# Einsteins theory of acceleration and gravitational equivalence

#### Jzz

I have been thinking about Einstein's equivalence principle, wherein acceleration is equated with gravity. The point is: that this is just sleight of hand. Newton's whole theory of gravity is based on the fact of inertial mass. Without this concept it would be impossible to calculate the orbits of planets or the trajectory of comets. There would literally be no way to calculate gravitational effects. It is central to Newton's theory of gravity. The question is this: where did Einstein get off rephrasing this idea and what did he hope to gain from it if not to discredit Newton's theory of gravity? Surely, a simple ploy such as equating gravity and acceleration, creates enough doubt to let the thin edge of general relativity in?

#### Pentcho Valev

I have been thinking about Einstein's equivalence principle, wherein acceleration is equated with gravity. The point is: that this is just sleight of hand. Newton's whole theory of gravity is based on the fact of inertial mass. Without this concept it would be impossible to calculate the orbits of planets or the trajectory of comets. There would literally be no way to calculate gravitational effects. It is central to Newton's theory of gravity. The question is this: where did Einstein get off rephrasing this idea and what did he hope to gain from it if not to discredit Newton's theory of gravity? Surely, a simple ploy such as equating gravity and acceleration, creates enough doubt to let the thin edge of general relativity in?

The irony is that the equivalence principle DISPROVES general relativity. According to this principle, as light falls towards a source of gravity, its speed INCREASES as per Newton:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

James Hartle, "If we accept the equivalence principle, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629

"To see WHY A DEFLECTION OF LIGHT WOULD BE EXPECTED, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

Einstein's general relativity predicts that, as light falls towards a source of gravity, its speed DECREASES:

"The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached...If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious." http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm

"Simply put: Light appears to travel slower near bigger mass (in stronger gravitational fields)." https://speed-of-light.com/speed_of_light_gravity.html

"Thus, as φ becomes increasingly negative (i.e., as the magnitude of the potential increases), the radial "speed of light" c_r defined in terms of the Schwarzschild parameters t and r is reduced to less than the nominal value of c." https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

#### Jzz

The irony is that the equivalence principle DISPROVES general relativity. According to this principle, as light falls towards a source of gravity, its speed INCREASES as per Newton:
It is ironic that you have taken Einstein’s theory that gravity affects light, to explain your own theory of the variable speed of light. In actual fact, neither Einsteinian gravity nor Newtonian gravity are needed to explain the phenomenon. The general relativity theory of the bending of light as it nears a star and of gravitational red and blue shift can be explained without resort to general relativity or Newtonian gravity. The alternative explanation for the bending of light near a star or large body is based on refraction. It predicts that as the ray passes through the star’s atmospheric-medium, it bends due to refraction towards the stars-core, in a similar manner to the way in which a ray bends while passing through a prism.

To claim, as General Relativity does, that calculation of the amounting of bending that light experiences as it nears a star or large body shows that it negates refraction is not just hilarious it is ludicrous! With light coming in from every possible direction one cannot, at these distances, make such sweeping statements.

It is time to re-examine the situation from the ground up. Take a moment to clear your mind of all pre-conceived notions. For Centuries, observations have shown that the speed of light is constant and independent of the movement of either its source or of the movement or position of any observer. The speed of light, it was thought, depended solely on the properties of the medium that it was travelling through. This is just the way in which ALL waves travel and it applies to all waves, including light. Is it time to re-examine whether these observations were true or do we stand by Michelson & Morley in claiming that there is nor aether. Returning to the present day, imagine setting up Michelson & Morley’s experiment in space in an attempt to detect Dark Matter: would such an experiment be successful? Most assuredly not, the aether would not drag the atmosphere around with it, just like Dark Matter it had extremely low interaction with matter. Yet, calculations show that Dark Matter accounts for more than 85% of the mass in the Universe. This is tantamount to saying that Dark Matter permeates the entire Universe. Since this is the case, the odds that our solar system lies within that 85% are very high: ergo what we took to be the aether was in fact Dark Matter. Dark Matter allows the passage of ALL forms of electromagnetic radiation without offering the slightest resistance or interference, if this had not been the case we would not have been able to keep track of the Voyager space craft. Yet, Dark Matter does interact with gravity as observations have shown. It is time to re-examine this concept in a little more detail. Suppose that as per my theory (The Electromagnetic Universe) that Dark Matter consists of virtual; photons, how would it affect the Universe? Would this huge mass of virtual photons (which is an oxymoron in itself) affect the gravity of large galaxies? The answer is ofcourse it would. This huge mass of virtual photons that permeates every part of the Universe would interact with the matter in the Universe to emulate gravity, keeping everything bound together more closely. Even with a mass equal to M = (10^-40) / (9 x 10^16) )= 1.11 x 10^-57 Kg for each individual virtual photon, it is possible to see that given the sheer numbers , this version of Dark Matter would account for gravitational effects.
The interaction between matter in the galaxies and Dark Matter would be vector based rather than scalar based, this would beautifully account for why galaxies have the shape they do.

Last edited:

#### Pentcho Valev

For Centuries, observations have shown that the speed of light is constant and independent of the movement of either its source or of the movement or position of any observer. The speed of light, it was thought, depended solely on the properties of the medium that it was travelling through. This is just the way in which ALL waves travel and it applies to all waves, including light.

The speed of any wave relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer. This is a universally accepted fact - there have never been contradictions. Problems only emerged when Einstein found it profitable to declare that light is an exception and its speed relative to the observer does NOT vary with the speed of the observer.

#### Jzz

The speed of any wave relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer. This is a universally accepted fact - there have never been contradictions. Problems only emerged when Einstein found it profitable to declare that light is an exception and its speed relative to the observer does NOT vary with the speed of the observer.
With all due respect Pentcho Valev, I think you have your facts mixed up. Consider that there is a difference between the way in which a solid moves and the way in which a non-solid substance (wave) moves. With the solid substance, Galilean transformations apply, wherein the speed of any two moving frames of reference are always relative to each other. Therefore if two cars (a) and (b) are moving in the same direction, (a) at 100 kmh and (b) at 150 kmh . Car (b) will be moving away from car (a) at a relative speed of 50 kmh. If the same two cars are approaching each other, they will close at a cumulative speed of 250 kmh. With regard to non-solid substances such as water, air etc., Galilean transformations DO NOT APPLY. The speed of a wave depends only upon the properties of the medium it is travelling through, nothing else. Therefore the speed of the wave will remain the same regardless of whether the observer is moving toward it or away from it, and regardless of whether the source is moving towards or away from the stationary or moving observer, it doesn’t matter, the speed of the wave will remain constant: UNLESS the properties of the medium change. True, the frequency of the wave might change (Doppler effect) but the speed of the wave remains constant.

Last edited:

Replies
1
Views
683
Replies
1
Views
632
Replies
2
Views
926
Replies
3
Views
770
Replies
2
Views
819