniform acceleration to the right, a string stretches. Right end of the string is tied to the right inner wall of the cabin, and left end is tied to a body m, floating inside the cabin. There is tension ma in the string (ignore mass of the string).
This physical fact and its explanation must be the same for one inside and outside the spaceship.
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious
In actual examples of action and reaction in Newton's third law of motion, sometimes, it is unclear which is action and which is reaction. But it must be clear that inertial force can be either of the two. Then inertial force must be real force. For everyone.
In the well-known formula F = ma, which is inertial force ? It can be ma. Then inertial force must be real force. For everyone.
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious (rewritten)
Inertial force of a body moving in uniformly accelerated linear motion is based on m andj a. There can be no denying. In addition, ma = F. In short, inertial force is not fictitious.
Antworten
Accelerating Frame and Non-Accelerating Frame (fragmentary)
◎ An observer in a passenger car in uniformly accelerating linear motion will see everything in the car as at rest ? What if g is large ?
◎ A website says that equiliblium of forces are only for frames that are at rest or in uniform linear motion.
◎ The difference between accelerating frame and non-accelerating frame is crucial. But we continue to turn away from to it. This is physics ?
◎ A string stretches horizontally inside the cabin of a spaceship moving to the right with a uniform acceleration. The right end of the string is fixed to the right inner wall of the cabin, and the left end is fixed to body m, which is floating inside the cabin. The string has a tension ma (ignore the mass of string). Both m and a are specific values.
Note) m and a will be the same for one inside and outside the ship.
Antworten
Inertial force is not Fictitious (rewritten)
A spaceship is moving horizontally with uniform acceleration. Inside the spaceship, a body m is pushing against the rear wall. This force is action, and is inertial force. As reaction, and as normal force, the rear wall pushes back against the body. Magnitude of the two is ma.
Above explanation should be valid for one inside and outside the spaceship. Inertial force will be a real force for everyone, and will not be fictitious.
Antworten
Acceleration and Non-Acceleration
A body is being pulled by strings from the left and right. Tension in the strings is the same, ma. The same body is being pulled by one string from the left and by two strings from the right. Tension in all three strings is the same, ma. Let the body in two figures be A and B.
Are A seen from B and B seen from A symmetrical ? No, that's not, because the internal stresses in body A and B are different.
Antworten
Acceleration and Non-Acceleration
A spherical fluid is floating in space. The fluid is uniform and isotropic. That is, gravity has no acting on the sphere.
The sphere will be in non-accelerated frame. It is moving in a uniform linear motion through space (or is at rest). However, if the sphere moves in a way other than the above, there will be a corresponding deviation from uniform isotropy. Difference between accelerated and non-accelerated frame will not be fictitious.
Antworten
Acceleration and Non-Acceleration (again)
Imagine a human being in accelerating passenger car and a station staff standing on platform. Now, it is a thought experiment. What if increasing acceleration g is at the level of an unmanned missile ?
Difference between acceleration and non-acceleration is not fictitious. The two are physically different. Again, because it is big problem.
Antworten
Inertial Force is not Fictitious (Summary)
Spaceship is moving horizontally with uniform acceleration. Body m is pushing against rear wall of the spaceship's cabin (A). Rear wall pushes back the body with normal force (B). A is action, B is reaction.
Spaceship is moving horizontally with uniform acceleration. String attached to front wall of the spaceship's cabin stretches backward inside the cabin, pulling body m attached to rear end of string (A). The body resists pulling force of string (inertial resistance) (B). A is action, B is reaction.
To begin with, distinction between action and reaction seems to be unclear
Antworten
Centrifugal Force is not Fictitious (again)
On a plane, two rods cross each other (without friction) and rotate around intersection point. This basic form can be transformed as follows.
1) Body of mass m is attached to both ends of one rod. Body of mass 2m is attached to both ends of the other rod. Mass of rods is assumed to be zero.
2) Body of mass m is attached to each of four ends of two rods. Length of one rod is a, and length of the other is 2a. Mass of rods is assumed to be zero.
.
Centrifugal force and tension acting on rods are real forces, not fictitious. From any frame.
Antworten
Centrifugal Force is not Fictitious
Centrifugal force that is accompanied by rotational motion is inertial force, that is, real force, action. Reaction to it is a centripetal force (In case of hammer throwing wire, it can also be tension, tensile stress). Its reality and magnitude is one and only. From any frame.
The same is true for all curvilinear motion.
Antworten
About Gravity
Following claims : Newton's spherical shell theorem, Perihelion shift of Mercury (claimed before relativity, before 1905) are unacceptable. My veiw are posted into some web-sites in English.
Also in relativity, I find no acceptable claim regarding gravity (equivalence principle is unacceptable). And I posted objections (that I can) to relativity's claims regarding gravity.
Antworten
About Gravity
"Resultant force of attraction and centrifugal force of Earth is the true nature of gravity." This is cited from a website. However, I think that attraction in this citation is the true nature of gravity. This citation is evasive and delegate.
Equivalence principle is unacceptable. One reason is that, I can't recall ever seeing universal gravitational constant mentioned on inertial force.
Antworten
Equivalence Principle
On state of being of vectors of gravity (attraction) and inertial force, there will be no restrictions. Therefore, vector of two forces will be possible to be compensate and nothing special happens. Like an elevator in free fall.
Force acting on us on surface of Earth is resultant force of gravity (attraction) and centrifugal force. On surface (solid or liquid) of planets of solar system, gravity (attraction), and centrifugal force (different planet’s rotation) is various. Equivalence principle is unacceptable.
Antworten
Equivalence Principle (again)
Magnitude of gravity acting on a body (mass m) is GmM/r^2, and magnitude of inertial force is ma. For vectors of two forces, to cancel each other out is not prohibited (as phenomenon). In free-falling elevator, two forces cancel each other out (as phenomenon) in one local area totally and in other local areas partially.
As above formulas show, two forces are different. Real elevator do not support equivalence principle.
Antworten
Free Falling
An elevator cabin is in free falling. Elevator is rigid body consisting of the same mass points with mass m. So, each mass point has the same acceleration. The same force acting on each mass point is ma.
There is no word equivalence principle in above explanation or any of the following. In fact, there should be no word equivalence principle.
Antworten
Equivalence Principle
A body of mass m is placed on flat surface (without friction). String pulls this body to the right with tension ma. The body accelerates to the right, and inertial force ma acts to the left. Magnitude of tension and inertial force are equal. This is as shown by Newton's third law of motion.
The fact that gravity and inertial force are equal (in total) in a free-falling elevator is probably due to Newton's third law of motion.
Antworten
Free falling
The two, gravity and inertial force can be expressed as force vectors. So, it is possible that the two cancel each other out in a free-falling elevator (as a phenomenon).
However, free falling is only one phase in which two vectors interact. There is no reason why free falling should be treated as something special.
Antworten
Free Falling
On a celestial body below, two elevator cabins the same are falling freely. They are lined up one above the other and connected by a long string. Is some point on the string local inertial frame ?
Antworten
Free Falling
Pearl necklace is falling freely in a vertical line. Gravity acting on each pearl is mM/r^2, and inertial force is ma. Mass of the string holding pearls is zero.
This post does not refer to equivalence principle.
Antworten
Free Falling (Again)
Formula for gravity, G mM/r^2, and formula for inertial force, ma, are acting on pearl necklace. Gravity acts on each pearl with the magnitude indicated by the formula.
It is inevitable that gravity and inertial force cancel each other out totally (apparent) at a specific mass point.
Antworten
About Gravity
For free falling thought experiment,. pearl necklace would be bette than elevator. There will be other examples too. A real example is Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, which fell on Jupiter in 1994.
Common theory of Mercury’s perihelion shift is poor. Also, Newton’s shell theorem should be reconsidered.
Antworten
Equivalence Principle
We can say that we can quantitatively grasp both gravity and inertial force. However, we cannot qualitatively grasp them. Do we have the right to claim equivalence principle ?
In fact, perhaps equivalence principle can be directly denied.
Antworten
Neuer Kommentar