Mach’s Principle, or the Equivalence Principle, that is the question.

You remember Mach’s Principle? It basically says you can tell when you are rotating relative to everything else. We know it’s true, because you get dizzy when you are spinning. That is something that an 8-year-old definitely understands. Meteorologists understand it, because the Earth gets dizzy when it spins, and that dizziness is what we call weather systems, driven by what physicists call the Coriolis force. Physicists say this force is “fictitious”, but put them in the path of a hurricane, and I think they might change their tune. It may be fictitious in their minds, but you can damn well feel it!

You remember Einstein’s Equivalence Principle? It basically says you can’t tell the difference between acceleration and gravity. Which means, you can’t tell the difference between inertia and gravity. And it means you can’t tell the Earth is rotating except by looking at the Sun or the Moon or the stars. So although it is often said that Mach’s Principle is part of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, this is actually not true. Strip away all the obfuscation, and Einstein’s Equivalence Principle says you can’t tell that the Earth is rotating if you don’t look at the sky. Bottom line. Mach’s Principle say the exact opposite, it says you can always tell whether something is rotating by seeing if it gets dizzy or not.

So don’t believe any of this crap that says Einstein based his theory on Mach’s Principle, it’s a load of bollocks. He said the exact opposite. He actually tried to apply Mach’s Principle to quantum mechanics in a wonderful paper written in 1919. This paper has been written out of history, “cancelled” in the modern vernacular, because it is not politically correct. Never mind that it is physically correct, like all the rest of Einstein’s work that I have read. But even he became convinced by the woke response, and abandoned this line of enquiry. If he had pursued it, he would have eventually realised he had got GR wrong, and developed a better theory of gravity. But he didn’t. His work was “cancelled”.

I first applied Mach’s Principle to quantum mechanics in 2014, and by January 2015 I had dug up enough experimental evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mach’s Principle does apply to quantum mechanics. You can tell the Earth is rotating by looking inside a hydrogen atom. If the Earth wasn’t embedded in the Solar System, you’d never detect a fine structure “constant”, you’d never detect a “Lamb shift”, no hyperfine structure, it just wouldn’t be there. You can tell the Earth is rotating by measuring the mass ratio of electron to proton, and you can detect the existence of the Sun by measuring the mass ratio of proton to neutron. You can detect the existence of the Moon by measuring the mass ratio of charged to neutral pions, and if you want to know where the Moon is, you can measure the mass ratio of charged to neutral kaons. If you want to know how big the Earth is, you can count the change in the ratio of odd to even pion decays of neutral kaons as the kaons travel across the surface of the Earth. Or you can measure the gyromagnetic ratio of the muon, although that is hard. What about the W mass anomaly? It means there is something in the rotation of the Earth that has been detected by this experiment. I don’t know what exactly it is, but I think it involves both the Sun and the Moon, and the latitude on the Earth’s surface where the experiment was done.

It’s not as though I’ve pointed out one numerical coincidence that you can ignore. Everywhere I look, experiment proves that Mach’s Principle holds, and Einstein’s Equivalence Principle does not. The evidence is literally everywhere. But the mainstream doesn’t understand Mach’s Principle, so they ignore it. And they “cancel” any experimental evidence that supports it. Mach’s Principle is apparently not politically correct, because it contradicts the Equivalence Principle. But I am afraid that some Principles are more equivalent than others, whatever you might think.