*Editor’s Note: This article is a part of the series Understanding Natural Phenomena.*

Einstein’s special theory of relativity (cf. Part 10) was followed by his *general* theory of relativity (1907-1915), which addresses the issue of gravity. He showed that, contrary to Newton’s assumption, gravitational waves, which mediate gravitational attraction between any two bodies, travel at a *finite* speed, namely the speed of light. The theory explained gravitational interaction in terms of a DISTORTION OF SPACETIME by every object. The larger the mass of an object, the more is this distortion. When one object distorts spacetime, the effect is felt by every other object; this is how gravitational attraction between any two objects occurs.

Newton’s second law of motion says that the acceleration (*a*) produced by a force *F* acting on an object of mass *m* is equal to *F*/*m*; i.e., *F = ma*. The mass *m* that enters this equation is called the ‘inertial’ mass. To understand why, let us recall Newton’s first law of motion, which says that a body continues to be in a state of rest or uniform motion, unless acted upon by a force. Thus, the body exhibits inertia to any change of its state of rest or uniform motion; it resists a change in its state, and the resistance or inertia is proportional to its mass, the ‘inertial’ mass.

Next, let us consider Newton’s law of gravitation. Consider any two bodies or objects, having masses *m*_{1} and *m*_{2}, and a distance *r* apart. The law says that the gravitational force of attraction between them is *F = G*(*m*_{1}*m*_{2})/(*r*^{2}); here *G* is the ‘Gravitational constant’, a fundamental parameter of Nature in our universe. [Some other such fundamental parameters are the speed of light *c*, and the Planck constant, *h*.] The mass that enters the gravitation-law equation is ‘gravitational’ mass.

The big question was: Is inertial mass the same as gravitational mass? Newton (and also Galileo) asserted that it is so, and that it is a happy coincidence that it is so. Einstein agreed that the two kinds of mass are the same, but he created a trail-blazing theory of gravity out of this ‘happy coincidence’, namely the general theory of relativity. The sameness or equivalence of the two kinds of mass goes by the name of EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE, an essential ingredient of Einstein’s theory.

Einstein argued that the experience of being pulled downwards by the gravitational force on the surface of the Earth is equivalent to being inside a spaceship (far from any sources of gravity) that is being accelerated by its engines.

From this, Einstein deduced that free-fall is actually ‘inertial motion’ (i.e., constant-speed motion). An object in free-fall really does not accelerate, but rather the closer it gets to an object such as the Earth, the more the time scale becomes stretched due to spacetime distortion around the planetary object. As it approaches the planetary object the time scale stretches at an accelerated rate, giving the *appearance* that it is accelerating towards the planetary object. An accelerometer in free-fall does not register any acceleration.

When an observer detects the local presence of a force that acts on all objects in proportion to the inertial mass of the object, the observer can be taken to be experiencing an accelerated frame of reference. Imagine two reference frames, K and K’. K has a uniform gravitational field, whereas K’ has no gravitational field but is uniformly accelerated by such an amount that objects in the two frames experience identical forces:

‘We arrive at a very satisfactory interpretation of this law of experience, if we assume that the systems K and K’ are physically exactly equivalent; that is, if we assume that we may just as well regard the system K as being in a space free from gravitational fields, if we then regard K as uniformly accelerated. This assumption of exact physical equivalence makes it impossible for us to speak of the absolute acceleration of the system of reference, just as the usual (i.e. special) theory of relativity forbids us to talk of the absolute velocity of a system; and it makes the equal falling of all bodies in a gravitational field seem a matter of course’ (Einstein 1911).

Einstein went further than that:

‘As long as we restrict ourselves to purely mechanical processes in the realm where Newton’s mechanics holds sway, we are certain of the equivalence of the systems K and K’. But this view of ours will not have any deeper significance unless the systems K and K’ are equivalent with respect to all physical processes, that is, unless the laws of Nature with respect to K are in entire agreement with those with respect to K’. By assuming this to be so, we arrive at a principle which, if it is really true, has great heuristic importance. For by theoretical consideration of processes which take place relatively to a system of reference with uniform acceleration, we obtain information as to the career of processes in a homogeneous gravitational field’ (Einstein, 1911).

He combined the equivalence principle with special relativity theoryto predict, among other things, that clocks run at different rates in a gravitational field, and that light rays bend in a gravitational field (‘gravitational lensing effect’). This and many other predictions of the theory have been confirmed by experiment.

The central idea of Einstein’s theory is that the presence of matter distorts or curves spacetime. Thus gravity is interpreted as not a force, but rather a curvature in the fabric of spacetime, and objects respond to gravity by following (or free-falling along) the curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of an object. This idea has shaped modern cosmology. It also marked a major inroad of geometry into physics.

This video by Richard Feynman (on the character of physical law) is a treat to watch:

Free Fall

An elevator cabin is in free fall. On a plane, an observer is moving in a uniform linear motion horizontally. To him, the locus of the elevator is visible as a parabola.

On every atom of the former, inertial force is acting. On every atom of the latter, inertial force is not acting. Inertial force is not fictitious force. So, the two motions are not relative.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

Sorry, I cannot receive E-mail. I do not have PC.

Equivalence Principle

Let’s start from accelerated motion. Many substances (solids, fluids, etc) are moving in various accelerated motion. According to this motion, inertial force occurs. Imagine water of a current. Involvement between inertial force and gravity will be on resultant force only.《P.S.》Acceleration is not relative and inertial force is not fictitious. The two are corresponding qualitatively and quantitatively.

Sorry, I cannot receive E-mail. I do not have PC.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

Equivalence principle

Free fall of an elevator will be (one of the) problems of resultant force (composition of forces). All will be explicable as a problem of resultant force.

There are two pictures. In each picture, vector of two forces (f = f’) acting on a point are drawn. Direction of vectors is opposite (right and left). In one picture, forces are gravity and gravity. In the other picture, gravity and inertial force. Two pictures will not be the same (an infinite small area will be also).

Sorry, I cannot receive E-mail. I do not have PC.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

Gravitational acceleration

Who started to say gravitational acceleration ? Is it a technical term really ? It seems to be an adjective.

Is there a difference between an acceleration caused by an ordinal force ? If there is not a difference, a thing called gravitational acceleration will not exist.

Turn your eyes to accelerated motion and inertial force. It does not matter what gravity is.

Sorry,this comment is on STR.

Time dilation

A light source is shinning (frequency is constant). Two observers are receding from the light source at the same speed (in the opposite direction). Two observers receive the same frequency. Where is the time dilation ?

Below is new URL of my web site. Yahoo’s service ends on Mar 2019.

http://lifeafterdeath.vip/eng.html

. Rrrrrrrr

An elevator in free fall

In it, action and reaction are working. The two are equal as a whole and at the selected infinite small area. By the way, in an elevator accelerated horizontally, the two (horizontal) are equal at every area.

Sorry, I cannot receive email. I don’t have pc.

TEŞEKKÜRLER

Equivalence principle

Every inertial force is measurable. Every gravitational force is measurable also. Principally. In an elevator in free fall, there is no exception. the

An elevator in free fall

Are the two indistinguishable? Vector of the two are opposite.

Bremsstrahlung

A website says, “A charged particle is decelerated. And energy of motion is emitted as electro magnetic waves”. But, difference between deceleration and acceleration seen from inertial frames will be relative. Or, phenomenon bremsstrahlung depends on the absolute rest frame?

Inertial force

From the roof of an accelerating passenger car, two bodies the same in appearance are hung. Mass is m and 2m. Inertial force is not fictitious.

Inertial force

From the roof of an accelerating passenger car, two bodies of the same appearance are hung by strings.

Mass is m and 2m. Inertial force is not fictitious.

Free fall

There are inumerable vectors of inertial forces and gravity everywhere. On an elevator cabin, why they are making a big fuss ?

Difference of motion

Difference of inertial motion and accelerated motion will be difference of motion relative to aether frame. And accelerated motion and inertial force are the front and back of a fact. Inertial force is not fictitious.

Fall of non free

Imagine an elevators are falling in various density of air. Hydrodynamics tell motions of these elevators. Equivalence principle isinvalid.

New equivalence principle ?

A passenger car is accelerating (at a, to the right). A body is hung from the roof by a string. Can the string distinguish mg caused by acceleration and by gravity ? No, it is a joke. But a picture of an elevator cabin seems to be a joke also.

Sorry, i can not receive e mail. I do not have PC.

Equivalence principle

Two forces the same strength are acting on a particle from the opposite. The two are inertial force, tension and gravity. Different combinations are three. Forget the equivalence principle.

Inertial force

On a slope (no friction), a body is sliding down. Action is gravity mg. Then, how about the reaction ? It is resolved to two vectors. Inertial force is not fictitious.

Equivalence principle is nonsense (I say again)

An elevator in free fall is explained fully by Newton. No different explanation is possible. And it is the same even if limited to an infinite small area.

Inertial force is not fictitious

On a plane, there are two bodies. One is at a standstill, the other is accelerating. Acceleration (a) and inertial force (ma) both are not fictitious.

There are two disks. One is not rotating, the other is rotating. Acceleration and inertial force both are not fictitious.

Acceleration

From nothing, “a” seems not to emerge. By acceleration of body relative to aether, “ma” will emerge. Qualitatively and quantitatively.

Acceleration (I say again)

On a plane, a straight line is drawn. On this line, two bodies are receding. One is at a standstill, the other is accelerating uniformly. In space, there seems to exist uniform isotropic rest frame that distinguishes the acceleration qualitatively and quantitatively.

Space is rest frame

Into space, let us draw plural vectors of acceleration a. Space will be rest frame absolute.

Eruptions

Are there still berievers of relativity ? Eruptions. It is not a thing of this world.