Mordred

try it in straight newton physics mass a=1,000 kg mass b=10 kg force of gravity at Earths surface= 9.8 N/KG lets just round it off at 10 newtons/kg f=ma therefore object a=10,000 netwons object b= 100 newtons f=ma therefore a=f/m object a acceleration=10,000newtons/1000kg =10 m/s2 object b acceleration=100N/10kg=10 m/s2 wow they have the same acceleration therefore they land at the same time

fine where in any of your terms or math did you apply acceleration? or did you forget that step

well some computer codes lol, PLC ladder logic work a bit different as each is specific to the machine, in order to copyright the code in this case I would also have to copyright the machine itself. Trust me on this I write PLC code all the time, plus if your working for the company. The company itself has the rights as they paid you to produce it

your welcome

basic physics also teaches you that inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass the article I posted above shows that test of this are accurate to 1 part in 1013 (this just allows for possible systematic errors) http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/concepts/gr.pdf in other words how objects fall depend on its gravitational acceleration not upon its mass the problem is your not considering the effective center of mass. yes the mass of the 3 objects is important but in the sense its needed to calculated the effective center of mass, not in the sense of heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones here is the proper 2 body problem equations http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/modules/guide17.pdf all objects in a 2,3,x number of objects always fall towards an effective center of mass. the reaction of [latex]M\frac{d^2X}{dt^2}[/latex] is a consequence of an offset center of mass relative to the Earths center. it does not mean that the heavier object fall faster, it means the Earth also has to fall towards the center of mass just an amusing side note here is a brief NASA coverage for the feather and hammer test on the moon. http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/18may_equivalenceprinciple/ also [latex]f=\frac{GMm_2}{r^2}[/latex] is a newtonian law in terms of instantaneous acceleration your usage doesn't consider all the factors. (this is more for others reading the post informational purpose) [latex]\frac{d^2 x}{dt^2} =\frac{dv}{dt} =\frac{dx}{dt}\frac{dv}{dx} =v\frac{dv}{dx} =\frac{GM}{x^2}[/latex] Newtonian law works great at short distances not so great at longer ones such as spacecraft. (granted you probably wasn't trying to include the varying gravity due to distance from the gravitational source, and for the purpose of your equation assumed constant gravity)(this is more for others reading the post informational purpose) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body "A set of dynamical equations describe the resultant trajectories when objects move owing to a constant gravitational force under normal Earth-bound conditions. For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation simplifies to F = mg, where m is the mass of the body. This assumption is reasonable for objects falling to earth over the relatively short vertical distances of our everyday experience, but is very much untrue over larger distances, such as spacecraft trajectories. Please note that in this article any resistance from air (drag) is neglected." please note none of these equations at the various gravity levels include a mass term for the object falling on that wiki link wonder why that is?? http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/sites/www.npl.washington.edu.eotwash/files/webfiles/publications/pdfs/schlamminger_AAPT07.pdf http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2008/SS08/EP_Mich.pdf "On a Theoretical Proof of the Weak Equivalence Principle from within the Confines of Newtonian Gravitation" http://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0082v1.pdf "the weak equivalence principle is the statement that bodies of different mass and composition will – as first demonstrated by Galileo Galilee; fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. Current measurements on the equality of gravitational and inertial mass indicate that this equality holds on a level of one part to 1013 "

your interpretation of that equation is wrong period

equivalence principle http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/concepts/gr.pdf the problem is your trying to state the equivalence paper is wrong, the equivalence principle clearly states 2 objects of differing mass removing all friction will fall to the center of mass at the same rate. your statement that the heavier mass will fall faster is plain wrong. but instead of listening to the truth you misinterpret your formula and state every textbook and test in GR is wrong. You even go so far as to call a well established and rewarded physicist a crack pot. [latex]M\frac{d^2X}{dt^2}=+(\frac{GMm_1}{(X-x_1)^2}+\frac{GMm_2}{(X-x_2)^2})[/latex] but its form is more correctly [latex]M\frac{d^2X}{dt^2}=+(\frac{GMm_1}{r^2}+\frac{GMm_2}{r^2})[/latex] this formula may work great where the 3 bodies are of similar mass to each other as in 3 bodies orbiting each other, however IT does not mean the equivalence principle does not apply. if you took particle a and place it near to particle b so they drop at the same time from the same location their mass is effectively combined. If the center of mass is still the center of the Earth due to the size of mass being so insignificant to the mass of the Earth. the two will land at exactly the same time. if mass a is 4kg and mass b is 10 kg and they are dropped from opposite ends of the Earth whose mass is far greater the center of mass is the center of the Earth effectively. the two object will land at the same time. hence equivalence principle here is your 2 body problem with the center of mass correlations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_two-body_problem notice where your center of mass is?

link isn't working for me can you repost it? or is that the Mario Rabinowitz article? yeah works now

Quite frankly I'm going to pay more attention to what the textbooks teach, and what someone as distinquished as Mario Rabinowitz is over your opinion no offense, but quite frankly you started insulting his paper just from the letterhead initially. In case you didn't notice he stated in the paper that all 3 views in a certain sense is correct. Depending on the treatment. In case you haven't figured it out I don't need the mathematics as I'm not claiming either of the 3 views are more correct than the other. I'm not the one making claims you are. I merely posted the paper showing that depending on its treatment all 3 views can be accurate

were talking 3 bodies not 2 bodies, I know what the 2 body problem states. 2 bodies falling towards Earth according to the principle of equivalence of acceleration will fall to Earth at the SAME rate. When you do the calculations based on two bodies simultaneously dropping towards a center of mass such as the Earth. The Earth will react to their combined mass. now if you drop them separately and measure the time of fall then your scenario is correct.

oh really and what are your qualifications to assert that? tell you what find me a peer reviewed paper that supports this claim in regards to two bodies of different mass falling to a larger gravitational mass body at the same time.

yes the paper I posted mentions that. in the 3 body section. however he did reference that statement A Theory of Quantum Gravity may not be possible because Quantum Mechanics violates the Equivalence Principle http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601218 Deterrents to a Theory of Quantum Gravity http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608193 by the way here is numerous papers written by the author the above is also his papers. http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Mario+Rabinowitz/0/1/0/all/0/1 http://www.amazon.com/Mario-Rabinowitz/e/B005S81GJS Mario Rabinowitz has a Ph.D. in physics, with over 170 publications on a wide variety of subjects, including articles in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology as well as a number of its Yearbooks. Google Books lists about 55 results for his book contributions, such as book chapters and published reports. He has also written invited book reviews. He has been an Adjunct Professor at five universities. He received the 1992 Washington State University Alumni Achievement Award.

how is this paper in disagreement with the EP? when it specifically states VII. EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE (EP) "In the previous 3-body analyses, it appears as if the principle of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass in Einstein's General Relativity is being violated because the lightest mass has the highest acceleration.As shown this is not a violation of the EP since the inertial and gravitational masses are equal. The lightest mass ml goes the fastest in the center of mass 3-body system because it is acted by both M and m2 ,where as m2 is acted on by both M and ml " "2. Bodies with larger mass still hit the Earth faster than bodies with lighter mass (The explanation is simple, the larger mass forces the Earth to close the distance to the falling body)." huh, how does this even make sense, ? if two objects are falling to Earth at the same time their combined masses would influence the motion of Earth in other words their combined mass. secondly does it make sense that the Earth would move faster to the heavier body or does it not make more sense that the lighter body would move faster to the larger mass? a per the 2 body problem

well its too bad you didn't look into the GZK cutoff limit in more detail, there has been extensive research into this area. Including research that disproves your model. research has shown that the GZK cutoff limit results in the photon-pion production so the extra energy is carried off by the pion. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/04/26/the-cosmic-speed-limit/ Observation of the GZK Cutoff by the HiRes Experiment http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609403.pdf http://www.physics.uu.se/teorfys/sites/fysast.uu.se.teorfys/files/files/Andres_de_Bustos_Molina_gzk.pdf http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/edaw/PHY206/Site/2012_course_files/phy206rlec5.pdf of course any results are always subjective to debate, however from what I understand the general consensus is that the cutoff has been measured, If this is in fact the case your model will no longer work mathematically your model is accurate, however as I stated before you need supportive research, in particular you need supportive research showing that the QZK limit does not exist or is false. (by the way the proposal of faster than light in regards to high energy of the cosmic rays has already been proposed by others so this model isn't adding a new idea) Not-So-Faster-Than-Light Particles and the GZK Cutoff: Philosophical Considerations of Wayward Travels http://milliern.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/ftl-gzk-phil-paper-revised.pdf the equations where you describe breaking through the GZK cutoff doesn't disprove the GZK cutoff, it only hypothesizes the possibility. (in other words your going to need stronger proof, there are articles available that discuss the possibility that the GZK cutoff may or may not be correct, however this model will depend upon that research) however I wouldn't place much hope in that. Search for ultra high energy cosmic ray sources. FRI radio galaxy Centaurus A http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1212/1212.1402.pdf Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502097v2.pdf

interesting discussion, I happen to have an article that describes the variations for everyone's review Falling Bodies: the Obvious, the Subtle, and the Wrong http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702155.pdf statement with supportive mathematics included "So, it shouldn't be too perplexing if we find that all three possibilities: heavy faster than light, heavy and light equally fast, and even light bodies faster than heavy bodies can all occur in the falling body problem." copy and paste from the conclusion section of the article I recall once having other related articles in my archives, I'll see if I can locate them

actually his pic of space-time warping is an image of a mathematical relation between gravity and matter interactions the warping of space in GR is often misunderstood, the term spacetime has special meaning in physics "In physics, spacetime (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum". In other words the warping is simply a mathematical descriptive used in GR to describe the geometric relations between gravity and matter.(including light paths,etc) Not space itself, GR does not state that space has a fabric or substance. any form of physics deals with mathematical relations, even particle physics. Most of the equations used in particle physics are in actuality differential geometry equations. in other words GR is a theory of geometry. In GR space-time is not represented by a "fabric", but with a mathematical description known as a tensor (energy-mass tensor, stress tensor etc) that describes how the geometry of space-time will affect objects, and how objects will affect the geometry of space-time. In other words, it describes how objects interact with each other by changing the geometry of space-time. Note that there is NO description of a fabric, sheet, or anything else analogous to a physical object. It's pure geometry. The only property space itself has is geometric volume or distance. Universe geometry is the same in that the shape of the universe is a mathematical descriptive of the energy-density relations of all contributors,(matter,dark energy,gravity, etc) will have positive or negative pressure relations with one another, if the total energy-density is the same as or close to the critical density then the universe is flat. This is essentially a pressure distribution relation. see here for more detail on Universe geometry http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry p page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ As expansion occurs there is simply more volume, the rate of expansion depends on the energy density relations as per above, energy-density of a type (radiation, matter, dark energy etc) has a corresponding energy-density to pressure relations is determined by its equation of state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatio...28cosmology%29 terms such as space being stretched, warped, twisted, created etc are misleading as they are only referring to the relations in the mathematical models being used. (space-time models) no problem

I'm welcoming Dr Funkenstein, as it was his first post on the forum

Welcome to the forum in terms of cosmology the best way to think of space is simply geometric volume, space itself has no other properties other than volume that volume is simply filled with the energy-density contents of the universe. as far as to what space is expanding into you may want to read this article. http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion

Sorry this paper is no where near ready for arxiv, there is far too many grammar errors for one thing, too many spelling errors is the next problem, no references is the third problem (even papers that discuss well known applications require references.) The last point is your momentum greater than light speed proposal will require some supporting material. for example this line "Because equation (2.7) is approximate only. Equation (2.7) is valid only in low energy region. " this line will require supportive papers. especially since its E2 =P2 c2 + mo2 c4 can you show a paper where this is not valid in the high energy regime? "is the deviation between new energy and Special Relativity Theory" new energy ? please explain by the way I can't admit this to arxiv even if it was 100% accurate, (I don't have that ability) however I can see numerous errors in its writing that needs to be improved. (you might want to start with a spell checking program) example Microsoft office English version Its terribly hard to understand what your saying in most of this article The other problem is your implying that there is a momentum faster than the speed of light without any supportive evidence, or supportive papers. (and you want this to be published in arxiv????) I'm sure if you have a physics degree you must know a few colleques who can review your paper without resorting to a forum quite frankly if you have to come to a forum to get your paper published that makes me truly wonder about its validity

Swansort beat me to it lol, I was about to ask the same thing but his wording is better the other question I have is how does your model differ from the momentum formulas for particle interaction than what we already know? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum http://www.thp.uni-koeln.de/alexal/pdf/advqm.pdf

a kind of light that can only produce motion???? you really need to correct your terminology. light is well described in physics. light is electromagnetic, there are particles that DO NOT interact with the electromagnetic, therefore they cannot be influenced in any way shape or form by light. clear example is the neutrino. however your argument is that your light is not the same as light in physics, in that it has mysterious properties that is not the same as regular light. Its your job to convince us that your model has validity. You cannot do that if you keep making up new forms of particles or new forms of light. light is photons. Photons have known properties. however your light doesn't follow these known properties.

whats difficult to understand about problem 7? this is Newtons 3rd law any body that applies a force, will experience that same force in an equal but opposite direction. think of a gun firing and recoil. so if particle A emits a force to move particle B, whatever that force may be, particle A will also have that force applied to itself. end result particle A emits force to particle b in direction 90 degrees, particle b will move in direction 90 degrees, however particle a the emitting particle will have also moved the same amount in direction 180 degrees. if one particle is larger than the other it will only move a smaller amount but it will move if enough force is applied. your model has the inherent problem with interaction time regardless of how you wish to describe those interactions is irrelevant, the maximum speed of any form of information exchange is the speed of light. If particle motion is influenced by the particles observation relative to another in any shape or form, then those particles CANNOT move at light speed. I have have shown you a very basic example of that above "they can stay synchronized if they stand at the right distance, which means that this is the distance where they link together. Finally, let the other atom undergo a push directly in my direction and see what happens. As soon as it is pushed, the other atom will loose its synchronism with me, and it will thus resist to move, but since the push is strong enough" this example of synchronization and loss of synchronization, by its very descriptive shows shared information. how would one particle know or feel the effects of loss of synchronization if there is no shared information? how will they know they are synchronized without shared information? your descriptive is clearly shared information exchange. therefore the rate of information exchange and the speed limit of information exchange MUST be accounted for the other problem is the (particle resisting that motion ie gains mass), would not be able to move at light speed. photons move at light speed as its mass is effectively zero if photons were to gain any mass it would no longer be able to move at light speed. so if your model is exchanging mass from particle to particle whichever particle has the mass would no longer move at light speed, This problem of exchanging mass alone should tell you that these particle ie a photon beam would be slower than light speed. however you cannot clearly define your model in a manner that is not subjective to misunderstanding. Even when we ask for clarification. this reply is a clear example of not sufficiently explaining your model, it also shows a clear example of information exchange by whatever hand wavy mechanism now if you want an example of how interactions slow light, look at how light slows down in a medium or fluid. This is a clear example of how the rate of interactions slows down the photons rate of travel.

the problem is the neutrino is an elementary or fundamental particle by definition it has no components. fundamental particles do not even have quarks and gluons in their makeup. "Lets take a two atoms molecule and see what happens if it is accelerated and I am one of them. First, lets take for granted that I can see the other atom, and that if I can see it, it is because it emits light constantly in my direction, and that this light comes from its nucleus, whatever the way it is produced. Second, lets take for granted that I emit the same light, at the same frequencies and the same intensity, directly from my nucleus. Third, lets suppose that the two atoms can move independantly from one another to emit their light pulses exactly at the moment where they see the pulses of the other atom, so that because they are already at rest from one another, they can stay synchronized if they stand at the right distance, which means that this is the distance where they link together. Finally, let the other atom undergo a push directly in my direction and see what happens. As soon as it is pushed, the other atom will loose its synchronism with me, and it will thus resist to move, but since the push is strong enough, it will nevertheless have to move, so that as soon as the push is over, it will stop moving and try to get back to its previous position if it can." above from OP ok lets look at the simulation you had the 3 laws of inertia is as follows First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. Second law: F = ma. The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object. Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body. now lets start with 2 particles at rest. in your simulation first stage. particle a= left particle particle b=right particle. now f=ma. particle b moves x distance then stops (why did it stop what force stopped it? particle b moves x distance then stops same question. (from the above you have some synchronism connection between the two) the problem is your basing this synchronism connection on the electromagnetic force. problem 1) not all particles interact with the electromagnetic force problem 2) a particles individual inertia does not depend on who observes it. the particle doesn't give a whoot who observes or measures it. problem 3) how would you add Heisenburg's uncertainty principle to this problem? problem 4) lets say there is a connection between the two particles based on observation. wouldn't both particles observe each other at the same time? in that case both particles would move toward each other at the same time. problem 5) in the case of photons already moving moving at light speed, how could the rear particle possibly see the lead particle? problem 6) why would these particles move at relativistic speeds if they have the added delay of communicaton between them, by the very nature of communication delay of information (information cannot move faster than light speed) these particles would have no choice but be slower than light speed. problem 7) particle A exerts a force, on particle b but that same force is exerted on particle a so particle a will also move (see third law) problem 8) what is the delay time to go from full stop to the particles max velocity? or the delay time to stop?( cannot be instant) particle a tells particle b to move,(sychronized) but when it moves x distance tells it to stop (loss of synchronization) so this equals communication distance 2D where d equals x distance of particle movement. the information would have to travel 2d distance to communicate the needed information with max speed of light this means these particles would travel at maximum 1/3 the speed of light roughly (changing the step size will not change this problem) oh wait I forgot the time needed to relay a loss of synchronization information, well you get the idea (I hope) after all the first particle will keep moving until told it detects a loss of synchronization see what happens when you apply a little physics and actually think of the math? from an earlier post you wanted to examine this by baby steps, well wish granted I just covered one combined step of movement, (in very simple mathematics I might add)

irrelevant all forms of measurable Doppler effect is via the electromagnetic spectrum of sound and light. All forms of measurable Doppler effects is observer dependent. The neutrino does not interact with any form of the electromagnetic spectrum nor does it interact with the strong force it operates primarily with the weak force. The weak force is 10,000 times weaker than the electromagnetic force, around 10-18 meters. "Neutrinos do not carry electric charge, which means that they are not affected by the electromagnetic forces that act on charged particles such as electrons and protons. Neutrinos are affected only by the weak sub-atomic force, of much shorter range than electromagnetism, which is relatively weak on the subatomic scale. Therefore a typical neutrino passes through normal matter unimpeded." to be honest I have no idea how they can measure the weak force, I'm not a particle physicists, I've merely studied 13 related textbooks on the subject lol. However I seriously doubt you can use Doppler effect at least not at the individual particle level we can measure its effects on nuclear decay but that is not the same as measuring the weak force itself

there was another reason I mentioned neutrinos, your trying to define the mass of the neutrino from the photon which is an electromagnetic interaction. However the neutrino does not interact with the electromagnetic force.