Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!news.dfncis.de!not-for-mail
From: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Subject: Re: Experiments on the validity of Relativity
Date: 16 May 2024 07:24:08 GMT
Lines: 60
Approved: hees@itp.uni-frankfurt.de (sci.physics.research)
Message-ID: <9_OcncyqLJldDdj7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
References: <v1o6kk$24ib1$1@dont-email.me>
X-Trace: news.dfncis.de t9GCcw4E9YnT+J9BPfJAXA6+y75QVY0pv8NaDPnW1clatKmSLxwE4Qm3ouLHWvK6H8
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O5gcH3Joq5B5HBeTdugODw+HW6k= sha256:IzzSBial0B+pKiKFhI5ciQ77n6C1uh4KXstD/z47Ni8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1o6kk$24ib1$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3899

On 5/13/24 1:58 AM, Luigi Fortunati wrote:
> When there is an experiment that proves Einstein right, the whole 
> world is ready to praise him and his theories (and rightly so). 
> However, it is not right that, when an experiment proves Einstein 
> wrong, no one admits it and no one talks about it.

This last is just plain wrong. Any REAL experiment that refuted either
SR or GR would be GREAT NEWS and the experimenters would win praise and
accolades. But they must be real experiments within the domain of
applicability of the theory, and statistically inconsistent with its
predictions. To date no such experiments have ever been published --
your allegations here are just drivel: they are not real experiments,
and they indicate that YOU do not understand General Relativity, because
your claims are based upon a PUN on the word "acceleration".

> Einstein says that bodies in free fall are at rest and that the man 
> inside the falling elevator experiences no forces or accelerations.

No. This is A LOT more subtle. So much so that this claim is just plain
wrong. You MUST learn about the actual theory before you can have any
hope of refuting it. All you have done here is shown that your personal
misconceptions are inconsistent with each other -- useless.

> [...] two massive bodies (which fall gravitationally and freely 
> towards each other) *accelerate* both in the reference of one and 
> both in that of the other.

Sure. This does not refute GR, because of your confusion between
coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration. These two bodies have
zero proper acceleration, and nonzero coordinate acceleration. The
equations (and predictions) of GR are necessarily coordinate
independent, and basically say nothing at all about coordinate
acceleration, because one can choose any coordinate system. In the
absence of forces on an object, GR predicts it has zero proper
acceleration (while its coordinate acceleration can be anything,
depending on the coordinates used). In GR, gravitation is an aspect of
the geometry of spacetime, not a force.

     [Note to experts: there are missing caveats and conditions
      here, but they are irrelevant to Fortunati's basic problem.]

> [... other claims showing further ignorance of GR]

As I have repeatedly told you, you MUST get a good textbook and STUDY
physics. Start with classical mechanics, and be sure you have mastered
it before attempting GR. Better would be taking physics courses at a
local college or university. Posting dubious claims in a newsgroup is a
TERRIBLE approach and will never teach you much physics. There are no
shortcuts.

> If body A falls towards body B, body B also falls towards body A. If 
> body A accelerates towards body B, body B also accelerates towards 
> body A. And these two mutual accelerations never disappear, whatever 
> the reference from which we measure them! They are real accelerations
> generated by real forces.

Not in GR. GO STUDY and stop wasting your time on nonsense. You do NOT
have enough knowledge to just "think this through" on your own.

Tom Roberts