What's the difference between mass and inertia; are they contextual?
brian a m stuckless
> brian a m stuckless wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Like worrying a vast vat of well-rotted fish guts looking for the
> fish. Git, you aren't even staring down Worchestershire sauce.
You're DROOOLING tin-bits, Uncle Al. Don't spoil lunch..
GRAVITATIONAL and OTHERWISE or LATERAL acceleration:
Gravitational force = mass*displacement / (duration)^2
Inertial force = same mass*displacement / (same duration)^2
Therefore, since the test mass is the same, and the duration is
the same, then ONLY the ‘icon' OR ‘magnitude' ..OR ‘method'
of the DISPLACEMENT can distinguish ‘gravitational' force
from ‘inertial' force. Obviously the ‘magnitude' has to be also
the same in any mathematical proof. This leaves only the
‘icon' OR ‘method' to fully distinguish same 'magnitude' of
DISPLACEMENT. Try:
Conclusion: ‘Gravitational' acceleration is a different ‘method'
of accelerating the same test mass for the same duration than
is ‘inertial' acceleration.
Experimental demonstrations follow..
1. Drop a cannonball and olive off the Leaning Tower of Pisa
2. Accelerate the cannonball and olive the same OTHERWISE.
Clearly ‘gravitational' and ‘otherwise' accelerations are DIFFERENT.
Gravitational force is an energy SOURCE.
Inertial force is an energy SINK.
..Or, mass*displacement / (sec)^2
= - Gravitational radial force = + Inertial lateral force =
This brings us to..
GRAVITATIONAL and ‘OTHERWISE' acceleration
= GRAVITATIONAL and OTHERWISE LATERAL acceleration
= PRIMARY radial and DEPENDENT lateral acceleration
= - 3*(volume / surface area) quotient / (sec)^2 acceleration
..AND + (lateral displacement) / (sec)^2 acceleration.
Note that ‘lateral displacement' is an ‘angular' acceleration,
..mathematically speaking.
It's been obvious now for thousands of years and clearly
demonstrated with a cannonball control mass and an olive
test mass m1 from off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, hundreds
of years ago, that BOTH obviously fell at the same rate of
acceleration as long as ANY other test mass m1 with the
SAME SIZE as the olive had approximately equal OR greater
density. However, a test mass m1 with a much lesser density
and same size would fall with a reduced rate which is
proportional to the its DENSITY. Of course, if the test
mass m1 also is the same mass AND size of the olive,..
then its rate of acceleration is ONLY proportional to
the ‘number' AND ‘density' of any test mass m1 cavities.
Again, this stuff clearly obvious ..BUT you can't prove it,
..like the GR-tivity Principle of Equivalence(PoE):
```` one ‘no feeling' = ANY other ‘no feeling' ````
..while unknowingly free-falling in a black-box elevator.
The mystery here is still the painfully obvious DIFFERENCE
between GRAVITATIONAL and OTHERWISE LATERAL acceleration.
Accelerate a cannonball and olive across the floor at
'obviously' the same rate of acceleration at the same duration.
Try that other ways. Measure the DIFFERENCE between GRAVITATIONAL
and OTHERWISE LATERAL acceleration.
> > Inertial and gravitational masses are tested indistinguishable, now to
> > at least one in 10^13 (re Adelberger). However, one important test
> > case has *never* been tested. We don't know if (extreme) enantiomers
> > fall identically,
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> > The proper test of spacetime geometry is geometry.
Space-time-curvature is NOT distinguishable from self-shrinkage
due to increased mass ..measureably speaking.
> > Chemical calorimetry allows (and suggests!) a 2 in 10^13 violation of
> > the Eqivalence Principle detectable at will.
It is difficult to distinguish ‘REAL feelings‘ in ANY elevator,
..let alone having to distinguish ‘NO feelings' while UNKNOWINGLY
free-falling in another as per the GR-tivity Principle of
Equivalence(i.e. the PoE):
```` One ‘NO-feeling' = ANY other ‘NO-feeling' ````
..in ANY elevator. Althought ANY GR-tivity tin-bit will
ADAMENTLY specify ‘unknowingly' and then in a ‘free-falling'
elevator. GR-tivity becomes a tin-bit, eh. He, he.
Sincerely,
```brian < bast...@avalon.nf.ca > feb 25, 2002
p.s.
Gravitational constant G measurement depends on the ambient
remaining and whether or not m1 has cavities of greater
or lesser density.
^^^^end of post.
tadchem
"brian a m stuckless" <bast...@avalon.nf.ca> wrote in message
news:6150b7f6.0202...@posting.google.com...
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:<3C79955A...@hate.spam.net>...
> > brian a m stuckless wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Like worrying a vast vat of well-rotted fish guts looking for the
> > fish. Git, you aren't even staring down Worchestershire sauce.
>
> You're DROOOLING tin-bits, Uncle Al. Don't spoil lunch..
>
> GRAVITATIONAL and OTHERWISE or LATERAL acceleration:
> Gravitational force = mass*displacement / (duration)^2
> Inertial force = same mass*displacement / (same duration)^2
<snip>
This would imply that when there is a displacement of zero and a finite
duration, such as when my butt is immobile in my chair, that there is no
force; yet my hemorrhoids tell me otherwise.
Do straw men get hemorrhoids?
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
brian a m stuckless
> "brian a m stuckless" <bast...@avalon.nf.ca> wrote..
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote..
> > > brian a m stuckless wrote:
> > > Like worrying a vast vat of well-rotted fish guts looking for the
> > > fish. Git, you aren't even staring down Worchestershire sauce.
> >
> > You're DROOOLING tin-bits, Uncle Al. Don't spoil lunch..
> --and a finite duration, such as when my butt is immobile in my chair,
> that there is no force; yet my hemorrhoids tell me otherwise.
>
> Do straw men get hemorrhoids?
>
> Tom Davidson
NO. Infinitely, ONLY ass-'o's get hemorrhoids.
GRAVITATIONAL and OTHERWISE or LATERAL acceleration:
Gravitational force = mass*displacement / (duration)^2
Inertial force = same mass*displacement / (same duration)^2
Therefore, since the test mass is the same, and the duration is
the same, then ONLY the ‘icon' OR ‘magnitude' ..OR ‘method'
of the DISPLACEMENT can distinguish ‘gravitational' force
from ‘inertial' force. Obviously the ‘magnitude' has to be also
the same in any mathematical proof. This leaves only the
‘icon' OR ‘method' to fully distinguish same 'magnitude' of
DISPLACEMENT. Try:
Conclusion: ‘Gravitational' acceleration is a different ‘method'
of accelerating the same test mass for the same duration than
is ‘inertial' acceleration.
Experimental demonstrations follow..
1. Drop a cannonball and olive off the Leaning Tower of Pisa
2. Accelerate the cannonball and olive the same OTHERWISE.
Clearly ‘gravitational' and ‘otherwise' accelerations are DIFFERENT.
Gravitational force is an energy SOURCE.
Inertial force is an energy SINK.
..Or, mass*displacement / (sec)^2
= - Gravitational radial force = + Inertial lateral force
This brings us to..
Sincerely,
```brian < bast...@avalon.nf.ca > feb 26, 2002
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<6150b7f6.0202...@posting.google.com>...
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:<3C79955A...@hate.spam.net>...
> > brian a m stuckless wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Like worrying a vast vat of well-rotted fish guts looking for the
> > fish. Git, you aren't even staring down Worchestershire sauce.
>
> You're DROOOLING tin-bits, Uncle Al. Don't spoil lunch..
>
> GRAVITATIONAL and OTHERWISE or LATERAL acceleration:
> Gravitational force = mass*displacement / (duration)^2
> Inertial force = same mass*displacement / (same duration)^2
> Therefore, since the test mass is the same, and the duration is
> of the DISPLACEMENT can distinguish 組ravitational' force
> from 訴nertial' force. Obviously the 僧agnitude' has to be also
> the same in any mathematical proof. This leaves only the
> DISPLACEMENT. Try:
>
> Conclusion: 賎ravitational' acceleration is a different 僧ethod'
> of accelerating the same test mass for the same duration than
>
> Experimental demonstrations follow..
> 1. Drop a cannonball and olive off the Leaning Tower of Pisa
> 2. Accelerate the cannonball and olive the same OTHERWISE.
>
> Gravitational force is an energy SOURCE.
> Inertial force is an energy SINK.
In this place you have shown to very very old Uncle Al physically
correct methodology for methods of measurements of a gravitational
charge of a body and for methods of measurements of inert mass
of the same body and also distinction in these methods.
Old giddy (thoughtless) Uncle Al does not understand even physical
essence of Eotvos's experiments. (:-(
Analyzing the old giddy Uncle Al's physical statements, anyone can
make an inference, that he did not read Mach's mechanics. (:-(
Mach determines the ratio of masses of two bodies as the ratio
of accelerations of the same two bodies and it is the basic
position of Mach.
Mach avoids the use of metaphysical concept of physical force at all.
Second half of XIX century is characterized by a brisk
critical controversy under the methodological concepts of
fundamental concepts of a Newtonian mechanics: space, force,
mass, inertia, gravitational charge, law of action and reaction.
For example, Hertz has offered version of a mechanics
constructed on a limited set of concepts: space, time, mass
and ideal mechanical bond.
1. Definition of inert mass of a body.
The works by Ernest Mach (1838-1916) have made LARGE influence
on alternative interpretations of fundamental concepts of a Newtonian
mechanics. Mach builds concept of mass on the basis of a principle of
symmetries. Mach determines mass by a following way:. " The ratio of
masses of two bodies is a module of an inverse ratio of two
accelerations, which two bodies give each other. " In the given
definition the additional theoretical suppositions and concept
" an amount of substance " are not used, they are absolutely
unnecessary, as Mach has told. The given definition of mass of a
body excludes necessity law of action and reaction, since it
expresses for the second time same fact.
Just the given position of things we have in a celestial
mechanics, when we "measure" dynamic parameters of motion of
celestial bodies. (Read Mach a mechanics, it is very useful).
See "Uncertainty of gravitational constant" by Jim Cobban:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0202140855.63ef1054%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
2. A gravitational charge.
The a priori foundation do not exist for equality of a
gravitational charge (mass) of a body to its inert mass
(by suitable selection of units). The earlier researchers
of a gravitation studied difference between gravitational
action on a trial body and ungravitational action on the
same body. For example Eotvos.
The equality of both masses is the experimental fact
for a limited spatial scale.
The modern fans of extremely speculative reasons in
a gravitation (GTR) ignore this fact (for a limited spatial
scale!!!).
The statements about confirmation of a principle of
equivalence in boundaries of the solar system are lie,
conscious or inadvertent.
3. The modern modern theories of motion of planets are
a pure numerology.
The theorists Astronomers (Celestial mechanics), proceeding from
political interests, carefully hide from a public, that " the most
exact modern theories of motion of planets " are a pure numerology.
The problems of construction of the precision theories of motion of
planets are so difficult, that some theorists come to ideas of chaos,
i.e. they deny possibility of construction of the precision analytical
theory of motion of planets. Now there are very many numerical
theories of motion of planets, but theory giving exact co-ordinates
of planets for large time intervals does not exist. These theories
use various sets " of the most exact fundamental astronomical
parameters of a solar system ", but we have not the precision theory
of motion of planets till now.
See a pure numerology:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/moshier/
and
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/moshier/#Astronomy
In any most exact theory the empirical corrections " are used "
which have not physical interpretation. The reason is very simple,
in the fundamentals of the theoretical astronomical concepts really
there are error postulates.
On my sight, the principle of equivalence gives the greatest
contribution to errors the theories of motion of planets.
brian a m stuckless
> Uncle Al wrote: nothing, as usual.
> The fact that inertial and gravitational mass are identical
> means quite simply that the Earth is secondary as far as
> gravity is concerned: i.e.. it modifies an already-existing force.
> Al, you Git.
> John
Dear John,
Default Unit System:
The {GUESS} Integrated Standard System{ISS} mass is defined
in units of kilogram kg, and inertia is defined in units
of kilogram*(meter)^2 ..kg*m^2.
inertia ---> kilogram*(meter)^2 ---> kg*m^2
---> joule*(sec)^2 ---> J*(sec)^2
---> watt*(sec)^3 ---> W*(sec)^3
---> newton*sec ---> N*sec
---> volt*amp*(sec)^3 ---> V*A*(sec)^3
---> (amp)^2*ohm*(sec)^3
---> pascal*(meter)^3*(sec)^2 ---> Pa*m^3*(sec)^2
---> (mol part)*degKelvin*volt*(sec)^4 / meter
---> (mol part)*K*V*(sec)^4 / m
---> (mol part)*K*Weber*(sec)^3 / m
---> (mol part)*K*Wb*(sec)^3 / m
---> Any{ISS}mass*(displacement)^2
mass ---> ANY magnitude with units definable as kilogram kg.
---> VARIABLE Kg ---> inertia / m^2 ---> ANY joule / c^2.
Notes:
1. (mol part) ---> mol / Avagadro's Number Na
2. A watt*sec is inertial acceleration in time.
Gravitational --> primary radial acceleration.
Inertial --> dependent lateral angular acceleration.
If you see this differently, you are 'frame-jumping'
..or otherwise you are 'frame-freezing'.
Coordinates are virtual and do not accelerate.
Proper acceleration is either 'radial' OR 'lateral angular'.
Acceleration arbritrarily depends on a vector(see below).
Acceleration is a DIFFERENCE in coordinates over duration.
Promorphologically speaking, 'fundamentals' are NOT arbitrary.
Virtual 'coordinate acceleration' is Ali Babble-on-tivity.
Sincerely,
```brian < bast...@avalon.nf.ca > mar 4, 2002
p.s.
Inertia is any VARIATION of rest mass, bulk mass, or energy/c^2.
Bulk mass is NOT rest mass, by GR-'definition'.
It seems bulk is ALWAYS a moving mass in GR-tivity.
ER-tivity: ``` VARIABLE rest mass*c^2 = ANY energy e ```
GR-tivity: ``` Bulk mass*c^2 = some OTHER energy e? ```
G*M1*m1 / r^2 = mS*g = (n - 1)*m1*g
= (n - 1)*m1*v1^2 / r = (mD - m1)*g
Where..
mS = mD - m1 = (n - 1)*m1 = signetic mass
n = mD / m1
n - 1 = fine structure variable
mD = ambient Discharge mass from m1 cavity
g = 4*(pi)^2*(pendulum length)/(period)^2 = v1^2 / r
m1 = {GUESS}{ISS} test particle shell mass at required
velocity v1 at required orbital radius r and a potential
gravitational acceleration g.
Note mD = m1 at the point of buoyed weightlessness in
the ambient medium.
As you can see, the measurement depends on the ambient
remaining and whether or not m1 has cavities of greater
or lesser density.
Gravitational -->force = mass*displacement /(duration)^2
Inertial -->force = same mass*displacement /(same duration)^2
Therefore, since the test mass is the same, and the duration is
the same, then ONLY the 訴con' OR 僧agnitude' ..OR 僧ethod'
of the DISPLACEMENT can distinguish 組ravitational' force
from 訴nertial' force. Obviously the 僧agnitude' has to be also
the same in any mathematical proof. This leaves only the
訴con' OR 僧ethod' to fully distinguish same 'magnitude' of
DISPLACEMENT. Try:
Conclusion: 賎ravitational' acceleration is a different 僧ethod'
of accelerating the same test mass for the same duration than
is 訴nertial' acceleration.
Experimental demonstrations follow..
1. Drop a cannonball and olive off the Leaning Tower of Pisa
2. Accelerate cannonball and olive the same LATERALLY otherwise.
Clearly 喪adial gravitational' and 双therwise lateral angular'
accelerations ARE DIFFERENT concepts of 'acceleration'.
Gravitational radial force is an energy SOURCE.
Inertial lateral angular force is an energy SINK.
Mass*displacement / (sec)^2
= - Gravitational radial force = + Inertial lateral force
This brings us to..
GRAVITATIONAL and 前THERWISE' acceleration
= gravitational RADIAL and otherwise LATERAL ANGULAR acceleration
= PRIMARY radial and DEPENDENT lateral angular acceleration
Note that 鼠ateral displacement' is an 疎ngular' acceleration,
..mathematically speaking.
It's been obvious now for thousands of years and clearly
demonstrated with a cannonball control mass and an olive
test mass m1 from off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, hundreds
of years ago, that BOTH obviously fell at the same rate of
acceleration as long as ANY other test mass m1with the
SAME SIZE as the olive had approximately equal OR
greater density. However, a test mass m1 with a much
lesser density and same size would fall with a reduced rate
which is proportional to the its DENSITY. Of course, if the
test mass m1 also is the same mass AND size of the olive,
then its rate of acceleration is ONLY proportional to the
創umber' AND 租ensity' of any test mass m1cavities.
Again, although clearly obvious ..you can't prove it..
..like the GR-tivity Principle of Equivalence(PoE):
```` one 創o feeling' = ANY other 創o feeling' ````
..in ANY elevator, althought ANY GR-tivity tin-bit will
adamantly specify 爽nknowingly' and then 素ree-falling' in
a black-box elevator.
The mystery here is still the painfully obvious DIFFERENCE
between GRAVITATIONAL and OTHERWISE LATERAL ANGULAR acceleration.
> > Chemical calorimetry allows (and suggests!) a 2 in 10^13 violation
> > of the Eqivalence Principle detectable at will.
Two out of 10^13 鮮O-feeling's is very, very good.
How in the name of Jesus were those two distinguished!
GR-tivity crank-edly becomes a tin-bit. He,he.
^^^^^end of post.