B The Mini Rocket Experiment: A Test of Einstein's Equivalence Principle?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a proposed experiment to test Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EP) using a mini rocket inside a box, questioning whether the rocket would require more fuel in a gravitational field compared to a zero-gravity environment. Participants emphasize that the motion of the rocket relative to the box would be the same in both scenarios, as the observer inside the box would perceive the rocket's acceleration identically regardless of the presence of gravity. The importance of specifying conditions clearly is highlighted, as differences in reference frames can lead to confusion. The conversation also touches on the implications of constant speed versus acceleration and the relevance of external references like Earth. Ultimately, the experiment's design must consider these factors to accurately assess the validity of the Equivalence Principle.
  • #51
PeterDonis said:
you appear to lack an extremely basic understanding of how rockets work.
Even if you could be right, you shouldn't say this, or at least you shouldn't say "extremely". I could also say you have an extremely lack of understanding others.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
only1god said:
Even if you could be right, you shouldn't say this, or at least you shouldn't say "extremely". I could also say you have an extremely lack of understanding others.
So here is where thing stand. You described a proposed experiment and predicted result. This is fine. You have been told that your predictions are flat out wrong, and the reasons for this have been provided logically by @Nugatory amd @Bandersnatch and @PeterDonis, and with high school math by @Dale. You have not engaged with this with any attempt to understand, and I suspect without any intellectual honesty. This is not ok at all. Why are you here?

FYI, we have had some discussions here of really subtle issues with the various equivalence principles. I was looking forward to something along these lines. In contrast yours is really so obviously wrong that any good student graduating high school physics would easily understand what’s wrong with it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, berkeman, Doc Al and 3 others
  • #53
With that, I think it is time to close this thread. As @PAllen mentioned, the idea has been clearly explained multiple times by multiple people. So there is not much more to say that is constructive.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71