# The Results Unseating Einstein' Equivalence Principle

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by cosmodel, Jun 20, 2006.

1. ### cosmodelRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Based on the Schwarzschild solution of general relativity, the acceleration of freely-falling bodies in the gravitational field due to single isolated mass is studied. For simplicity, I consider radially freely-falling bodies. At each spatial position, the acceleration depends linearly on the body's energy of unit mass, and low energy bodies accelerate toward the central mass (suffer attracting forces) while high energy bodies decelerate (suffer repulsive forces, contrary to people's imagination). Photons have the maximum speeds and, therefore, suffer repulsive forces. This result is verified by the standard radar-echo-delay experiments. Einstein's equivalence principle is that, over any small region of space and time, all test particles would have approximately the same acceleration. The local observational frame which shares the same acceleration would see each particle being either static or moving straightly with constant speed and we would see the cancellation of gravity by choosing coordinate frames locally. This resembles the way that any local area of curved surface is flat.
The above result unseats Einstein's equivalence principle because locally we can not choose one observational frame which accelerates and decelerates simultaneously. The above-said resemblance further led Einstein to the assumption of curved spacetime which is, therefore, a big mistake.
DEAR freinds, This time I can not help you connect to my academic paper because it is rejected by arXiv.org. If you have a server and help me post the paper, I would be very happy. Yours.

Messages:
10,167
cite?

5. ### DaleSpamTANSTAAFLRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,723
Hi cosmodel,

As I am sure you know, arXiv.org is not peer-reviewed: their endorsement requirement is a much lower bar than peer-review. If your manuscript doesn't even pass that bar then it really needs a lot of work.

-Dale

7. ### cosmodelRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Hi DaleSpam,
Do you think the academic background of Reviewers are sound? Don't you think they might be SINFUL?

8. ### DaleSpamTANSTAAFLRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,723
Two quick comments and a suggested server.
One of the reasons that the endorsement model is a much lower bar than traditional peer-review is that YOU can select the endorser (while reviewers are selected by the editor). If YOU think that the academic background of someone is insufficient then YOU should pick someone else to endorse your manuscript.

If you use religious language like this in your manuscript then you should expect it to be rejected.

-Dale

PS I suggest you submit your paper here. I am sure they will host it as it is probably more appropriate for their server.

9. ### cosmodelRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Hi Dale

I did not use religious words in my papers. But in reality
there ARE the respectable people suffering a lot:
http://www.ptep-online.com/

10. ### Magic ChickenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
81
Hehe.. no sh*t.

11. ### shmoeRegistred UserRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
524
Reviewers are extremely sinful. I saw one covet another faculty members chalk. shameless.

12. ### DaleSpamTANSTAAFLRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,723
They are suffering? :bugeye: How? Are wacky theories evidence of malnutrition or trauma?

-Dale

13. ### cosmodelRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
You think the abstract of my paper shown above is a kiding? a joke? a fun-making?

I can claim to the world just by the single paper:
that, AT LEAST, Einstein's equivalence principle is a big mistake!!!
Which indicates He the god did not understand differential geometry at ALL!!

14. ### DaleSpamTANSTAAFLRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,723
No. Jokes are usually funny.

-Dale

15. ### Magic ChickenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
81
You can also claim you are Napoleon Bonaparte if you wish.

16. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
No he can't! I'm Napoleon!

17. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
You look more like Josephine.

18. ### cosmodelRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
All journals rejected my paper without review proccess. Yours idea? The Editors report:
PhysicalReviewD----->Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:41:37 UT
I am writing in reference to your manuscript Freely falling motion
based on Schwarzschild solution'' (DT10250).

In general, Physical Review D does not publish theoretical
speculations if they do not have substantial motivation. Speculative
papers must justify their publication by including a clear discussion
of the reasons for introducing new concepts. Papers that propose
alternatives to well-established theories must include a clear and
persuasive discussion of why the accepted theory is incorrect. In
such cases the alternative theory must be formulated at a level of
detail and precision comparable to that of the accepted theory. In
addition, there must be a detailed quantitative demonstration that the
proposed new formulation can account for all the experimental data
explained by the accepted theory.

satisfy all of these requirements. I regret to inform you that it is
therefore not suitable for publication in Physical Review D.

Astrophysical Journal ----->Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:29:15 -0400
for an immediate response. We cannot publish your paper because
its topic is not appropriate. The ApJ specializes in papers on
astronomical observations and theories. This coverage does not
gravitational physics. I suggest that instead you submit to a journal
that specializes in publishing papers on gravitation, relativity, or
related topics.

NaturePhysics ---->Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 23:41:45 UT
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "The Results Unseating Einstein`s Equivalence Principle". However, we regret that we are unable to offer to publish it in Nature Physics.

Because we receive many more papers than we can publish, we must decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about the equivalence principle, I regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in understanding that would warrant publication in Nature Physics.

I am sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion.

Yours sincerely

arXiv.org ----->
Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:01:51 -0400
Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators,
who determined it inappropriate for the math-ph archive.

Do NOT under any circumstances resubmit to the original arXiv before
first explaining the reason to moderation@arxiv.org AND receiving
a positive response.

Please direct all questions and concerns regarding moderation to the
Paper: astro-ph/0606395
From: Jin He <mathnob@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:23:22 GMT (8kb)

19. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Hahaha, so that's what it feels like to be a moron?

- Warren

20. ### cosmodelRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Fortunately, my new result was posted as Appendix at
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213
Every one can read the Appendix. It is very eazy to understand. The requirement is that you know the famous Galilei leaning tower experiment!!

21. ### cosmodelRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
http://www.geocities.com/theometria/Kerr.pdf

I am considering to change my life.
Before the change, I just post a question to the web.
If anyone can resolve the qusetion and say that the assumption of curved spacetime is correct then I pay you \$10,000 and will not make the change.
The qusetion is:

On a curved space, the sum of all angles of a triangle is not \pi, either greater or less than \pi. Two famous general relativity tests are about angles. You can check whatever textbook and see that they calculate angle by directly using the coordinate \phi. They indirectly assume the domain length of \phi is 2\pi. Therfore, the sum of all angles of a triangle is \pi. That is, they assume flat space!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any real mathematician can tell you that all coordinate systems on a curved space are curvilinear. All coordinates are merely parameters. Real angle and distance have to be calculated by employing the coefficients of the space metric. I TELL YOU that only when the space is flat will the metric reduces to the Pethagoras theorem. That is, only when the space is flat will the coordinates have direct meaning of spacous distances and angles.

If you agree with me then you have to say that Einstein did not understand geometry and all his faithful followers are merely cheating tax payers' money.

Life Changer's possibly the final post on sciforums. 30th of July 2006

22. ### catoless hate, more scienceRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,959
nobody will ever take you seriously if you refer to your work on geocities.com.

23. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
so post you paper here. Either publish it as a new thread, or reference it as a link.
Geistkiesel