G-THEORY

 


EINSTEIN'S EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE*

---and the substantive g-theory interpretation of the Einsteinian, relativistically subjugated mind experiment of 'The lift free-falling in a vacuum' . Note: Please refrain from knee jerk reactions and objections until the end of this treatise because all is not what it seems.

*Often mistakenly referred to as the strong equivalence principle. 

First of all you need to understand how you have been fed the party line of G-rel by dubious explanations as follows---

"An object follows the curved space time in its best attempt to follow a straight line." is the simplified explanation of G-rel. I have shown that this is impossible in another section by demonstrating that the curved space time travels at a vastly different velocity than the object so it becomes an implicit reality that a 'fictitious' force is being exerted on the object by the curved space-time travelling through it. So it stands that you have been lied to by that simplistic explanation.

The next little doozy you will be told is that--- "In the first instance the gravitational force exerted on an object is proportional to its mass, and secondly that the acceleration an object feels in response to a force is inversely proportional to its mass. Therefore the gravitational acceleration of an object is independent of its mass."

That sounds really good as it flows off the tongue, even if it is derived by mixing  a law of  inertial motion with a law of gravitational motion and beulah a miraculous understanding is achieved!

Let's be a little more circumspect and analyse both those unspoken equations and see exactly what proof is being deviously sought here.

First instance we see--- F=mg

Second a=F/m

Substituting--- a=mg/m

a=g

 

The previous explanation was therefore specious and fraudulent! All that has been shown is that gravitational acceleration and inertial acceleration are the same, and no way has the original conclusion been substantiated as being Einstein's equivalence principle--- just the strong equivalence principle. Connection has NOT been established.

 

 

Therefore Einstein's equivalence principle is an abuse of the strong equivalence principle by (in that manner) falsely purporting that the latter supports general relativity or that the two are just the same thing.

The 'lift' mind experiment is often given as proof positive for such time warp geodesics. The following is a slight variation of how it goes but first: The great genius Einstein decided that 'feelings' have a role to play in physics in that he concluded that because a body can't 'feel' anything when falling, then it can't be under a condition of acceleration caused by a (pushing or pulling) force so gravity couldn't be an actual force. It must be either fictitious or a function of another phenomenon entirely. So he famously concluded that space-time distortion was the cause without understanding that there was another possibility more able to hone Occam's razor.

What's with this 'not feeling' anything bit? Of course you feel something when you fall in a gravitational field. You feel a sudden  weightlessness ! It is a total lack of the understanding regarding the true derivation of mass that leads to the debacle where the feeling of weight when held must be concluded to be caused by a constant acceleration when there is none and conversely, a feeling of no acceleration when there actually is some. One failing of relativity is in explaining this duality without requiring either some sort of fictitious force, or else the parts of your body are required to be 'space-time' dis-related and you are therefore existing in an infinite number of pieces residing in different time zones--- talk about 'transportation'!

The experiment: A lift is free falling in earth's gravity in a vacuum. You are inside with an accelerometer. There is a hole in the lift, and prior to being lifted to the top floor a vertical line of fixed horizontal light beams were positioned at regular intervals and aligned so they would shine in precisely the same manner through the same hole as the lift falls past. Note: They were each checked horizontally when the lift was directly adjacent to each one and an adjustment was made to accurately direct where the lights shone on the other side of the lift. Each one was set up to shine on exactly the same spot on a vertical scale on the wall on the other side of the lift.

Once the lift was lifted back to the top where you boarded with your accelerometer, and the lift was then dropped, it accelerated at 'g' and during that acceleration you felt no inertia and the accelerometer didn't show any as well, so because of that you are considered by Einstein to be in a state of actual momentum even though you have observable acceleration. This is the enigma that G-rel attempts to solve by this mind experiment assertation.

As you fall past the light beams (before you fall to your death!) those lights shine sequentially and horizontally through the hole as you pass by each one with increasing speed, and because of the increasing speed of the fall and the finite speed of light, each light beam which is traveling at 'c' strikes the wall on the other side of the lift at a slightly higher spot than the one before, and you would notice the spot moving upward along a vertically mounted scale as you accelerated while notionally in a condition of momentum. Note: In some forms of the experiment a single fixed light beam is shone across the lift. I have utilized this form for clearer conceptualization. I hope!

Now regardless of the experimental form you wish to use; because you are considered to be in momentum and yet the light has perceptibly curved upward; this means that relative to your reference frame (as effectively being in a similar inertial state as being stationary or in momentum), and with all the other facts being ignored, it must therefore have been the space time which curved to give you the appearance of acceleration. Relativistically speaking it's the same as you being stationary (or in momentum) in space and seeing a light beam gradually curve upward. So if you are not accelerating because you feel nothing and your accelerometer shows nothing; G-rel must be true because what else could have caused the light beam to curve upward other than a space-time dis-relationship function?

ANSWER: First of all it must be recognized that the same thing would happen if you carried out the same experiment in deep space with a rocket engine instead of gravity as the motive force. It is purely a vector resultant observation. We should already understand that. The main G-rel argument derives from--- while gravitational inertia is the same as accelerative inertia, freefall is not felt or measurable as inertia  and relativity is the only answer. Wrong!

So the difference in the rocket case is that you would feel the inertia of acceleration and the phenomenon would consequently be completely predictable. Because of that, the only condition that makes this to be notionally relativistic when in gravitational freefall is qualified by the following statement. "If you feel no inertia then you must either be stationary or in a state of momentum". And it then follows that, because of that your time must  be dilating as you accelerate during the fall. So in that case the velocity difference is due to the curved time warping with proportional ('c' constancy relative) acceleration into the planet, such that time goes slower the closer you get to the surface, and it is this phenomenon that gives your falling reference frame the appearance of time dilation which produces a 'fake' acceleration. Damn! All I ever seem to get is 'dime' dilation.

 

 

PROBLEMS WITH EINSTEIN'S LIFT ARGUMENT

Now I could fall further into this conceptual meat grinder and argue points about the problems inherent for the geodesic manifold upon analysis of the variation in terminal velocities, as well as implications for the speed of light and the probable reverse affect on its bend as you fall into different time zones and start whacking out calcs from the Lorenz factor equation. But right at this juncture I don't need to risk the total mental exhaustion implicit in such arguments -which would include the fact that this is GTR and not STR- because the experiment has a far more severe (model destroying) and previously unrecognized problem or two first.

PROBLEM 1: The first of these is the quite understandable but specious contention which considers that "because you don't feel or measure inertia must mean that the inertia doesn't exist". I have explained the reasons for the speciousness of this trite logical argument (which is based on a flawed 'dark age' historical understanding re the action of inertia on nucleons) to not be valid by the G-theory presentation of new science which changes the understanding and destroys the puerile logic which insist that the force must appear from outside the object being affected when in reality it is felt evenly across every nucleon. So we can now move to the second problem which can no longer be just 'fobbed off'. Perhaps we can get two out of two objections to stand. What about three out of three? ---let's go.

PROBLEM 2: let's say the lift is three meters across. Light travels at 3e8m/s. let's be fair to the experiment and say that the lift is falling at an incredibly fast 100m/s as it passes the beam. By simple math we know that it will take the light 1e-8 seconds to cross the lift in that time and the lift will have fallen by 1e-10 meters in the same time. That's one millionth of a millimeter; and regardless of any minor (illegal) adjustment to relative 'c' contemplated because of the warping time frame; can anyone reasonably call that a measurable upward curve?

In order to try and make it measurable then: Let's create a flat earth* and make the width of the lift many kms wide and with all fairness in mind, the height of the accelerometer proportionally as large. Then in that case both the light bend scale as well as the accelerometer should both be able to register a small but measurable reading.

Because they both will; they both sort of cancel each other out don't they? So in that regard the experiment is a failure at proving what it proposed. In fact without some severely unfair subjective allowances and dis-allowances being perpetrated, it pretty much proves the case for the opposing team! Don't you think? Maybe you don't think!

*Now I'm going to be dubbed a 'flat-earther' J

 

The failure in being able to take a useful measurement with a small accelerometer is in this context similar to the reason for the inability to take any actual measurement of the bending of light in a small lift. This is why it takes a long vertically aligned accelerometer to register a reading. This problem is ostensibly removed by the relativists by reducing the spatial reference frame to almost zero and simply appealing to such disadvantageous subjectivism.

"Aha!" You cry--- "that's just the gravitational differential  relative to altitude causing such distension that you say is measurable as inertial force. That's  just caused by the altitude differential force."

Me! "You're arguably right and I might be wrong but in any case I've now got you where I want you. Right about there you insisted that gravity was a force and not just an object following the geodesic down to the center of the earth which is the theory specified in the first instance; which was noted right at the beginning of this argument. You should however recognize that such a fundamental understanding of what relativity was supposed to achieve simply by time dilation in a warped geodesic is actually impossible otherwise ALL OBJECTS WOULD FALL AT THE SAME RATE AND ACHIEVE THE SAME TERMINAL VELOCITY REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT THEY FELL FROM.

So now you might be forced to admit that the mathematics of G-rel causes the force of gravity and not only that--- the true gravitational force doesn't concur with the geodesic or the math. It's just speciously suggested that it all works with a 'wink and a nod'. Note: there is no help available by the companion idea of space warping which is dealt with further on.

 

INTERIM CONCLUSION

So there is a gravitational force and there is inertia--- otherwise we would have instantaneous acceleration by reason that we should by now understand that the fictitious G-rel geodesic is an impotent sire to gravitational mechanics. The reason we don't feel the reactive gravitational inertia and also why an accelerometer won't react to it is explained elsewhere in the thesis, so I will insert the non technical portion of that section below.

 

EXPLANATION FROM A THESIS SUB SECTION:

 

Consider this if you will: Felt acceleration is an inertial effect causing us to feel a pushing force which is highly concentrated in our bodies on the side in close contact with the force. This is the same for centrifugal/epital force, decelerative inertia and 'felt' gravity.

HOWEVER when being accelerated in a gravitational free fall; then because graviton transitional force -being gravitational inertial counterforce- is being shared by the trillions upon trillions of nucleons within your body you fail to feel anything. This occurs also at high velocities in space whereby you mistakenly perceive the weightless condition of momentum, I.e. nothing), even though your GD is slightly out of balance -because of GTDv- and even though you are actually decelerating, you won't feel a thing out of the ordinary and neither will measuring instruments such as an accelerometer traveling WITH the object being considered. I.e. you!

So accelerometers are in effect being rendered useless by being internally affected by the same GTD force they are trying to measure externally. Note: Please reconsider that the whole force of GD is not released within your body because of any assumption that the gravitons release all their 'energy' as a kind of friction. In fact they are only transiting perturbativly through your nucleons by dimensional separation and so they only actually cause a sufficient force which by GS differential (GTD) on earth allows you to perceive that you have the weight proportionality of 'one g' and upon exit-ing they carry the balance of their dualistic potential 'energy' with them.

N.B. This phenomenon is the reason that you don't feel gravity while in a free fall and neither does an accelerometer measure anything. There goes Einstein's explanation of the strong equivalence principle. Refer to the analysis of Einstein's equivalence principle. There remains no enigma here for any theory like G-rel to answer. However relativity is in serious trouble.

By way of further explanation: This is one more important consideration when it comes to refuting Einstein's equivalence principle being used as either proof or even support for G-rel. Even though a body in free fall in a gravitational field is actually accelerating, a body or indeed an accelerometer will not register the accelerating force for the reasons stated as long as the local effective (altitude related differential) GTDg is the same, and this is generally the case for a small body such as your own' falling within a low end gravitational field such as earth gravity*. However it must be noted that every object does have full gravitational inertia when falling in a gravitational field even if it is not measurable or tactile. TBE. Note: A vacuum is always assumed.

*Near a black hole all bets are off: TBE.

 

Because of the practical simplicity of G-theory, general relativity and the resulting time dilation by an accelerating frame of reference are no longer required. In fact the time dilation realized during a long freefall to earth would have to amount to minutes, and this does not fit with the geodesic model. Yeah, yeah, I know; adding another fantasy of space slowing down by space warps fixes that problem. Hang onto your hats and go back a bit; I have already shown herein and also in the introduction book that there is still a serious problem because the whole idea of space-time warping is scientifically absurd.

PROBLEM 3: If you wish to do the 'pre-school' level math you will find that even during a fall from thirty meters the space time dilation would need to be about one second to allow for any notion of an accelerating reference frame supposedly causing the feeling of momentum rather than acceleration. This is far away from being the time calculated by geodesics.

Geodesicists should perhaps be advised to not gloss over such glaring holes in their equivalence principle theories because they really are easy to poke a half a brain through. This can be noticed in the following refutation of the absurd theory that objects in free fall are actually stationary and they are simply moving along with an accelerating space time reference frame, which (magically I guess) confers them with momentum that just appears to be acceleration but their bodies will lengthen and there watches will slow.

 

PROBLEMS 4……..n

I'll tell you what; I'll drop you and your watch from a tall building and we'll find out if your watch changed by the time made up by the extra velocities attained by acceleration. I don't think you'll get a very desirable outcome which ever way you look at it. J

If you need any more convincing; let's take another good look and (like scraping chewing gum off your shoe) savage this specious and pedantic geodesic contention by taking a different tack. Consider the following:

Take a large body in space and a smaller body being held in position within the gravitational field of the large body.

It must be reasoned in the geodesic case that the accelerating reference frame towards the larger body, being caused by the supposed geodesic space time warping affect, is passing through the 'held' object, in which case we can conclude (only subjectively by observational relativity) that the 'held' object has weight, which in effect means that if we switch our frame of reference; the object can be supposed to be accelerating against the space time reference frame, which is what supposedly gives it 'felt' weight.

Now we remove the withholding force and the object begins to free fall, but it is then considered by geodesic theory to not actually be accelerating at all but it is suddenly now in a state of momentum and simply being carried along towards the large body by the accelerating reference frame. However as well as the previous problem it should be noted that in the moments after dropping, the dropped object is still found to be accelerating at an accelerating acceleration relative to the geodesic reference frame; yet somehow, all the while without inertia. Mmm, very strange.

  What? Does the accelerating reference frame just start falling down only when we drop the object? What happens to the geodesic manifold if nothing is falling? It must therefore only be a subjectivism -or all objects would have the same terminal velocity from falls from any height- and this presents an even worse problem of logic when any attempt is made to make such a subjective entity capable of producing a force. Oh yes that's right magic--- sorry; I meant mathematics; can allow even the absurd to occur!

It could be speciously argued that the accelerating reference frame must have had an effective altitude related velocity as it passed through the 'held' object in order to give it weight. However in response to this argument we should now expand on the previous problem:

 Now for the dropped object to faithfully follow the reference frame toward the larger body, it must by necessity, instantaneously decelerate to the instantaneous velocity of the reference frame, which actually means some other magical relative instantaneous acceleration or else the accelerometer will necessarily register the deceleration as the object effectively decelerates over time in order to 'catch up' with the reference frame. Either that or we must theorize the existence of another instantaneous-time reference frame that's totally unrelated to the subjective geodesic frame and which operates in reverse.

This is all because the first geodesic time frame was concluded to have been already accelerating to give the object weight in the first place*, and now the object must attain immediate relative spatial motionlessness during the free fall without causing any felt inertia during the necessarily time delayed process. That flies in the face of the logic which can be stated thus: WITHIN A CLOSED UNIVERSE INSTANTANEOUS ACCELERATION IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH REFERENCE TO ONES 'OWN' OR ANY OTHER REFERENCE FRAME.

End of thesis insert

 

 

 

MORE PROBLEMS

The previously examined different altitude related differential force problem still remains a logical dilemma for relativity because it does exist and it doesn't fit with the G-rel time dilation theory. There is also another problem and that is; that even though Einstein's equivalence principle declares gravity to be geometric, we all know that gravity operates by inverse square law yet Einstein's field equations do not (except for the well known un-fudged equation). He can't have it both ways. There is either a 1/a2 geodesic or not.

Perhaps we should look at further phenomenology wherein -consistent with observation- a falling object is truly accelerating, but with a false measurement of momentum being caused by the inability of any small instruments to measure the inertia for two reasons. These are in addition to the robust preliminary reasons that I have previously presented in the thesis. Note: The interpretation that an object in freefall is experiencing the same nil inertial affect as an object in the condition of momentum. I.e. Einstein's equivalence theory -which has been supported in the failing idea of space time warping geodesics by the introduction of an accelerating reference frame operating by fictitious force instead- has already been shown to be specious in the introduction book as well as by this analysis. (But wait there's more!)

Now the very astute might see that a conceptual problem remains when attempting to relate those two ideas. All that really serves in the end; is to show that there is an altitude differential case whereby a measurable inertia is able to be presented which can be mathematically considered by Newton's big G formula, and Big G has been borrowed by Einstein in his field equations. If G is good for one it should also be ditto for the other; right?

This phenomenon is noted in classical physics as being the gravitational differential existing across any object at rest in a differential gravitational field* which is by the way erroneously thought to be the reason for the semi diurnal tide phenomenon on Earth but that's another subject.

However this differential exits even in free-falling objects so it must be declared that Einstein erred when he suggested that a free-falling object was subjectively able to be considered as being in the same condition as an object with momentum. That turns out to not be the factual case at all because momentum is not the same as gravitational free fall. This is because a free-falling body is actually being stretched by two opposing forces. Be that as it may as a stand alone -by reasonable scientific evaluation--- However--- that altitude 'differential' problem also readmits a used spanner into the 'time warp' works when we consider the rate of acceleration of the warp compared to the motion of the falling object and this difference has been previously analyzed when you fell off that tall building and also in the G-theory thesis.

*Refer to 'supplement'.

 

So if that's not enough: The real problem lies in the previous statement which is conditional for any relativistic time warping to be up for consideration. It is the statement: "If you feel no inertia then you must either be stationary or in a state of momentum". I will conclusively demonstrate that to be a specious contention in the following assertation.

 

 

 SERIOUS PROBLEMS n-----nth

ASSERTATION   (requires a knowledge of G- theory)

 

First consider the fact that when the lift, your body and the accelerometer are falling as one in a gravitational field, you are all being accelerated by a force called gravity. If you are only able to consider a 'fictitious force' to be in operation, then such drivel must be refuted as non-science which must be vigorously opposed by all empiricists.

If however as I suggest, the force is very real and caused by GTDg being elicited by the GSe, then that force MUST be considered to be acting very close to equally and separately on every nucleon within every object which is falling (at the same notional altitude*). This means that the accelerative inertial force is acting on each nucleon and summed en masse, and so it is being shared evenly throughout your body as well as the accelerometer. ...DITTO THE COUNTER-FORCE. So in that case you won't feel it, and the accelerometer won't measure it BUT INERTIA IS STILL THERE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ACCELERATING TIME WARP ARGUMENT IS REJECTED! So it now stands that the real reason why you feel no inertia in the gravitational case and yet you do in the accelerating spaceship is because of the specifically different mechanics in operation for each case -neither of which is relativistic- and not for any other reason except for the small relative size of the objects in question. That subject is addressed below

*...allowing for a fairly even proportion of protons and neutrons in each object. This is a given in all of these experiments.

 

In all fairness. Or go figure!!

If  you have a conceptual problem with the previous; then let me demonstrate the unfair comparison being utilized by the relativity proponents in this lift experiment which loses sight of the actual facts.

According to Newton's third law, the counter-force on each nucleon is nominally equal to (but slightly less than in reality because of losses) the accelerative force. By summation; this means that the accelerative force is greater than the counter-force by about 10N/kg. That vector resultant 'g' force has been derived experimentally, and by 'g' being an extremely small resultant acceleration caused by the vector resultant of two almost equal and opposite forces being legally bound by the second law of motion and the third law of thermodynamics, this then declares that gravity is a much stronger force than previously realized. The counter-force is not only absolute when an object is being held stationary in a gravitational field and felt as weight but it is also absolute during inertial acceleration.

This in no way suggests that while you are standing on the ground space-time is passing through you. On the contrary it is gravity in the form of gravitons that are passing through you and differentially through the earth. That; you can feel as weight only because of the inertial pressure exerted against your body by the surface of the earth/ lift floor etc. If you fall however the inertial force actually becomes greater, but that's not noticeable (and another subject) so as you fall the gravitational differential remains essentially the same.

By way of an expansion on this theme: You are able to get an idea of the actual force when you yourself are being held stationary in a gravitational field (E.g. standing on the ground) you are able to feel the accelerative force of gravity (not the time warp) because the ground is acting as a notional point-source counter-force on the bottom of your feet which extends proportionally up through your body. If there was no Newtonian counter-force and you were dropped; theoretically you would accelerate to infinite speed in an instant! So once again it is obvious that the acceleration rate 'g' is caused by a vector resultant of two forces which accounts for the gravitational differential GTDg and such Newtonian inertia is still in action by F=mg being the same as F=ma.

When you were being theoretically accelerated in space by the rocket engine, the inertial counter-force was acting through the back of your seat... ditto. However in the example of gravitational freefall there is no notional point source of force which acts on any small object that is either able to be felt or allow for a differential measurement. Note: They all lie! You do actually feel it. It is the feeling of weightlessness!!

The GD attrition experienced by gravitons transiting a large body is proportionally similar to the GD attrition through any lesser (atomic/nucleonic matter object) AMO, and these both consequently result in an observed GS. So we can conclude that the differential internal forces acting on bodies and objects when falling in a gravitational field are actually trying to tear them apart.   Strong gravitational fields with very large gravity differential (GTDg) caused by altitude differential mechanics have been known to tear bodies such as comets apart (e.g. Shoemaker-Levy 9). Elastic objects will be seen to distort under conditions of acc-dec in space and would undergo somewhat similar but even greater distortion while falling into extreme gravities. I rest this case.

When different sized objects exist in similar GD-s (gravities), then during gravitational freefall the local GS-es (changed gravities) are proportional, and the GTDg across each nucleon is subsequently similar, therefore acceleration rates are proportionally the same in response to those similarly G-mass proportional GTDg accelerative forces which results in the observation called the 'weak equivalence principle'.

Such an action really causes a vertical stretching phenomenon which in low value GS (gravity shadow) fields such as in Earth's gravity goes 'unfelt' and immeasurable in small objects because of the lack of any realizable application of any observable unilateral force, (which is what actually causes us to feel inertia in other circumstances) and it would only then be measurable in such a case. Perhaps when free-falling towards a black hole you might feel something perhaps?? Seriously consider that!

Consideration also should probably be given to the notion that if there is a small distensional phenomenon, tiny accelerometer and/or strain gauges may not be sensitive enough to measure gravitational inertia when the GTDg across them is so close to zero by being shared evenly by the instrument's nucleons as well. This lack of measurability stands as being just as problematical for the previously mentioned measurements of the bending of light under similar conditions. Note: By not confessing that the bend in the light beam in the lift experiment would actually be immeasurable, the relativists may well have been guilty of committing just one more scientific fraud. Otherwise we could just as easily declare that your body actually stretches vertically during the freefall. Both are subjectively the case but they cancel each other out as I have just attested to in another way.    

It must be considered that the forces across an object in gravitational freefall are distensional* while the forces applicable to an object subject to GTDv (space drag) are compressional. In order for a similarly unfelt drag force to equal the unfelt free-fall force (in a gravity of 1g) by the phenomenon of space drag would require a very very high velocity. We will be calculating a likely velocity range and drag curve shortly.

*A small droplet of liquid falling in a vacuum would have such distension masked by the surface tension forces and so it would not be observable. In a very large sphere of liquid however, it would, and we have already noted that extreme gravitational forces can even tear a free-falling body apart.

 

By distensional means that if we were to observe a sphere of water falling in a gravitational field in a vacuum, then (disregarding surface tension forces) it would be observed to be egg shaped, with the length being aligned with the vertical. This is because of altitude related gravitational inertial force differential. Basically by F=ma we can see that the bottom of the object is attempting to accelerate at a faster rate than the top because of the inverse square law of gravitational force strength with increasing altitude.

If it is still able to be envisaged that the distention is caused by the warping of time then this would have to also declare that the top of the object would exist in a different time relative to the bottom. Regardless of the length of time imagined this would then require a time disjunct between even the very smallest of particles within the object. This consequently means that they would lose all force and perturbative connections between each other and the object could not maintain integrity. Imagine that your bottom half existed in a different time zone than your upper body. You could walk off from the waist down and your trunk would follow later. In the interim your body halves would be spurting your blood into space. Not much chance of a happy reunion huh?

If we return our thoughts to the less gory subject of the water droplet and decide that we must now also distort space in order to solve that problem, we very problematically find that the gravity differential no longer exists and the elongation of the object would not occur. The problem with such a space-time distortion theory is that elongation does indeed occur and is even more noticeable with larger bodies falling in massive gravities.

The Moon for instance is ostensibly falling (the supposed acceleration is just a mathematical misrepresentation) towards Earth whilst experiencing the condition of weightlessness. However it is a known fact of science that it undergoes tidal elongation stresses caused by the gravitational field of the Earth and visa versa. The visa versa we notice as a significant portion of the tidal phenomenon by what is called the 'tidal force'. Yes the Earth would be exhibiting a different solar tidal solution even if the moon didn't exist; but tides nevertheless. Note: The factual reason for diurnal tides is covered in the thesis.    

 

 CONCLUSION:    

Even during freefall, gravitational inertial tidal forces exist so we are able to conclude that an object free-falling in a gravitational field is not in the same condition as momentum; it is acting under a vector resultant of inertial forces and therefore Einstein's equivalence principle is specious, and general relativistic space-time distortion gravitational theory is also a specious mathematical monstrosity. This may be concluded as a result of that tidal affect between the moon and earth as well as the other logical arguments presented above, notwithstanding the prodigious array of other arguments against the (warp type) relativities you will find herein.

 

nuevophysics.com