One disproof of EP?

Thank you for the discussion. I think that my postings are very clear. I am not willing to make a colloquial debate out of Physical principles. If you cannot understand that you cannot mix relativity with Newtonian mechanics then there is no basis for futher discussion. I suggest you refresh your knowledge of the basic principles that allow making inferences and drawing conclusions, and also the basics of the two theories. This is not by any means to offend you but to only help you to understand the errors in your reasoning. Even if EP is a invalid principle, the way you try to prove it is fundamentally false. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I am sorry but I have nothing to say any more that will not be a repetition of what I said before. I'll go find my friend Patrick and talk about 0 and infinity. It makes more sense.

Refer back to my short post about apples and oranges. The only coincidence between SR and GR is the work relativity. In my opinion one only inserts the letters ty at the end of a word when they are unsure of what they are talking about. To Cindy and Daisy: You math looks fine, but it is only math. The behavior of the nature of forces in the universe is only approximated by all of the math. It is not the answer because those contructs come from inference #1 and #2 they are proofs of a system that has been shown by direct observation to either not occuring or being incorrectly applied. Further debate is good, however logicicicicical pathways only make PC's happy. The question for debate should be: Why do we attribute GR and SR to phenomena that are swideged or invented and can be attributed to a deductive model based on observation? If you want an answer, please read TVF's book. MV

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I'll go find my friend Patrick and talk about 0 and infinity. It makes more sense.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
<b>Bravo</b> to you Makis, I'm here for you if you need me.<img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>

Hi Mark and Daisy,
Let me try another way:

In classical physics, Sir Newton discovered gravitational force F = GMm / R^2.

In order to use the law in SR, I “modify” the law with Lorentz transformation, and I get
F = GMm.gamma / R^2

Where M = rest mass of a huge mass.
m = rest mass of a very small mass.
gamma = 1/ sqrt(1-v^2/r^2)
v = speed ( scalar value of velocity of m in respect to M ) , right at distance R.

1/ Consider m is in a circular orbit around M
In a circular orbit, m is always moving in a perpendicular direction to the gravitation force F. With SR, I get

F = m.a.gamma
GMm.gamma / R^2 = m.a.gamma
a = GM / R^2

In order not to violate EP, which state that g = a, I have to define g = GM / R^2

2/ Consider m is in a free fall
In a free fall, m is always moving on line of the gravitational force. With SR, I get

F = m.a.(gamma^3)
GMm.gamma / R^2 = m.a.(gamma^3)
a = GM (gamma^-2) / R^2, This acceleration value is different from g.

Thus, I claim that if SR is right, then EP is inconsistent.

In classical physics, Sir Newton discovered gravitational force F = GMm / R^2.

In order to use the law in SR, I “modify” the law with Lorentz transformation, and I get
F = GMm.gamma / R^2

Cindy, If you apply a Lorentz transformation to a unicorn, what do you get? Certainly, no dinner for Thanksgiving.

For a last time, please understand that you can apply transformations to laws that are consistent with the context of the theory that defines the transformations in the first place. You cannot apply such a transformation to Newton's law. That law is not compatible with SR. It violates the principle of non-simultaneiaty. That is why, Einstein had to proceed and invent a new theory for gravity- curved space time, which was the result of the EP assumption or principle.

To help you understand this in another way: just forget about EP for a moment, and the rest of your proof and anser the following question:

Is he following law valid in relativistic speeds:

F = GMm.gamma / R^2

My answer is that it's not valid and I hope so is yours.

But if it is not valid, you cannot use it to prove anything relating to relativity or anything else. It is useless.

Hi Makis,
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>just forget about EP for a moment, and the rest of your proof and answer the following question:
Is her following law valid in relativistic speeds?
F = GMm.gamma / R^2 <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Yes, it is. I don't see Cindy's equation violates anything, but I see that you are violating your own rule.

We all know that Physics is branch of science, in which physiscists try to describe natural phenomena in mathematics. And of course, a convincible theory is often begun with wrong assumptions. Experiments are good ways to determine whether an assumption is good or bad. I understand you will not reject EP until there is an experiment, which can show <b>g</b> differs from <b>a</b> clearly. However, you don't apply the same rule to Cindy's. Is there any experiment performed for her equation?

We all know that a moving mass has more energy than it does at rest. And if we agree that the universal force influences all forms of matter, then Cindy's equation does make some senses. The product (m.gamma) is simply total energy of the moving mass m ( m.gamma = rest mast + kinetic energy).

Yes, you are free not to use her equation. However, if you don't use it, you will never know how wonderful it is.

We, human being, probably never describe the force in mathematics perfectly. So, why don't we use her equation which still provides us very correct results? In addition, her equation is so simple and easy to use for everyone in comparison of very complex and awful calculations of GR.

I bet you and other physicists disprove the equation with experiments.

PS: Cindy's equation is free for everyone to use. But, whoever uses it, please do not forget Cindy.