(This article is a collaboration between Benny Creemers, a proponent of Super Relativity and Jeff.  Please visit his web site to gain a different perspective on this subject and Mark Fiorentino site for a discussion of the principals of Super Relativity.)

Many modern physicists believe that only way to define the relativistic properties of inertial references is in terms of a curvature, displacement or four-dimensional space-time.

However, In the article "Reference frames" July-07-08 it was shown those properties could be explained and predicted more consistently in terms of a curvature or displacement of a three-dimensional volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. 

However, it is also possible to explain and predict the equivalence of gravitational and accelerated reference frames in terms of a displacement of a volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

In the article "Defining energy" Nov 26, 2007 it was shown gravitational energy could be defined in terms of a displacement in "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  While the energy of an accelerated reference frame could be defined in terms of an oppositely directed displacement with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension of a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold.

Additionally observations indicate the magnitude of the gravitational and kinetic energy of reference frames is directly related to its mass therefore the displacement with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension in a "surface" of a volume associated with a mass would be directly related to the mass of a particle or object.

However. because mass has volume its energy would be extended with respect to the "surface" of the volume it occupies.

This means the "energy surface" of a gravitational reference frame will have a "concave curvature" in the "surface" of the three-dimension space manifold with respect to the surrounding volumes which would be defined by the radius of a displacement with respect to a point on the axis of a fourth *spatial* dimension.  This curvature in the "energy surface" of a volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension generates a force on each "point" mass interacting with that "surface" causing it to accelerate towards its center.

This "force" is responsible for gravitational accelerations.

Earlier it was mentioned the energy associated with an accelerated reference frame could be defined in terms of an oppositely directed displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension than the one responsible for gravitational energy.

Therefore, the "energy surface" of a volume associated with an accelerated reference frame would have an opposite or "convex curvature" with respect to the one associated with gravitational energy.  This "convex curvature" in the "energy surface" of a volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would generate an oppositely directed force (from the one that defined gravitational energy earlier) on point masses that interact with that "energy surface". 

This defines the reason in terms of four *spatial* dimensions why planets orbit stars because it shows how and why the acceleration caused by their momentum counteracts the gravitational accelerations associated with mass.

The physical reason why we cannot devise an experiment to determine if an observer is in a gravitational or accelerated reference frame is that, as mention in the article "Reference frames" 01-07-08 we can only measure movement with respect to three *spatial* dimensions.  Therefore, because all accelerations are a result of movement of a three-dimensional volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension, to determine which type of accelerated reference frame someone was occupying we would have to devise an experiment that could distinguish the directional component of its movement with respect to that dimension.

However, as was shown in the article "Embedded Dimensions" Oct 22, 2007 this is not possible.  Therefore, we are unable to distinguish between gravitational and accelerated reference frames.

This defines an alternative explanation for Einstein’s Principal of Equivalence in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.

Later Jeff

The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions

Copyright 2008 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

8 Comments to “Principal of Equivalence: an alternative”

1. China man — 12/31/2008 @ 9:15 pm
   

   yo…

   Not sure that this is true) but thanks…

2. sonson — 01/01/2009 @ 3:10 am
   

   greatings…

   Thank you! I would now go on this blog every day!…

3. imobi — 01/01/2009 @ 9:59 pm
   

   hi…

   memorized…

4. AlexanderGreat — 01/04/2009 @ 4:21 pm
   

   hey…

   exellent…

5. Posicionamiento Paginas Web — 02/12/2009 @ 3:59 pm
   

   Good

6. ShedeefeWes — 04/06/2009 @ 8:33 am
   

   Nice…

7. CaMexoveabLob — 04/19/2009 @ 10:45 am
   

   Nice, no advice.

8. CaMexoveabLob — 04/20/2009 @ 12:23 pm
   

   wow, nice …

Write a comment

Name

E-mail (will not be shown)

Website