# unknown vector of a closed space

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

I'm going to sit down and read your whole proposition either tonight or tomorrow if all goes well.

For now: Einstein started with the equivalence of gravitation and inertia when he derived GR. The equivalence has (yet) to be proven, though it has passed many tests indirectly with the testing of GR. I don't know if experiements have ever been done on this directly. I would think so but I don't know. It's a bit like Einstein assuming that the speed of light is a constant in any inertial reference frame. It was an uncertain proposition so it too needed some confirmation. We still haven't really proven it but it is now accepted. No one in the professional Physics community really has any doubts about the constancy of the speed of light. The equivalence principle in GR falls under the same heading.

-Dan
OMG thank you

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

OMG thank you
I am tiding up and clarifying the text in light of the comment made. can you please hold off until I post the last version soon.

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

final version
images remain the same

#### Attachments

• 310.6 KB Views: 1

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
I have finished my second reading of your paper. It seems I'm missing something basic here. The red train will record that the photon (wavefront if you want waves) has a vertical track. Those outside of the red train will see it being at an angle because the red car is moving in their reference frame..

But Relativity says that we can't measure the constant speed of the car without any dependence on measurements made outside of the car. You've put a fair amount of effort into this (plus some good creativity) but I'm not seeing any refutation of SR in this result.

I'll go through it a few more times more carefully, but I just wanted to check in to see if you could tell me what I'm missing?

-Dan

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

I have finished my second reading of your paper. It seems I'm missing something basic here. The red train will record that the photon (wavefront if you want waves) has a vertical track. Those outside of the red train will see it being at an angle because the red car is moving in their reference frame..

But Relativity says that we can't measure the constant speed of the car without any dependence on measurements made outside of the car. You've put a fair amount of effort into this (plus some good creativity) but I'm not seeing any refutation of SR in this result.

I'll go through it a few more times more carefully, but I just wanted to check in to see if you could tell me what I'm missing?

-Dan
In using the term "car" you are referring to the closed space or the red train ?

It is irrelevant what ppl see, the only thing that matters is the time on the stop watches. The time on the red train stop watches. The black train stop watches and what Vk is when the red train stop watches achieve a minimum difference in time

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

Im not seeking to refute SR. Im seeking to measure Vu

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

they prepare the experiment
everyone is blind folded
they conduct the experiment
everyone takes their blind folds off and reads the stop watches

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

I agree a person at point B will see the red train moving at Vk and likewise someone on the red train will see the ppl at point B moving at Vk, but as optical illusions tell us you cannot trust your eyes

But the stop watches dont lie

Consider this

Say I have 2 of these closed spaces both identical. We have 3 ppl. 1 in closed space 1, 1 in closed space 2 and me standing outside the closed spaces.

Person 1 and person 2 fall asleep.

I then push closed space 1 in a norhterly direction at 100 kph constant velocity. Immediately after I push the other closed space south at 100 kph constant velocity.

I then call them on the phone and wake them up. They have no idea they are now moving.

At least one closed space must now be subject to a non zero unknown velocity vector as both closed spaces cannot have an unknown velocity vector of 0

Do you accept that at least 1 closed space is subject to an unknown velocity vector?

Last edited:

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

Now if 1 of those closed spaces is subject to an unknown velocity vector Vu and a strobe goes off at point A, inside that closed space at say T0.

Because the person inside the closed space does not know what Vu is they have no idea were point A is. But perhaps they could conduct 1000s of experiments to try and find it. anyway i digress

A strobe goes off at point A, inside that closed space at say T0.

At some later time, T1 say, will the strobe light itself be located at point A or at some other point ? say (t0 - t1) x Vu

Do you accept that given the above the strobe light itself will not be located at point A?

If it was located at point A that just means Vu = 0 which we have already ruled out as one of the closed spaces must be subject to a non zero Vu

I mean what other explanation is there ?

Last edited:

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

if by chance the closed space is for some reason subject to multiple unknown vectors thats fine Im sure all those in this group will agree the they will all simply resolve into a single unknown vector

Last edited: