Line 18a3q Equivalence Principle G- Force Relativity Miles Mathis Theories WOW SETI

Line 18a3q Equivalence Principle G- Force Relativity Miles Mathis Theories WOW SETI

part 120 of 100 videos there are more videos after this one i’ll post all then update the #.
Math Equation Wow Seti 1977 radio signal alien

14/

3/4/4/1/1/1/1/11=0.017
14/0.017=823.5294

Feb 9 2012 714 pm est

My Thoughts

Now that i know we need 2g of force according to one of the comments to sustain the right
Speeds for a rotating UFO Engine Space Ship. I’ll be looking for people’s theories that mention velocity and G Force during the next google searches.

I happened to come across Miles Mathis blog.

He talks about physics people not listening to anyone’s theories unless they are “educated.”

Maybe that’s why it’s taken us over 200 years to do the “theories” written by men in the 17th Century…

It’s time to look outside of the box.

The Universe gives messages to those who listen.

It doesn’t care if your educated.

It knows if I was, I’d probably take a look at this and say it’s impossible based on my “earthly” calculations…

I pulled out some of Mile’s data from his blog and book excerpts that relate to this WOW SETI build a UFO Engine Project.

Please take a look at Miles Mathis theories and mathematical calculations in his PDF files or books. He mentions many things that we’ve discussed in the last 120 videos in this series. The WOW SETI signal’s data is in relation to his work so it has to mean something.
]
notes

See

Line 18 a3p Greys Great Pheido UFO Alien Contact Message Feb 1, 2012 WOW SETI

quote

Development of gravitation theory
Something like the equivalence principle emerged in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, when Galileo expressed experimentally that the acceleration of a test mass due to gravitation is independent of the amount of mass being accelerated. These findings led to gravitational theory, in which the inertial and gravitational masses are identical.

The equivalence principle proper was introduced by Albert Einstein in 1907, when he observed that the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth at a rate of 1g (g = 9.81 m/s2 being a standard reference of gravitational acceleration at the Earth’s surface) is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving body that would be observed on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g.

Einstein stated it thus:
we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.
—Einstein, 1907

That is, being at rest 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 principle, Einstein deduced that free-fall is actually inertial motion. Objects in free-fall really do not accelerate, but rather the closer they get to an object such as the Earth, the more the time scale becomes stretched due to spacetime distortion around the planetary object (this is gravity).

An object in free-fall is in actuality inertial, but 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 when, in fact, the falling body really isn’t accelerating at all. This is why an accelerometer in free-fall doesn’t register any acceleration; there isn’t any.

By contrast, in Newtonian mechanics, gravity is assumed to be a force. This force draws objects having mass towards the center of any massive body. At the Earth’s surface, the force of gravity is counteracted by the mechanical (physical) resistance of the Earth’s surface.

So in Newtonian physics, a person at rest on the surface of a (non-rotating) massive object is in an inertial frame of reference.

These considerations suggest the following corollary to the equivalence principle, which Einstein formulated precisely in 1911:
Whenever an observer detects the local presence of a force that acts on all objects in direct proportion to the inertial mass of each object, that observer is in an accelerated frame of reference.

Einstein also referred to two reference frames, K and K’. K is a uniform gravitational field, whereas K’ has no gravitational field but is uniformly accelerated such 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 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

This observation was the start of a process that culminated in general relativity. Einstein suggested that it should be elevated to the status of a general principle when constructing his theory of relativity:
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

Einstein combined (postulated) the equivalence principle with special relativity to predict that clocks run at different rates in a gravitational potential, and light rays bend in a gravitational field, even before he developed the concept of curved spacetime.

So the original equivalence principle, as described by Einstein, concluded that free-fall and inertial motion were physically equivalent. This form of the equivalence principle can be stated as follows. An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space.
Although the equivalence principle guided the development of general relativity, it is not a founding principle of relativity but rather a simple consequence of the geometrical nature of the theory.

In general relativity, objects in free-fall follow geodesics of spacetime, and what we perceive as the force of gravity is instead a result of our being unable to follow those geodesics of spacetime, because the mechanical resistance of matter prevents us from doing so.

Since Einstein developed general relativity, there was a need to develop a framework to test the theory against other possible theories of gravity compatible with special relativity.

This was developed by Robert Dicke as part of his program to test general relativity. Two new principles were suggested, the so-called Einstein equivalence principle and the strong equivalence principle, each of which assumes the weak equivalence principle as a starting point. They only differ in whether or not they apply to gravitational experiments.

[edit]Modern usage
Three forms of the equivalence principle are in current use: weak (Galilean), Einsteinian, and strong.

Pasted from

Tag links
Pasted from

Pendulum pic
Pasted from

A non-inertial reference frame is a frame of reference that is undergoing acceleration with respect to an inertial frame.[1] An accelerometer at rest in a non-inertial frame will in general detect a non-zero acceleration, and in a curved spacetime all frames are non-inertial.

Pasted from

Detection of a non-inertial frame: need for fictitious forces
That a given frame is non-inertial can be detected by its need for fictitious forces to explain observed motions.[10][11][12][13][14] For example, the rotation of the Earth can be observed using aFoucault pendulum.[15] The rotation of the Earth seemingly causes the pendulum to change its plane of oscillation (which plane actually is fixed in space) because the surroundings of the pendulum move with the Earth. 

Pasted from

Pasted from

anisotropic paraconical pendulum.

Qutoes to Read New Theory to increase G Force Space Travel with Relativity Mathematical New Equation Ideas.

In the 1950’s, Maurice Allais discovered a variation in pendulum motion during his work with the anisotropic paraconical pendulum. The most important variation was discovered during a solar eclipse, but he also found a standard variation that recurred about every 24 hours, 50 minutes. Allais used these variations to propose that neither Newtonian nor Einsteinian gravitational mechanics were complete. He presented a theory that centered on the idea of a sort of ether, or what he called an anisotropy of space. According to him, this required a reassessment of the experiments of Michelson/Morley and Miller, and most importantly of the theory underlying Relativity.

I will show that Newton’s famous gravitational equation is a compound equation that expresses both the gravitational field and the E/M field. I will separate the two fields mathematically, showing the distinct equations and how they fit together. I will then do a Relativistic transform on each new field, showing that a new Relative field equation can be achieved directly without tensors or any difficult math. I will then re-unify these two Relative field equations into a Unified Field Equation, which I will show is just Newton’s classical field with a simple transform. 

Once that is done, I will derive the new number for g by novel means, showing that the gravitational acceleration—newly divorced from the acceleration caused by the electrical field—must be greater than 9.8. I will show that this is because the gravitational field and the electrical field are in vector opposition. 

Pasted from

Feb 9 2012 714 pm est

My Thoughts

Now that i know we need 2g of force according to one of the comments to sustain the right
Speeds for a rotating UFO Engine Space Ship. I’ll be looking for people’s theories that mention velocity and G Force during the next google searches.

I happened to come across Miles Mathis blog.

He talks about physics people not listening to anyone’s theories unless they are “educated.”

Maybe that’s why it’s taken us over 200 years to do the “theories” written by men in the 17th Century…

It’s time to look outside of the box.

The Universe gives messages to those who listen.

It doesn’t care if your educated.

It knows if I was, I’d probably take a look at this and say it’s impossible based on my “earthly” calculations…

I pulled out some of Mile’s data from his blog and book excerpts that relate to this WOW SETI build a UFO Engine Project.

Please take a look at Miles Mathis theories and mathematical calculations in his PDF files or books. He mentions many things that we’ve discussed in the last 120 videos in this series. The WOW SETI signal’s data is in relation to his work so it has to mean something.

Pasted from <http://milesmathis.com/

the un unified filed miles mathis book cover

THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

DATA to Read Feb 9 2012 710 pm est

Quotes from Miles Mathis to look at:

For the past eighty years or so, the great problem in creating a Unified Field Theory has been including gravity in it. The quantum field is now the primary field in the eyes of most physicists, and the problem is writing equations that include gravity in the quantum field. 

Quote
Now that I have shown a couple of experimental proofs of my assertion, let us look at the mathematical proof. We will start with Newton’s equation. Newton’s famous gravity equation is a heuristic equation, and Newton admitted that from the very beginning. 

F = GMm/R2 
In the basic force equation
F = ma = ms/t2 

the distance is in the numerator. Again, somewhat strange. But strangest of all is the constant G, a tiny number with lots of mysterious parameters. 

G = 6.67 x 10-11m3/kgs2 

The Unified Field Theory by Miles Mathis
milesmathis.com/uft.html
I will show that Newton’s famous gravitational equation is a compound ….. I have already done part of the teasing workin my paper on the Universal … There I show that part of thedirty work G does is in allowing Newton to create a …Newton gives the dimensions he should have given tomass, and gives them to G instead.

To begin with, we are given an angular velocity ω, which is a velocity expressed in radians by the equation
ω = 2π/t
Then, we want an equation to go from linear velocity v to angular velocity ω. Since v = 2πr/t, the equation must be
v = rω

Pasted from

email me at mm@milesmathis.com 

http://milesmathis.com/