# [geocentrism] Re: Inertia

• From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:03:20 +0000 (GMT)
```Regner T
A timely post!
I was beginning to wilt under the Goebbels gambit from Allen re gravity/inertia
and inertia/distant_stars. Thank you for restoring my confidence in physics and
my limited understanding of same.
Paul D

----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 23 May, 2008 4:54:26 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Inertia

I am afraid I don't have the time to dig up all the relevant posts and reply
to them individually. This post, however, should address many issues
raised over the concept of inertia in a range of threads in this forum.

In Philip Madsen's post, 10/05/2008 he correctly points out the difference
between "equivalence" and "equality". That is an important distinction.
In physics and astronomy we don't have a habit of redefining words, as
opposed to, say, in politics...

a) Gravity and inertia are not the same.
b) Gravitational mass and inertial mass, do seem to be the same (no
observations have contradicted this, to date).
c) Inertia cannot be caused by gravity from the distant stars - no matter how
far away or how the are distributed. The gravitational force from the
distant stars is minuscule compared to all the other forces we are subject
to - do the math!
If the Universe (on large scales) has a smooth matter distribution, the
gravity from all directions will cancel each other. It is obviously not
completely uniform, so let's explore the other extreme: Only stars from
one direction, say, a cone of 30° opening angle contribute any gravity.
The pull from all those stars, back to the beginning of time, would be
a million-million times feebler than gravity from Earth. If the Universe
is only 6000 years old (and gravity travels at the speed of light) the pull
from those stars would be yet another factor of a million times feebler.
And there is of course the problem about direction. How can the distant
stars know which way we are trying to move a body, and then counter-
act that motion with a gravitational pull in the opposite direction. It
can't
make sense, whichever way you look at it.
d) Maybe I need to point out that forces are vectors and they are additive.
That means, that if you have two forces of equal magnitude but opposite
direction, the nett-force will be exactly zero. And the behaviour of an
object in that zero nett-force field does not depend in the slightest on how
that zero came about; whether it be from no forces at all, or from huge,
but opposing forces. Only the (vector-)sum matters.
e) If gravity created inertial mass, we would be able to predict the mass of
objects from the law of gravity - we can't! We can only observe and use
Newton's 2nd law (F = m*a) and maybe the law of gravity or others, to
infer the mass.
f) There has been other philosophical theories about the distant stars "somehow"
giving rise to inertia, but no successful physical theory that I am aware
of.
g) The best current candidate for a inertial field, is the Higg's field,
mediated by
the Higg's boson - but there are, of course, competing theories. The Large
Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, opening later this year, should be able to
detect the Higg's boson if it exists. And the Higg's field would be a local
field, not depending on the totality of stars in the Universe.
h) Lastly, but very important: We know how inertia works, and not knowing
why, doesn't really change that. Claiming that classical mechanics doesn't
work
because we don't know where inertia comes from, is therefore nothing but
obstruction and obfuscation from the issues at hand. Finding out what gives
rise to inertia is a separate and obviously very interesting question.

I have tried to address most of the inertial issues that have surfaced in this
forum
lately (I predict that Allen will disagree - I must be a psychic...) and the
verbosity
(I apologize) is due to an attempt at catching some of the most glaring
objections
that could arise.

Regner

Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/mail```