In previous Essays published through "Monografías.Com" (link
http://bit.ly/2fuq5aaÂ )Â we spoke of the "special relativity" which, based on "mental experiments" and giving as justification the pretext that: "if you were to travel at the speed of light" ... is intended to validate a utopia.Â It leads to accepting the fallacy of "time dilation."Â In this Essay we will speak of an extension of this Theory, which in the books of the physicist Einstein was called "General".
We will present our doubts regarding the validity of what is called the "Principle of Equivalence" and considered it as a starting hypothesis to justify its extension to the "General Theory".Â But in the justification of the extension of his Theory he used a "mental experiment" in which the speed of light does NOT intervene ... and this is what allows us, using common sense and leaning on logic, to refute the validity of said Principle of Equivalence.
The reader not initiated in the subject of the Theory of Relativity is likely to ask: what did A. Einstein intend to affirm with this theory ?.Â Through the statements written in some of his books, we will try to deduce an explanation to this question.
From the book of A. Einstein: "On the theory of special and general relativity" (Ediciones Altaya.Página 18) and also in the bookÂ byÂ the same author: "The meaning of relativity (Page 38), announce theÂ first principle Of relativity.Â He says:
"If a (SRM) moves relative to a (SRF) then natural phenomena pass with respect to (SRM) according to the same general laws as with respect to (SRF)."
(Note:Â We recall that (SRM) means a Movable Reference System that moves in relation to a Fixed Reference System (SRF) with a fixed and straight speed
For more theoretical information can consult in the book of the same author, titled: "Theory of relativity.Â A false theory "Â Link:Â http://amzn.to/2dlQNgTÂ )
We interpret that a certain physical phenomenon that occurs in the environment of a certain body located in a place of the outer space, has an exact replica inside other bodies that travel in the sidereal space with constant and constant velocity with respect to that body that we have taken as reference.
Physical phenomena are produced and quantified in (SRM) using the same variables required by the (SRF). We can say that the physical laws by which they are governed are the same
The above NOTE may have helped us to know the meaning of SRFs and SRMs but we lack to consider some considerations that are not expressed in the text that we have transcribed regarding the First Principle of Relativity.
For theÂ "compliance with the general laws"Â mentioned in the aforementioned principle, it is clearly necessary that may occur corresponding physical phenomena.Â And in these physical phenomena will be involved the physical magnitudes: MASS and GRAVITY.
That is, the MASS and an ATTRACTION force that causes the physical phenomenon that is governed by the aforementioned "general laws" to develop or "function".
Â Â Figure 1Â
The Figure aims to expose the main points we have just discussed. In outer space, we present in it two BODIES (Later we will see that in a transcription of A. Einstein calls them "cajones").One of these bodies acts as the (SRF) and the other is the (SRM) that is shifted relative to the (SRF) with a straight and constant velocity (v).Â The different images that are represented to the right of the (SRF) are the same (SRM) in their different positions due to their displacement.
Within the (SRF) there is a pendulum with its axis of oscillation attached to the wall of said body. If in the vicinity of the pendulum there is a gravitational mass such as the planet Earth or other celestial body, the pendulum could oscillate.
(NOTE: We do not go into describing the physical and mathematical considerations that must be taken into account for the initiation and occurrence of oscillations.The reader should consider only the possibility that this approach is viable).
In the (SRF) when placing the "ball" in a certain initial position the oscillation will occur when the potential energy is exchanged in kinetic energy and vice versa (It is evident that we are not discarding the frictional forces)
Figure 1 is intended to indicate that the same physical phenomenon.Â The swing of the pendulum, which occurs in the (SRF) can occur in an (SRM) related to this (SRF).
We can mention, just as a reminder, besides the law that governs the oscillations of a pendulum; The parabolic shot;Â The laws governing the dynamics of fluids;Â The fall of a body by an inclined plane, with its corresponding considerations of the coefficients of friction ... ext.Â Note that in these examples the physical quantity to be considered is the MASS.Â Electromagnetic waves do not intervene at all. Is another physical phenomenon to take into account.
Knowing the concepts of relative movements and which is understood by Inertial Reference Systems , we are able to understand the answer uito the question: what do we consider that A. Einstein intended to justify in his theory of relativity?
With the statement of the First Principle of Relativity we want to think that the said Physicist realized that its application was very restricted.Â It was vetoed to:
1.- To other types of movement that were not at constant speed
2.- To the application of electromagnetic and optical phenomena
In the present study weÂ areÂ devoted to analyzing the first point, seeking information regarding their interest in universalizing saidÂ first Principle of Relativity.
We will now comment on another Principle.Â TheÂ equivalenceÂ principle.Â We can advance that with this Principle A. Einstein tried to include in the fulfillment of his theory, the NO inertial movements of the mobiles.Â That is, it also included the relative movements of bodies moving with accelerated movements.
We transcribe below from page 57 of A. Einstein's book "On the theory of special and general relativity" (Ediciones Altaya SA).Â the next:
"... The validity of the principle of relativity was only assumed for these reference bodies, not for others (animated by other movements).Â In this sense we speak of the principle of special relativity or the theory of special relativity.
In contrast to the above, we will understand the following statement as "general relativity principle": all reference bodies K, K ', etc., whatever their state of motion, are equivalent to the description of nature ( Formulation of general natural laws).Â Let us hasten to point out, however, that this formulation needs to be replaced by a more abstract one, for reasons that will come to light later ... "
Through the above transcript, we have respondedÂ To the question: what did A. Einstein intend to demonstrate in this second part of his theory?
Next we must answer the question: How did he intend to demonstrate the
Existence of the Principle of Equivalence ?.
To demonstrate the alleged existence of the "Principle of Equivalence" he used a mental experiment, which we call the "mental experiment of the elevator."
In previous Essays, edited by "Monographs.Com."Â We saw that a false interpretation in the observation of a certain "mental experiment", not correctly interpreting the mathematical function performed by the Lorentz Factor, led us to accept a fallacy and to dream of utopias.Â In this essay we present another "mental experiment", trying to clarify some doubts that are presented in the validity of its approach and, as a consequence, in the validity of its conclusions.
In the book of A. Einstein, "On the theory of special and general relativity" (ALTAYA Editions) in paragraph 20, title: "Equality between inertial mass and gravitational mass as an argument of the postulate of GENERAL RELATIVITY" , Pages 61 and 62, we transcribe the following:
"Let us imagine a large piece of empty space, so far removed from stars and great masses that we can say with sufficient certainty that we are before the case foreseen in the fundamental law of Galileo.Â For this part of the universe it is then possibleÂ toÂ choose a reference body of Galileo for which points at rest remain at rest and moving points constantly remain in a uniform and rectilinear movement .. As scanbody we imagine a largeÂ drawerÂ With the shape of a room, and we suppose that there is an observer equipped with devices for him, naturally there is no gravity.Â It has to be fastened with ropes to the floor, under penalty of being thrown to the ceiling to the minimum blow against the ground
Suppose in the center of the roof of the drawer, on the outside, there is a hook with a rope, and that a being, of which we are indifferent, begins to pull it with constant force.Â Drawer,Â along with the observer begins to fly "up" withÂ aÂ uniformly accelerated motion.Â Its speedÂ willÂ acquire over time ... always great heights to judge all from another reference body which will not pull aÂ rope.
But the man who is in the drawer how does the process judge?Â The floor of the drawer transmits acceleration pressure on theÂ feet.Â Therefore, you have to counteract this pressure with the help of your legs if you do not want to measure the ground with your body.Â So, you will be standing in the drawer just like a person is in any room of a land dwelling.Â If you release a body you previously held in your hand, the acceleration of the drawer will stop acting on it, so it will approach the ground in accelerated relative motion.Â The observerÂ is also convinced that the acceleration of the body relative toÂ theÂ ground is always equally large regardless of the body performing theÂ experiment.
On the basis of his knowledge of the gravitational field, as we have discussed in the last section, man will come to the conclusion that he is, together with the box, within a fairly constant gravitational field.Â For a moment you will be surprised, however, that the drawer does not fall into this gravitational field, but then discovers the hook in the center of the ceiling and the tight rope attached to it and correctly infer that the drawer hangs at rest in that field.
Is it lawful to laugh at man and say that his conception is a mistake?Â I think that, if we want to be conscious, we can not do it, but we must admit that its explanation does not attack reason or against known mechanical laws.Â Even if the drawer is accelerated with respect to the space of Galileo considered in the first place, it is possible to contemplate it like immobile.Â So we have good reasons to extend the principle of relativity to bodies of reference that are accelerated with respect to others, thus having gained a powerful argument in favor of a postulate of generalized relativity.
Take note of the possibility of this interpretation rests on the fundamental property ownedÂ byÂ the gravitational field of communicating to all bodies the sameÂ acceleration,Â or what comes to the same thing, on the premise of equality between inertial mass and mass GravitationalÂ
"...Â SoÂ we have good reason to extend the principle of relativity reference bodies are accelerated relative toÂ eachÂ other,Â having thus gained a powerful argumentÂ forÂ a generalized postulate of relativity"
(Note: This mental experiment is also set out in Einstein's and Leopold Infeld's book "The Evolution of Physics" (Pages 175 and 176).
For a better interpretation of what we have transcribed above, we draw below some guiding figures of what they intend to expose the mentioned books.
Once we have interpreted these statements graphically we will see that the conclusions that lead us are incorrect.Â The mental experiment of the elevator is NOT EQUIPMENTABLE to a REAL EXPERIMENT raised on a basis that is it that attracts to the bodies, as it can be, for example, the Earth or any other body of the sidereal space.
We can not come to conclusions based only on SENSATIONS of the ideal traveler that is inside the "box".Â We must argue using objective criteria.
The following figures represent the action described in the next part of the above transcript;
"... If you release a body that you used to hold in your hand, the acceleration of the drawer will stop acting on it, so that it will approach the ground in a relative accelerated movement ...".
These figures are intended to represent the EQUIVALENCE argument of a physical phenomenon occurring within two "boxes" (A) and (B) considered in two different situations.
In the situation (AA') the "box" is on the ground.Â The masses held by the person inside (Figure A), are subject to the force of attraction of gravity.Â If this person loose these massesÂ will fallÂ on the floor of the box, as shown in Figure (A')
In the situation (BB') the "box" is floating in the sidereal space and by a rope tied in the ceiling, is pulled up by a force that prints a certain acceleration.Â If the traveler is inside the "box" holding loose masses, these massesÂ will touchÂ the elevator floor (Figure B')
The result of the "release mass" event is the same for the two different interpretations of the force acting on the elevator: force of attraction or gravitational field (g), lift (AA') or force of contact, traction Or also called inertial force (F), elevator (B-B ').
The idea intended to communicate these four images is that when the person releases the MASS these fall on the floor of the elevator due;Â In the case (A-A '), to the force of attraction of gravity (g), and in the case (B-B') due to a constant tensile force (F) Acceleration (a)
The result is manifested in both figures, ie that in both cases the masses will stop the elevator floor, which isÂ erroneouslyÂ interpreted as anÂ equivalenceÂ of the two types of force that have acted.According to this interpretation, this allows to assimilate the two types of causes: inertial force and gravitational force with the same effect.Â And we arrive at the false conclusion that, in the BODIES that move with a certain acceleration, to calculate the answer of the formulas in which its MASA intervenes, we could apply them the same formulas that would apply if it acted a gravitational force.Â Conclusion we do not agree
Observe the reader that in the case (AA) have underlined the wordÂ "fall"Â and in the case (BB') have underlined the wordÂ "touch"Â to highlight the actions and results of an attracting force and a force contact.
We will expose two types of errors that, in our opinion, are committed by accepting the mental experiment of the "elevator" as valid to justify the Principle of Equivalence.Â These two types will identify them as follows:
1.- Contradiction with the "First Principle of Relativity"
2.- The fallacy in the thesis of the "Principle of Equivalence"
We then go on to expose these two types of error.
6.1.- CONTRADICTION WITH THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
In the present paragraph we will expose the invalidity of part of the assertion that we had previously transcribed: in which we wrote:
"Â .So we have good reasons to extend the principle of relativity to bodies of reference that are accelerated with respect to others, thus having gained a powerful argument in favor of a postulate of generalized relativity ",
Â To do this we will use a real experiment, such as observing what happens with the swing of a pendulum.Â In explaining Figure 1 we commented on the constancy of the law of the pendulum when the "box" moved with constant and constant velocity.Â
We will now consider the situation where this does not happen.
The following figure serves to observe what happens in the case where the "drawer" moves with accelerated speed.
This image is equivalent to what happens in the "lift" thrown by a rope that prints a pulling force that undergoes a constant acceleration.Â This is represented by the fact that, at equal intervals each time, the space traveled is larger.
The first "drawer" on the right side of the drawing, we must assume that it represents the Fixed Reference System (SRF).Â The one that does NOT move.Â In it has been represented a pendulum that is realizing its characteristic oscillations.Â That is to say
complies with its corresponding law.Â This is not the case when it comes to a "drawer" that moves at a speed with constant acceleration.Â In the first pull of the rope the mass (ball) of the pendulum, will move to the left wall of the "drawer" and there, due to the inertia it retains, this mass throughout the path, will remain stuck to the said wall.Â That is, it will no longer comply with the pendulum law we discussed in Figure 1.
We can observe that what we just mentioned happened for the drawer identified (SRM) or not the line that represents the Gravitational Mass that we had painted in Figure 1. (If there was the action of the Gravitational Mass this would have a constant value while That the tensile force is increasing)
Â These figures are intended to demonstrate that the responses given by the two types of force are NOT EQUIVALENT.Â They are not equivalent thereÂ isÂ noÂ strength to give the equivalent result which gives aÂ gravitationalÂ force.
With an accelerated movement it is impossible for the phenomenon corresponding to the oscillatory movement of the pendulum to occur.Â NOT MET THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
In the previous paragraphs we have demonstrated the invalidity of the "Principle of Equivalence" using the application of the laws of physics.Â We will now reason the invalidity of such Principle using the resources of LOGICA.Â We will see that wanting to support the validity of his thesis by mentioning an inherent and contrasted property of MATTER, incurs a fallacy classified as of the type:Â Argumentum ad hominen
Â Â Â To justify our assertion, we have helped with the book "Introduction to Logic" by Irving M. Copi.Your comments will be highlighted in italics.
This author, referring to the definition of fallacy (Page 81), reads as follows:
"... In the study of logic it is customary to reserve the name " fallacy " for those reasonings which, although incorrect, are psychologically persuasive ..."
We could not find a better definition that would already fit in with the thesis that we are talking about.
The author continues:
"... We therefore define" fallacy "as a form of reasoning that seems correct, but turns out not to be when it is carefully analyzed ..."
The "fallacies" divide them into two groups.Â Formal and non formal.
Non formal "fallacies" say that:
"... are errors of reasoning in which we may fall by inadvertence or lack of attention to the subject, or because we are misled by some ambiguity in the language used to formulate it ..."
This text already has to put us in alert in the detection of some type of "fallacy" when reading the mentioned Thesis.
Follow his explanation (Page 82) saying:
"... we can divide the " fallacies " nonÂ Â formal in fallacies ofÂ atinenciaÂ and fallacies ofÂ ambiguityÂ ..."
In this analysisÂ weÂ consider the fallaciesÂ of atinencia.Â In that book, (page 408), it clarifies the following:
"... A property or circumstanceÂ atinenciaÂ over another, for the purpose of analogical reasoning, if the first affects the second, that is, ifÂ itÂ has aÂ causalÂ or determinantÂ effectÂ on this ..."
It is said on page 82
"... The common feature of all the arguments that commit fallacies of atinencia is that their premises areÂ illogical atinenciaÂ regarding its findings and thus are unable to establish their truth ..."
The author we are commenting on, cites the existence of different types of fallacy of intent, some of which have received Latin names.
Between one cites the fallacyÂ ad hominem Argumentum,Â which explains how:
"... that corresponds to the relationship between a person's beliefs and the circumstances surrounding them ..."
To explain what this type of fallacy refers to, comment the following example:
"... In a discussion between two persons, one of them may ignore the question of the truth or falsity of his own statements and try to prove, instead, that his antagonist must accept them because of special circumstances in which this can be
found.Â Thus, for example, if one of the disputants is a priest, the other may argue that he must accept a certain assertion because his denial is incompatible with the Scriptures.Â This is not to prove its truth, but to urge its acceptance by that particular individual because of the special circumstances in which, in this case, his religious affiliation ... "
We have chosen this type of fallacy to comment, considering that it fits the fallacy corresponding to the Thesis that we have commented.
In the aforementioned thesis we will see that there is a CONTRADICTION (difference of opinions between two antagonists) and one of them resorted to a fallacy of logical intent to try to prevail their ideas.
We retranscribe fragments of the aforementioned thesis:
"... Let us suppose that in the center of the roof of the drawer, on the outside, there is a hook with a rope, and that a being -whose nature is indifferent- begins to pull it with constant force.Â Drawer,Â along with the observer begins to fly "up" with uniformly accelerated motion ... ".
"... But the man who is in the drawer, how does he judge the process?Â The floor of the drawer transmits acceleration pressure on theÂ feet.Â Therefore, you have to counteract this pressure with the help of your legs if you do not want to measure the ground with your body.Â So, you will be standing in the drawer just like a person is in any room of a land dwelling.Â If you release a body you previously held in your hand, the acceleration of the drawer will stop acting on it, so it will approach the ground in accelerated relative motion.Â The observer will be convinced ... "
Here, in these pieces of writing, the author seems to ignore that there is an inherent property to the MASS.Â His argument is based on the tensile force (FÂ t)Â exerted by the elevator floor, transmitted through the rope.Â It is as if the force of attraction (gravity) is NOT an inherent property of the MASS, since the contact with the floor of the elevator makes it depend on a tensile force.
And this is where the discussion begins.
US,Â advocates of the inherent property of mass, gravity, we make the following question:
Are the masses "falling" on the floor of the elevator, or is the elevator floor
That "goes up" to find the Masses? ...
It seems logical to ask this question since the author of the Thesis places the "elevator" in outer space where the only references to consider is the SITUATION that occupies at any moment the floor of the elevator, which is the one that receives the force of traction.
OurÂ opponent,Â to defend his thesis commits a logical fallacy atinencia.Â In order to validate his thesis, an appeal is made to our scientific beliefs.Â It mentions the physical phenomenon of the free fall of bodies.Â (Recall that in the case of the example discussed above, an appeal was made to religious beliefs.) This appeal is found in the following passage:
"... Take note of the possibility of this interpretation rests on the fundamental property ownedÂ byÂ the gravitational field of communicating to all bodies the sameÂ acceleration,Â or what comes to the same thing in the postulate of equality mass inertial And gravitational mass ... "
We believe that what we have already said will have made clear the opinion of the aforementioned thesis.Â Just as a summary or curiosity, we ask ourselves: on what side do we place the author of the Thesis? ... On the side of an observer who realizes, albeit late, that he has omitted to consider an inherent property of MATTER, Force of the GRAVITY, or on the side of the person inside the elevator.
Whatever the division of roles of the two partners involved, so if we see is that there isÂ aÂ fallacy:Â Argumentum ad hominemÂ and one of the opponents, which does not seemÂ toÂ be very clearÂ aboutÂ the principles that defends, go to To rely on the existence of physical laws.
We re-transcribe what we have already written of the author: Irving M. Copi:
"... The common feature of all the arguments that commit fallacies of atinencia is that their premises areÂ illogical atinenciaÂ regarding its findings and thus are unable to establish their truth ..."
(NOTE;Â ". Relativity theory False" in the bookÂ byÂ the same author of this test, entitled (http://amzn.to/2dlQNgTÂ mathematical physical process by which said equality is shown in the described Fall of the masses)
To conclude this Essay we add the following.Â To consider that a genius who could intuit the deflection of light, which has been demonstrated for years, and gravitational waves, which has recently been proven, does not justify that in other ways all his theses were correct.Â If by excellent results obtained in the predictions of certain physics subjects and others that give it an indisputable prestige, let us deny as valid all its Principles and approaches, we would be committing a fallacy "Argumentum ad hominen"
Enrique Martinez Viladesau