Frequently Asked Questions
about
Principle of Equivalence.
( Last
checked
2017/01/15 - The
estate of
Paul Marmet )
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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<><><><><><><><><><><><>