Theory of Relativity changed the whole face of Physics and changed the way looked at gravity. It was one of the most ground-breaking works over a century ago. However, is it correct? Today there are a group of people who really want to see the Theory of Relativity proven wrong. Who are these people? Well, they belong to the discipline of quantum mechanics. Interestingly, the French Satellite Microscope (yes, that’s the name – Microscope) is all set to prove the Theory of Relativity either right or wrong.

If Microscope manages to prove that Theory of Relativity is wrong, people of quantum mechanics will be the happiest people on planet Earth. However, if that really happens, all the physics that we have learned so far will be lost. Everything has to be redone from zero. But, if Microscope manages to prove the Theory of Relativity was correct, we can definitely live with our old daily life.

So, what is Microscope and what is it doing up there in space? What is its sole purpose? Who put it up there? Let us find out!

**Table of Contents**show

## What is this French Satellite Microscope?

You must have heard of CNES. If not, it is the French Space Agency which is known as Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales and CNES is responsible for putting Microscope up there in space. Microscope is the name given to a small satellite or a microsatellite whose sole business up there is to test whether free fall is universal or not. The total lifespan of Microscope is only 2 years. The satellite has cost the French government 130 million Euros and was sent to space using Russian Soyuz rocket from French Guiana.

Now, what the hell is this universality of free fall? We will skip the unnecessary details and give you a brief. As per the Theory of Relativity, if two objects of different material and mass are dropped in vacuum, both of them will fall exactly at the same speed. To simplify further, the Equivalence Principle of the Theory of Relativity states that if, suppose, a feather and a lead ball are dropped at the same time and allowed to fall freely in perfect vacuum, both will fall down at the same speed irrespective of their actual mass. All the physics related to gravity that we have learned till date uses this Equivalence Principle.

## So, why the hell one needs to test this principle in space?

That’s because there is no such thing called perfect vacuum on Earth. There will be absolutely no perturbations whatsoever in an orbiting satellite, that are usually found on Earth. Also, objects that will be allowed to fall freely will actually be in permanent and perfect free fall. This makes sense because, Einstein’s theory was theoretical and there was absolutely no practical proof. Microscope will either offer a proof and validate the theory or simply prove that it is incomplete.

## What objects did French Satellite Microscope carry?

For the purpose of testing the Equivalence Principle, the satellite carried two cylinders – a platinum-rhodium alloy cylinder and a titanium cylinder. The golden cylinder you see in the image is the titanium one and the other one is that alloy cylinder. Now, during the experiment, if the two cylinders show slightest of speed differences in free fall, it will mean that the Theory of Relativity was not correct or better said, incomplete and whatever we learned so far was not correct as well.

According to Thibault Damour – a French physicist – if the experiment shows even slightest of deviations from Equivalence Principle, it will not necessarily mean that Einstein’s theory was completely incorrect. It will just mean that the theory of incomplete and there are other forces that actually contribute to gravity.

**What Do You Think About The Post?**

I have already proved that Einstein special theory of relativity is mathematically wrong. refer paper on http://www.maheshkhati.com. In 1st chapter, I proved that applied force is less than acting force in SR & other math…

What Do You Think About The Post?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.

What Do You Think About The Post?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

What Do You Think About The Post?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

What Do You Think About The Post?Lorentz contraction

Plain waves of light (wavelength is constant) are coming from the upper right 45 degrees. Two bars of the same length are moving to the right and the left at the same speed. The number of waves hitting the bars is the same. Lorentz contraction is unthinkable.

What Do You Think About The Post?Time dilation

A light source is shinning (frequency is constant). Two observers are receding from the light source (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

What Do You Think About The Post?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 are equal at every area.

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

What Do You Think About The Post?Equivalence principle

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

What Do You Think About The Post?Are the two indistinguishable? Vector of the two are opposite.

What Do You Think About The Post?Equivalence principle

In space, there are two gravitational sources (point source). In the middle of the two, a small area is selected. This area will be state of weightlessness (not zero gravity). Like an elevator in free fall.

What Do You Think About The Post?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 will be relative seen from inertial frames. Or, phenomenon bremsstrahlung depends on the absolute rest frame?

What Do You Think About The Post?Free fall

Inertial force ma is said to be virtual. If so, mg in free fall will be the same. And normal force will be virtual.

Vector of gravity and vector of inertial force are ubiquitous around us. And resultant forces are the same also. Why they make a big fuss on an elevator in free fall ?

In

What Do You Think About The Post?Lorentz contraction

In a moving passenger car, MM experiment is being done. Between two light pathes diverged by a half mirror, there is considerable difference in length. Lorentz contraction will not stand up.

What Do You Think About The Post?Constancy of speed of light

They say, it stands up on an observer in every inertial frame. Yes, when the light source shines in that frame, it is true.

Some man mistook this fact natural for a great discovery. And it is believed widely.

What Do You Think About The Post?Non free fall

Imagine an elevator cabin is falling in various density of air. Hydrodynamics tell the motion of these elevators. Equivalence principle is valid.

What Do You Think About The Post?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.

What Do You Think About The Post?Difference of motion

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

What Do You Think About The Post?Speed of light

To an observer floating in outer space, speed of light of a star is depending on the position on the celestial sphere. And when the light source is not distant, speed of light is depending on the motion of the source (according to the emission theory). In addition, by the motion of an observer.

What Do You Think About The Post?Equivalence principle

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

What Do You Think About The Post?Equivalence principle

From the roof of elevator cabin, a body is hung with a string. The elevator begins acceleration upward. Can the string distinguish between the gravity and inertial force ?

What Do You Think About The Post?Equivalence principle

An elevator in free fall is explained fully by Newton. There is no room for Einstein.

What Do You Think About The Post?Acceleration and non acceleration

On a plane (no friction), there is a body. Difference between the two above will be evident. It is enough to keep an eye on inertial force.

What Do You Think About The Post?Inertial force

Inertial force is depending on m. So, it is not fictitious.

What Do You Think About The Post?Free fall

Any inertial force is measurable. Any gravity is measurable. In an elevator cabin, these are measurable also.

Problem is limitted to the infinite small area. It is not physics.

Gravity gradient and infinite small area??

Gravity is gravity. Inertial force is inertial force. Resultant force is resultant force.

What Do You Think About The Post?Basis of special relativity

We seem to measure c only by the light source situated on the same inertial frame. A web site says, reasonable basis of constancy of c cannot be found in web ( with three words).

What Do You Think About The Post?Constancy of c is nonsense (I say again)

1) There seems not to be basis (reliable) of constancy of c.

2) It is easy to disprove constancy of c. Many easy ways of disproval are possible.

What Do You Think About The Post?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.

What Do You Think About The Post?Reexamination of propagation of light (I say again)

In outer space, a mirror is reflecting a star light ray. Speed of reflected light relative to the mirror is constant. Speed of incident light relative to the mirror is not constant (the latter is constant relative to the aether).

What Do You Think About The Post?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) are not fictitious.

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

What Do You Think About The Post?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.

What Do You Think About The Post?Light is propagated in two ways

Propagation follows the emission theory is propagated in vaccum space and propagation follows aether is propagated in aether space. A mirror in outer space that is reflecting star light ray shows above.

What Do You Think About The Post?Space is rest frame

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

What Do You Think About The Post?Equivalence principle(I say again)

Vector of inertial force is shown by an arrow. Vector or gravity cannot be shown by an arrow generally. The two are different as facts of physics.

What Do You Think About The Post?Aether

Speed of light relative to mediums (water or air) is constant. Speed of light relative to aether (physical substance) is constant also. Aberrations show this.

What Do You Think About The Post?Accelerated to motion of light source

Light emitted from an accelerated source will follow instantaneous speed of the source. In short, light will scceed motion vector of the source. The emission theory imply the above.

I say again, the emission theory will be valid for a few seconds only after the emission. After this, light follows aether.

What Do You Think About The Post?Propagation of light (I say again)

Light is propagated in three ways (as follows)

1 In mediums, speed of light is c/n. MM experiment (done in air) is nonsense.

2 In outer space, a star light is reflected by a mirror. Speed of incident light is constant relative to aether.

3 In outer space, a star light is reflected by a mirror. Speed of reflected light is constant relative to the mirror.

In three pictures above each, speed of light relative to a moving observer follows Galilean transformation.

What Do You Think About The Post?