# Inertia & Mach's principle & frame dragging

5 views

### Wolfgang G. Gasser

Jul 28, 2007, 12:41:49 PM7/28/07
to
Let us assume that the total gravitational force acting on a
freely moving test body in a galaxy is always exactly compensated
by an artificial force. In this case the motion of the test body
is subject to the principle of inertia.

As a thought experiment let us further assume that except for the
test body, the whole galaxy is artificially set into motion in a
given direction (i.e. the same velocity vector is added to every
part of the galaxy).

The question arises whether this setting-into-motion of the galaxy
affects our test body or not.

The answer according to the classical principle of inertia is:
the test body is not affected by the galaxy.

On the other hand, the test body is embedded in the gravitational
field of the galaxy. Thus, the hypothesis that the test body is
somehow affected by the setting-into-motion of the galaxy is also
reasonable.

If there is nothing outside the galaxy, then Mach's principle
suggests that the test body's velocity wrt the galaxy does not
change while the whole galaxy is set into motion, because inertia
depends on the other masses which here are only the parts of the
galaxy. This also implies frame dragging because the frame of the
test body is dragged by the galaxy.

If inertia somehow depends on the other masses, shouldn't nearby
masses have a bigger effect than more distant masses? A simple
hypothesis is that the effect of a distant object on inertial
motion of a test body is proportional to the mass of the
distant object and inversely proportional to the distance, i.e.
proportional to gravitational potential lost by the test body
due to the distant object (what we can call the gravitational
dependence on the distant object). This means that inertial
motion of the test body is dragged by all these objects. The
resulting drag can be calculated by weighted averages.

Let us introduce a coordinate system where the mass center of
a galaxy is at rest and define an 'inersis vector field' in the
following way: the inersis velocity vector at any point is the
average of the velocity vectors of all parts of the galaxy,
weighted according to gravitational dependence.

If the kinematics and the mass distribution of a galaxy is known
then it is easy to calculate the inersis vector field. This vector
field obviously rotates around the center of the galaxy. E.g. near
earth, the weight of the stars in our neighbourhood is stronger
than the weight of the stars on the other side of the Milky Way
moving in the opposite direction. Therefore, the inersis vectors
in our galactic region point roughly to the same direction as the
movement of this region.

Let us assume that such a quantitive version of Mach's principle
is realized in nature. Then a test body moving at the velocity of
the corresponding inersis vector is at rest wrt the averaged
movements of the surrounding masses. If the total gravitational
force acting on such a test body were always exactly compensated
by an artificial force, then the test body would rotate around
the galaxy only by inertial motion (or rather by inertial rest).

The validity of this hypothesis also entails that in order to
analyze the dynamics of a galaxy, one should at first subtract
the corresponding inersis vectors from the velocities of the
galactic objects before applying the currently used methods.

Cheers, Wolfgang

How was Dark Matter calculated:

### Sue...

Jul 28, 2007, 1:33:41 PM7/28/07
to
On Jul 28, 1:41 pm, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> Let us assume that the total gravitational force acting on a
> freely moving test body in a galaxy is always exactly compensated
> by an artificial force. In this case the motion of the test body
> is subject to the principle of inertia.
>
> As a thought experiment let us further assume that except for the
> test body, the whole galaxy is artificially set into motion in a
> given direction (i.e. the same velocity vector is added to every
> part of the galaxy).
>
> The question arises whether this setting-into-motion of the galaxy
> affects our test body or not.

Shoot a cannon from the earth. Then identify the
mass and velocity parameters of the projectile that
you would tweak to have the moon tag along with the
recoiling planet or tag along with the projectile from
the cannon.

Sue...

[...]

### Chris Marx c/o www.paf.li

Jul 28, 2007, 1:56:21 PM7/28/07
to
"Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@z.lol.li> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:f8frim\$tg\$1...@atlas.ip-plus.net...

>
> Let us assume that the total gravitational force
> acting on a freely moving test body in a galaxy
> is always exactly compensated by an artificial
> force. In this case the motion of the test body
> is subject to the principle of inertia.

Will you kindly refrain from "assuming" non-existant
forces, such as qualitative "gravitational force" (ie
"mass attraction"). For many years now a GFMI is
online at www.paf.li/gfmi-e.pdf, where the variable,
bipolar (in- & outrolling vortex) & substance-relevant
gravitation can be observed & studied.

Nature doesn't know any mathematics & cannot
be quantified (cf "Quantification> Mathematics>
Modelling> Scientific Method: The Central Problem
of Global Civilization" in www.paf.li/Quantification.pdf.

So please note that from natural knowledge "DM"
can be observed as non-substantial & therefore
invisible potential electricity at ~-5'000'000 °C,
also being the core of all bodies from stars down
to the energy balls ("atoms").

Cf the LQS of the EVU Part 2 in "The Primeval
Phenomenon of Substance Formation" in
www.paf.li/perceptions.htm#_Toc2338371.

++++

LQS = Logical Qualitative System

EVU = Electric Vortex Universe;
cf www.paf.li/perceptions.htm.

GFMI = Gravitational Field Measuring Instrument:
(Engl paper Physical Congress 2006 St Petersburg)
cf www.paf.li/gfmi-e.pdf; output of experiment in
http://evu.paf.li, substance relevant in
http://evu.paf.li/rrd/hg.html - Mercury
http://evu.paf.li/rrd/cu.html - Copper
http://evu.paf.li/rrd/sn.html - Tin

### Hayek

Jul 28, 2007, 2:26:17 PM7/28/07
to
Wolfgang G. Gasser wrote:
> Let us assume that the total gravitational force acting on a freely
> moving test body in a galaxy is always exactly compensated by an
> artificial force. In this case the motion of the test body is subject
> to the principle of inertia.
>
> As a thought experiment let us further assume that except for the
> test body, the whole galaxy is artificially set into motion in a
> given direction (i.e. the same velocity vector is added to every part
> of the galaxy).
>
> The question arises whether this setting-into-motion of the galaxy
> affects our test body or not.
>
> The answer according to the classical principle of inertia is: the
> test body is not affected by the galaxy.
>
> On the other hand, the test body is embedded in the gravitational
> field of the galaxy. Thus, the hypothesis that the test body is
> somehow affected by the setting-into-motion of the galaxy is also
> reasonable.

See what Einstein wrote to Mach :
http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp544.html

>
> If there is nothing outside the galaxy, then Mach's principle
> suggests that the test body's velocity wrt the galaxy does not change
> while the whole galaxy is set into motion, because inertia depends on
> the other masses which here are only the parts of the galaxy. This
> also implies frame dragging because the frame of the test body is
> dragged by the galaxy.
>
> If inertia somehow depends on the other masses, shouldn't nearby
> masses have a bigger effect than more distant masses? A simple
> hypothesis is that the effect of a distant object on inertial motion
> of a test body is proportional to the mass of the distant object and
> inversely proportional to the distance, i.e. proportional to
> gravitational potential lost by the test body due to the distant
> object (what we can call the gravitational dependence on the distant
> object). This means that inertial motion of the test body is dragged
> by all these objects. The resulting drag can be calculated by
> weighted averages.
>
> Let us introduce a coordinate system where the mass center of a
> galaxy is at rest and define an 'inersis vector field' in the
> following way: the inersis velocity vector at any point is the
> average of the velocity vectors of all parts of the galaxy, weighted
> according to gravitational dependence.

It is probably more complicated :
Since 2/3 of the Universe has not made light contact with us and vice
versa, it follows that 2/3 of the universe has not made inertial (= eq
to gravitational) contact with us.

This inertia is thus constantly increasing and making all objects shrink
by gravitational length contraction.

A clock is an inertiameter.

Uwe Hayek.

### Sam Wormley

Jul 28, 2007, 2:42:21 PM7/28/07
to
Hayek wrote:

> Since 2/3 of the Universe has not made light contact with us and vice
> versa, it follows that 2/3 of the universe has not made inertial (= eq
> to gravitational) contact with us.
>

Physics News Update -- Number 685, May 12, 2004
by Phil Schewe and Ben Stein
Ref: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/685.html

Our Universe Has a Topology Scale of at least 24 GPC

Our universe has a topology scale of at least 24 Gpc, or
about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis
of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP).

What does this mean? Well, because of conceivable
hall-of-mirrors effects of spacetime, the universe might
be finite in size but give us mortals the illusion that it is
infinite. For example, the cosmos might be tiled with
some repeating shape, around which light rays might
wrap themselves over and over ("wrap" in the sense
that, as in video games, something might disappear off
the left side of the screen and reappear on the right
side).

A new study by scientists from Princeton, Montana
State, and Case Western looks for signs of such
"wrapped " light in the form of pairs of circles, in
opposite directions in the sky, with similar patterns in
the temperature of the cosmic microwave background.
If the universe were finite and actually smaller than the
distance to the "surface of last scattering" (a distance
that essentially constitutes the edge of the "visible
universe," and the place in deep space whence comes
the cosmic microwaves), then multiple imaging should
show up in the microwave background.

But no such correspondences appeared in the analysis.
The researchers are able to turn the lack of recurring
patterns into the form of a lower limit on the scale of
cosmic topology, equal to 24 billion parsecs, a factor of
10 larger than previous observational bounds. (Cornish,
Spergel, Starkman, Komatsu, Physical Review Letters,
upcoming article; contact Neil Cornish, 406-994-7986,
corn...@physics.montana.edu.)