Frequently Asked Questions
about
Principle of Equivalence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Go to: Next series of questions
Series #6 ---Comparing Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations.
-----------------------
Question - (6-A)
Einstein's
theory
of
Relativity
considers
that
the gravitational force
of acceleration is identical to the inertial force of acceleration.
Einstein claims that these two accelerations are undistinguishable. In
reality, is there any possibility to distinguish these two
accelerations?
A
-
Certainly. Consider a mass standing on the surface of the Earth. After
one year, the mass submitted to gravitational acceleration is always
standing there, without changing its energy or velocity. Another
identical mass is submitted to an inertial acceleration of one G in
outer space by a rocket. After one year, the energy given to the mass
is such that its velocity has reached an important fraction of the
velocity of light. An enormous amount of energy has to be given up to
the accelerated mass in order to produce such a continuous
acceleration. When that last mass falls on Earth its energy would
produce a gigantic crater on the impact.
Einstein's
theory
claims
that
these
two
phenomena are equivalent and
undistinguishable. This is non-sense. The difference can certainly be
seen very easily. In order to convince people, Einstein adds that there
is no difference for the observer located in the moving frame of
reference.
To
illustrate
Einstein's
argument,
let
us
consider another case when we
observe relative motion. A well-known example is the observation of the
Sun and the stars crossing the sky everyday, (or the sunrise or the
sunset). Relative to the Earth surface, the sky is moving around us and
the Sun disappears below the horizon. However, we all know that
Galileo, using astronomical data, observed that in fact, it is the
Earth that rotates and not the Sun. Using astronomical information
external to the Earth surface, Galileo found the correct motion of the
Earth, which led him to a correct understanding of the motion of the
planets in the solar system. The simple observation of the relative
motion of the Sun and stars around us, which led to the pre-Galilean
naive claim of the motion of the sky around us, was very poor science.
GOOD SCIENCE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ALL POSSIBLE OBSERVATIONS AVAILABLE. It
is very bad science to ignore (or hide) voluntarily some of the
information available.
Let
us
go
back
to
the
initial problem of acceleration. The inertial
acceleration given to a mass requires energy to be able to accelerate.
In the case of gravitational energy, there is a force without
displacement, therefore no energy is required.
In
the
case
mentioned
above
about
the inertial acceleration of the mass
during one year, it is bad science to ignore the fact that the mass
submitted to an inertial acceleration acquires energy, while a well
informed (non blind) observer can measure that the velocity increases
as a function of time. The mass accelerated by the rocket has acquired
energy and an increase of "relativistic" mass that cannot be ignored.
One
must
conclude
that
the
Einstein's
principle of equivalence between
inertial and gravitational acceleration leads to a physical incoherence
between inertial systems. This equivalence is not compatible with
coherent observations. The principle of equivalence between inertial
and gravitational mass which ignores that the energy has been
given up to the mass is
bad science, belonging to pre-Galilean science. Inertial and
gravitational accelerations are certainly distinguishable, just as we
know that the Sun does not really set. It is the Earth that rotates.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<><><><><><><><><><><><>