Recent content by Dale

That depends. If the force is proportional to the mass, ##F_2 = g m_2##, and if ##F_1=g m_1 + …## then you have a good accelerometer design. Otherwise your accelerometer design is poor and doesn’t function as an accelerometer should. Yes.

I haven’t studied such theories, so I am not able to answer this. I am sure there is some scientific literature on the topic, but I don’t know it.

Yes, that is what I mean. I will point out that we are having this conversation in the Special and General Relativity subforum, so relativity is clearly assumed. However, this point of view is valid in any theory which uses a manifold for spacetime. All extant physics can be cast in that...

Why not? It just means that you have to redesign your accelerometer. In any case, it doesn’t change the fact that the gravitational force is relative to a specified reference frame (like fictitious forces) and real forces are not.

The electromagnetic force on an otherwise isolated charge can be measured with an accelerometer. This measurement is frame-independent. Which is one reason that the Coulomb force is not actually a force, but just a component of a force. The actual force is the Lorentz force.

That is reasonable. However, any quantity that is inferred from motion is relative to the reference frame that defines the motion. Its value can be changed at a whim by changing the reference frame, before or after the experiment. For such quantities it is required to explicitly state the frame...

That doesn’t measure the gravitational force, even in Newtonian physics. In the ISS the Newtonian gravitational force is almost the same as it is on the ground, but a weighing scale reads 0. In Newtonian theory there is no way to measure the gravitational force. All you can do is infer it from...

Where did Einstein say this? Since many things were measured prior to the development of the corresponding theory, that seems like a pretty difficult claim to justify. Even if Einstein did say it. How?

Yes. But in GR you should add the word “local”. Locally gravity disappears because in a local inertial frame the inertial force disappears.

This requires the same clarification I mentioned above. How are you detecting the possible electromagnetic wave? IE are you using an antenna that is free falling past the charge or one that is co-accelerating with the charge?

Kind of going back to the original question. To understand why gravity is considered a fictitious force ( I prefer the term inertial force ) it helps to look at the properties of fictitious forces. Fictitious forces 1) are proportional to the mass 2) depend on the reference frame 3) cannot be...

That is a ridiculous assertion, so I have plenty of doubt about it. What standard are you using to determine a “major” new development? What is the theory by which duration between major developments is predicted? How does the box/cubicle factor in to that supposed theory? And if the theory is...

@Adnorf45, and many of the other people in this thread, are completely misunderstanding the point of the article. The article does not say that we should "discard thinking outside of the box". It just says that researchers must understand what is already in the box before they can hope to have...

I think this is all covered in the generic term “collapse”, with maybe step (5) excluded.

Experimentally, rotating disks break apart when their tangential velocity is on the order of the speed of sound in the material. Even the speed of sound in diamond is not relativistic, let alone close to c.