[geocentrism] Re: Inertia
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:02:02 +1000
hmm well what if I were to say inertia was the resistance offered to mass (read
matter) by the aether to change of motion (read acceleration) by the object
through it in the absence of any external gravitational force, irregardless if
a. gravity was a property of attraction due to matter, it would be equal and
balanced in all directions. or
b. . where gravity is the pressure or push of the aether on the object. which
likewise would be equal and balanced in all directions.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 8:44 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Inertia
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.
In order for accelerations in free fall toward a body not to be detectable
inertly then to "free fall" must be the same as inertly nutrality or no motion
wrt all thoes grav feilds.....that is the equivilence principle... ………that is
exactly what RELITIVITY claims…Einsitne himself stated that a body in deep
space is in "free fall" to all the other bodies & their respective grav
feilds....did you guys not read the references providied?.....Regner did not
deny this he only stated his views on inertia..which does not change the fact
that Relitivity and what he used to expain does!?...are you realy so blind?!….
MS holds that a body with no detectable inertial affects is the same as "free
falling"….To say that a body is at rest and or has "no motion" that is
supposedly the same as free falling toward a grav field (free fall)… (motion is
all relative but relative to the gravitational fields) Inertia is a relative
force to gavitaional fields if it were not then there is nothing in Phisics to
explain how or why accelerations in free fall cannot be detected...how can you
be so blind?!…. If it were not all the bosons and quarks and leptons in the
world do not explain anything except what you think causes gravity it does not
tell anyone anything wrt how gravity or inertia work and it certainly does not
make the contridictions go away.!…. If inertia is not a relative effect wrt
gravity fields then there is no reason why "free falling" would have anything
to do with much less be considered the same as a body that has no motion……
So all of Regners coments tells us what?! he does not think inertia is
gravity ok i can live with that...it does not tell us why accelerations in free
fall cannot be detected it would have to tell us somthing about the
realtionship between inertia and graivty ....so....what does this
demonstrate?.....that 1. you dont know..2 no mater how you wish to define
"Equivilent" if the two "vectors" are not relitive wrt each other or we could
say they exist as functions of each other...or we could say that one determines
the other......what is the point?! what do you mean they are equivilent and yet
not the same how do they negate each other.......what is the deomstration of
your postion ....asserting that they do does not demonstrate anything.......are
people realy that ?!
I know why Regner is so unavailable......if he spent too much time with us he
would have to actualy answer the questions....!?
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 8:55:22 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Inertia
(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, Oh ye of little faith ....... Objections?...based on what?...you say
"could arise" are you raising them or not?..........Hard to disagree with
almost any of what you stated there!......In fact fully agree that grav and
inertia are not one and the same and that further it would and could not work
that way period...I have stated this from the very
begining...........congratulations, I'm very happy you can see and fully
understand that.......... However, there is still one itsi bitsi little
problem.........All of your explanations up to this point as well as the fact
that in MS physics and relativity particularly the equivalence principal that
you evoked to "explain" how and why accelerations in free fall cannot be
detected most certainly do assert all of those things!?....I have cited and
even quoted and given references to them.............. So you can fell free to
disagree with your own explanations and resistivity all day long it does not
change the fact that Relitivity and Equiv principle and basicaly eveything you
put forward does!..LOL.....I will and do agree with you on that but it does not
solve or address your problems....now I guess you have to start all
over..........I applaud most of the content in your comments but that does not
save or your position in fact you just shot your own foot off!? ...unless of
corse when you say "could arise" you dont mean that you are raising
it...LOL....Your position invoked relativity and the equivalence principle...i
did not do that, Regner did.....so all those things you just denounced are the
very things you used as the justification for and as your
explanations!....LOL......Once again you demonstrate a complete and total
contradiction in your own positions and ability to demonstrate valid
arguments!?. One area of significant disagreement though you can't claim to
know exactly how inertia works if you do not know the cause .....Why?...because
MS does ascribe inertia and gravity as the same thing contrary to which side of
the fence you are on today..you keep jumping all over the place......... If you
don’t know the cause of inertia you cannot claim the gravity will negate the
affects inertial reactions, particularly when you don’t know what or how
Gravity works without assuming the very thing you are attempting to
demonstrate.....The whole issue of what and how grav and inertia works is the
very issues in contention in the accelerations debate ...you can't just assume
a given conclusion or positions wrt accelerations is correct then use that to
make a argument that your position is correct about how they work...that is
what is under scrutiny that is what you have to demonstrate not just assert the
conclusion as the evidence for itself.....!?
So thus far you have:
A. Contradicted your own explanations and arguments.. ..I can see how you
restored Paul’s "faith"..LOL
B. You have not told us anything useful about inertia or accelerations in a
free fall at all...In fact now you have gone backwards and now no matter how
you define or whether or not we agree or disagree on the cause and how inertia
or gravity work you are left with the same problems you did before you posted
this little self contradiction.....
1. If there is not way to detect the earth’’s acceleration around the sun in
free fall, then how does that same grav in that exact same inertial ref frame
create an observable and different acceleration with the tides?.......If it
does then you can’’t claim the acceleration in free fall cant be detected.....
If the tides are not accelerated by the sun/ moon inertial field then you have
a bigger problem don’’t you?.....
2.Explain how a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical orbit of a near star
different from a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical trajectory wrt a distant
star..... This is valid question regardless of what inertia is or is not or the
cause of inertia....how does inertia know that we are in orbit verse just
taking a curved path in space wrt the same body?
3. How you can have a detectable change in orientation wrt a body (in
grav/inertial free fall) while not having a detectable acceleration wrt the
same body.....
I find it humerous that you appear to actualy think you can appeal to parts
of clasical physics on the one hand and relitivity theory wrt to the same
concepts from the other when they have mutualy exclusive dynamics wrt each
other in the same context...!? Surly you must find it a little funny to attempt
to use inertia and accelerations one way in your explination attempting to only
look at clasical physics and then in a mutualy exclusive manner when trying to
explain how it works. Giving inertia and gravity all the properties of magic
fairy dust does not demonstrate that they have all thoes properties or that is
how they even work at all............ Nor are assertions and theories without
the logical paths to them logically valid. It certanily does not demonstrate
anything........I thought we were going to stick to demonstratable observations
to make a case for either GC or HC/AC we have to demonstrate somting is an
illusion first with observations before we assume that a observation is just an
illusion...
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 7:03:20 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Inertia
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1466 - Release Date: 5/25/2008
6:49 PM
Other related posts:
