Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 3 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 5 (8 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   47 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
Sci Tech

Gravity Breakthrough: Springing into a Gravitational Revolution

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (8 fans)

Gravity is one of the most familiar everyday phenomena, yet it has mystified scientists and laymen for centuries. Even today, although the current official position on gravity is a continual "space-time warping" around objects - a claim from Einstein's General Relativity theory, it is also still widely considered an endless attracting force emanating from objects, as claimed in Newton's gravitational theory. Setting aside the troubling implications of two different physical descriptions of gravity in our science for the moment, it turns out that the behavior of a simple spring may hold the final answer to this age-old mystery.

Consider what happens when a loosely coiled spring is stretched apart from both ends while laying on a tabletop, as shown below in the left-hand frame. The opposing forces spread equally across the spring, causing an equal coil spacing across the spring, which also occurs whether either force pulls fully from the very end or is divided to pull directly on each coil:


spring_tabletop_1 by Roland Michel Tremblay

However, with only a single continual pulling force on one end, shown on the right, the coils stretch more at the leading end as they strain to continually accelerate the ongoing resisting inertia of the rest of the spring. In this case, there is successively less stretch toward the trailing end as there is successively less trailing-coil mass to cause inertial drag.

This deceptively simple experiment has enormous implications for both Newton's gravitational force and Einstein's "warped space-time' theory of gravity - and for understanding the true physical nature of gravity itself. The first important point is that it highlights a widely overlooked but critical error surrounding Einstein's famous "space elevator" thought experiment, which forms the foundation of his Principle of Equivalence and his later associated General Relativity theory of gravity.

The Erroneous "Principle of Equivalence"

Einstein claimed that all experiences and experiments occurring inside a constantly accelerating elevator moving upward in deep space - far from any gravitational influence - would be indistinguishable from them occurring under the influence of Newtonian gravity on Earth. This claim is known as the Principle of Equivalence, and forms the cornerstone of gravitational physics in today's science; however, the simple spring experiments just discussed can be used to show that this is an erroneous claim, with enormous implications for our understanding of gravity.

Similar to the left-frame tabletop experiment above, a hanging spring on Earth should have two opposing forces distributed across it, equally spreading its coils - the force of gravity pulling downward and the restraining force that effectively pulls upward. However, as in the right-frame of the above tabletop experiment, a spring attached to the ceiling of Einstein's continually accelerating deep-space elevator, far from Earthly gravity, should exhibit the unequal coil distribution of a spring pulled from only one end:


spring_hanging_2 by Roland Michel Tremblay

So, this shows that Einstein's claimed "Principle of Equivalence" between Newtonian gravity and pure acceleration in deep space must be wrong - the effect of being accelerated upward in space must differ from an attracting force emanating from a planet. If Einstein had remained faithful to his original "space elevator" inspiration, rather than developing his General Relativity theory for equivalence to Newton, he would have produced a new understanding of gravitational physics that clearly differed from Newton's, and which could be easily tested by a simple hanging spring experiment. Instead, Einstein effectively abandoned his space-elevator inspiration in favor of a mistaken "Principle of Equivalence" to Newton, and a related "warped space-time" proposal for the physics of gravity in his General Relativity theory.

A Verifiable Revolution in our Understanding of Gravity

But why concern ourselves with this hanging spring issue in a deep-space elevator, especially if we already know that Einstein's Principle of Equivalence and General Relativity theory are widely accepted today, and supposedly even proven by highly sophisticated experiments? The reason is because this very same hanging spring experiment can be performed by anyone - by simply suspending a well-known spring toy from one end, showing that gravity on Earth behaves precisely as in Einstein's original space-elevator inspiration, and not as in either Newton's "gravitational force" theory or Einstein's equivalent "warped space-time" General Relativity theory. This simple experiment shows a hanging spring with an unequal distribution - here on Earth - which could only occur if it were continually accelerated upward from its suspended end, and not stretched uniformly by an attracting "gravitational force" or equivalent "space-time warping".

This further shows why no solid scientific explanation for the operation of Newton's proposed attracting force has ever been settled upon, and nor has its apparently endless power source ever been identified or explained. This also means that Einstein's efforts to mirror Newtonian gravitational theory in his General Relativity theory are equally verifiably in error, and that the experiments presented as proof were conceived and designed such that their claimed "success" actually constitutes no particularly meaningful result at all.

Could the Evidence Still Support Today's Gravitational Theories?

The preceding discussion shows that Newton's theory of an attracting gravitational force is readily disproven by a simple hanging spring, as is Einstein's "warped space-time' General Relativity theory, which was deliberately designed to be functionally equivalent. But before addressing what all of this means, it can still be tempting to dismiss the above discussion with intuitive support for today's gravitational theories, such as the following:

"The coils at the top of a hanging spring simply bear the weight of the rest of the spring hanging below. And those further down have fewer coils below them, thus less weight to bear, stretching successively less, resulting in more stretch at the top and successively less toward the bottom - a non-uniform hanging spring.'

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

www.themarginal.com

Roland Michel Tremblay is an author. More information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Michel_Tremblay

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Expansion Theory - Our Best Candidate for a Final Theory of Everything?

Is money the root to all evil?

Breakthrough in Faster-Than-Light Travel and Communication, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)

Strauss-Kahn's plot thickens with the identical charges of Mahmoud Abdel-Salam Omar

Gravity Breakthrough: Springing into a Gravitational Revolution

Could unbiased election opinion polls prove electoral fraud?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
8 people are discussing this page, with 47 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

My previous articles on OpEdNews: Expansion T... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Sunday, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:53:09 AM
I would like to thank you all for giving this som... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:00:31 PM
 could be attached to the Debt Ceiling.......... by Terry Smythe on Friday, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:39:46 PM
Terry, I realised after publication that the ti... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Friday, Jul 29, 2011 at 6:28:08 PM
In the first example given postulating springs bei... by Bob Stuart on Sunday, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:26:47 PM
Bob, according to Newton and Einstein, and consid... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:08:08 PM
Pulling force Spring:  It appears that you ar... by Philip Dennany on Sunday, Jul 24, 2011 at 7:42:51 PM
Philip (and David in your first argument), what ... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:10:56 PM
The hanging spring shown in the left-hand Figure 2... by David Chester on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:06:23 AM
and I don't claim to fully grasp what is being sai... by Daniel Geery on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:07:08 AM
David, regarding your second argument (see above ... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:15:54 PM
If you would like to consider this new perspectiv... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:21:41 PM
Einstein developed his Principle of Equivalence be... by Jim Arnold on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:06:30 PM
Jim, we are in agreement, as mentioned in the arti... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Tuesday, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:06:53 AM
Roland,You're right -- physicists will defend Equi... by Jim Arnold on Tuesday, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:21:02 PM
Massive flaw in your premise, actually.  You ... by Rob Hogue on Tuesday, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:01:23 PM
I can't defend the "theory of everything", but to ... by Jim Arnold on Tuesday, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:18:12 PM
Rob, the upward and downward opposing forces that ... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Tuesday, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:00:14 PM
To be fair, my point about the two opposing forces... by Rob Hogue on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:40:45 AM
"There is ONE force--gravity--pulling down.  ... by Jim Arnold on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:34:03 AM
Seeing as we are unfamiliar with the distinction b... by Rob Hogue on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:12:25 PM
"The hook is exherting no force.  The hook is... by Jim Arnold on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:48:34 PM
You wrote: "If no experiment can detect a force ac... by Rob Hogue on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:57:26 PM
The box isolates the contents from the perspective... by Jim Arnold on Thursday, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:20:37 AM
The box eliminates objective observation.  It... by Rob Hogue on Thursday, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:53:53 PM
"feeling of weightlessness is an illusion created ... by Jim Arnold on Friday, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:42:24 AM
Comes from YOUR statement earlier: "If no experime... by Rob Hogue on Friday, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:33:54 AM
Experiments are designed to eliminate unnecessary ... by Jim Arnold on Sunday, Jul 31, 2011 at 6:00:55 AM
I can agree here:"Experiments are designed to elim... by Rob Hogue on Sunday, Jul 31, 2011 at 8:45:18 PM
Rob, I feel Jim's last comment, my previous posts ... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:55:11 AM
I do seem to remember reading that OpEdNews wants ... by Rob Hogue on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:23:47 PM
Happy to move on from the hook issue, as you sugge... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:52:06 PM
Your assertion is now that the Earth is expanding ... by Rob Hogue on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:15:58 PM
I can see you have given this quite a bit of si... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Friday, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:44:38 AM
"OK, first I am happy to hear you have seen my poi... by Rob Hogue on Friday, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:47:40 AM
We definitely feel the expansion of the planet ben... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Friday, Jul 29, 2011 at 9:30:10 PM
Roland wrote: "Finally, I don't see how the substa... by Rob Hogue on Friday, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:04:59 PM
In order to help you concerning equal and opposit... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Tuesday, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:58:36 PM
Yes, your article discusses the point. Your artic... by Rob Hogue on Wednesday, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:32:38 PM
I believe you will find these points already addre... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Friday, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:34:46 AM
Your response to the objection is simply incorrect... by Rob Hogue on Friday, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:52:25 AM
You're both arguing pre-relativity. The author of ... by Jim Arnold on Friday, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:34:53 PM
Jim, first, I am surprised at your comment a... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Friday, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:33:02 PM
Your opening in your last post begins by affirmin... by Roland Michel Tremblay on Friday, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:35:48 PM
Somehow you got it into your head that the word "w... by Rob Hogue on Saturday, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:59:20 AM
James Brown must be rolling in his grave............. by Terry Smythe on Friday, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:34:20 PM
James Brown is prob'ly weightless, an' rollin' all... by Jim Arnold on Friday, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:47:40 PM