I take back everything I ever said about Einstein being a thieving underhanded liar.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

In his article in the London Times, "What Is Relativity?" he
forthrightly explains everything so plainly that its fallaciousness is
evident for all to see.

For example, he has motion causing gravity instead of gravity causing
motion, inverting cause and effect. Contrary to him, centrifugal force
is not equivalent to gravity. It pulls in the opposite direction.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

CORRECTION: Volume 6. Weimar Germany, 1918/19–1933
Albert Einstein, “What Is The Theory Of Relativity?” (November 28, 1919)

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

"The
centrifugal forces which manifest themselves in relation to this system
must, according to
Newton's teaching, be regarded as effects of inertia. But these
centrifugal forces are, exactly
like the forces of gravity, proportional to the masses of the bodies.
Ought it not to be possible in
this case to regard the coordinate system as stationary and the
centrifugal forces as
gravitational forces? This seems the obvious view, but classical
mechanics forbid it." ibid

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

"THE INCORRECTNESS OF THE CLASSICAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE, AND THE
CORRECT PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE, THOUGH NOT NEEDED FOR A THEORY OF
GRAVITATION" - Tolga Yarman
https://www.academia.edu/keypass/Sm1DbFBOcVJ0NDh1MllKeDZNMnl4Qm4zSFA2OG5WR2ROUFZkakxjbkxmOD0tLUQ3Sm4wbk4xNG1oVFZubENOenZuNkE9PQ==--254aac6575b29a90fc1679f149630f7a89d370ff/t/v7bK-SjDm6nA-dpKwQ/resource/work/126845483/THE_INCORRECTNESS_OF_THE_CLASSICAL_PRINCIPLE_OF_EQUIVALENCE_AND_THE_CORRECT_PRINCIPLE_OF_EQUIVALENCE_THOUGH_NOT_NEEDED_FOR_A_THEORY_OF_GRAVITATION?auto=download&email_work_card=download-paper

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

"RESTATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE (PE), ALONG WITH A NEW
THEORY OF GRAVITATION – WHICH IS NOT BASED ON IT

Here, we state the correct principle of equivalence, which we would not
really need as a basis of any new theory. It is a simple derivation
based on the law of energy conservation broadened to embody the mass &
energy equivalence of the special theory of relativity.

The Correct PE: Both gravitation and accelerational motion, in fact any
force field, alter a given “rest mass”, held at rest, in the same
manner. It is that the rest mass of the given object, decreases as much
as the energy necessary to furnish to this object, in order to remove
it, from the force field.

This finding, though, leaves unnecessary the use of the analogy between
acceleration and gravitation, for a subsequent theory of gravitation." -
Tolga Yarman

[Richard Hachel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"RESTATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE (PE), ALONG WITH A NEW
THEORY OF GRAVITATION – WHICH IS NOT BASED ON IT
Here, we state the correct principle of equivalence, which we would not
really need as a basis of any new theory. It is a simple derivation
based on the law of energy conservation broadened to embody the mass &
energy equivalence of the special theory of relativity.
The Correct PE: Both gravitation and accelerational motion, in fact any
force field, alter a given “rest mass”, held at rest, in the same
manner. It is that the rest mass of the given object, decreases as much
as the energy necessary to furnish to this object, in order to remove
it, from the force field.
This finding, though, leaves unnecessary the use of the analogy between
acceleration and gravitation, for a subsequent theory of gravitation." -
Tolga Yarman

The notion of rest mass is an invariant.

And rest energy is an invariant.

Two possibilities in my frame of reference when I observe a body or a
particle.

Either it is mobile, or it is static.

If it is mobile, it takes in my frame of reference an energy of mobility
(not to be confused with kinetic energy which is only an energy of
restitution).

E=m.Vr² (the mass multiplied by the square of its real speed in my
space).

That's for the energy of MOBILITY.

But we must not forget one thing. Time is not static, and everything also
moves in time.

Thus a static body still has an energy, its energy of passage in time.
E=mc².

The energy of mass is the energy of passage in time.

If, in addition, the body is mobile, its mobility energy will be added.

E=mVr² will be added (orthogonally because the temporal direction is
perpendicular to the three other spatial directions) to E=mc².

Let Eg=m.sqrt(Vr²+c²)

From where Eg=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

Which is the same thing as Eg=mc²/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) a formula well known
to physicists.

Do not remember everything I tell you, you are not given to recognize my
ideas.

Just remember that mass energy is the energy of passage in time of a body
or a particle.

This is why even at rest, particles have considerable energy, and if I
annihilate a particle, it no longer exists. Its energy of passage in time
is integrally, and at that very moment, restored to the medium.

This is a geometric logic that a seven-year-old child can understand.

R.H.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"RESTATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE (PE), ALONG WITH A NEW
THEORY OF GRAVITATION –  WHICH IS NOT BASED ON IT
Here, we state the correct principle of equivalence, which we would not
really need as a basis of any new theory. It is a simple derivation
based on the law of energy conservation broadened to embody the mass &
energy equivalence of the special theory of relativity.
The Correct PE: Both gravitation and accelerational motion, in fact any
force field, alter a given “rest mass”, held at rest, in the same
manner. It is that the rest mass of the given object, decreases as much
as the energy necessary to furnish to this object, in order to remove
it, from the force field.
This finding, though, leaves unnecessary the use of the analogy between
acceleration and gravitation, for a subsequent theory of gravitation." -
Tolga Yarman

You are in a room.
In the middle of the room an accelerometer is hanging in a string
from the ceiling.
You see the accelerometer shows 1 g acceleration towards the ceiling.

Is the room accelerating at 1 g far from the Earth and other
gravitating masses, or is it stationary on the ground?

You will not answer, of course.
You never try to use your own brain to answer a question,
even if it is as simple as this one.

Why don't you?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"RESTATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE (PE), ALONG WITH A NEW
THEORY OF GRAVITATION –  WHICH IS NOT BASED ON IT
Here, we state the correct principle of equivalence, which we would not
really need as a basis of any new theory. It is a simple derivation
based on the law of energy conservation broadened to embody the mass &
energy equivalence of the special theory of relativity.
The Correct PE: Both gravitation and accelerational motion, in fact any
force field, alter a given “rest mass”, held at rest, in the same
manner. It is that the rest mass of the given object, decreases as much
as the energy necessary to furnish to this object, in order to remove
it, from the force field.
This finding, though, leaves unnecessary the use of the analogy between
acceleration and gravitation, for a subsequent theory of gravitation." -
Tolga Yarman

You are in a room.
In the middle of the room an accelerometer is hanging in a string
from the ceiling.
You see the accelerometer shows 1 g acceleration towards the ceiling.
Is the room accelerating at 1 g far from the Earth and other
gravitating masses, or is it stationary on the ground?
You will not answer, of course.

I will, of course. I know where my room
is, but I can easily believe you're too
stupid for that.