Gravity Vs inertia.
brian a m stuckless
Gravity works automatically at-a-distance ..inertia only by contact.
Gravitational iMPULSE is applied per volume, inertial only per area.
Gravitational iMPULSE is centro-symmetric ..inertial, only latteral.
Where-as gravity has units Kg*m/(sec)^2 ..inertial units are Kg*m^2.
```Brian.
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Joe Fischer wrote: > > On Wed, RP <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Joe Fischer wrote: > >[snip]
> >> The concept requires at least _two_ un-needed
> >> forces acting, inertia to make the moon want to follow
> >> a straight path, and gravity, to exert the forces to make
> >> the moon orbit.
> >> And all this with no visible means of accomplishing
> >> it. It is all built on 16th century thinking.
> >>
> >> Unless some detectable, yet unknown as of now,
> >> real physical "field" exists, action at a distance is not
> >> possible. And I think the idea of another "field" that
> >> can only be determined by the motion it produces, is
> >> identical in silliness to the aether.
> >>
> >Here's a gedanken for you to ponder: Suppose we find that beyond the
> >presently visible portion of the universe, that there exists another
> >layer of matter of much greater thickness than the presently observable
> >layer or *visible core*, and that wrt that outer layer, on average, the
> >visible core<sic> is rotating, in much the same way that a galaxy
> >rotates wrt the visible core. In such a universe we might find that
> >when our bucket of of water is stationary wrt the visible fixed stars
> >(visible background) that a centripetal force acts on the water in the
> >bucket. By rotating the bucket slowly in the same direction as the outer
> >layer the centripetal force abates.
>
> Now you want to use a hypothetical universe as
> an argument for complexity?
>
> >The universe cannot rotate as a whole,
>
> Galaxies do, why not the universe?
>
> >as such would have no meaning
> >unless a fixed aether composed of something other than what we can
> >detect and observer were introduced, and as we know there is no such
> >thing,
>
> At least you present some reasonable logic with this.
>
> >Having nothing to rotate wrt the universe of matter and fields
> >thus is the only aether available, and as such anything rotating wrt the
> >universe is rotating absolutely wrt it.
>
> But that doesn't mean the rest of the universe
> causes inertia, and inertia must be an attribute of
> the accelerated object, and centrifugal force is
> _nothing_ but inertia.
>
> >If not for the existence of the
> >remainder of the matter in the universe, the bucket of water simply
> >could not spin and no centripetal force should therefore be evident.
>
> Nonsense, even Newton knew the bucket experiment
> would not work in the absence of gravity, that is why he
> made another thought experiment using two rocks tied
> together.
>
> >A straight line in space is defined by the metric, which in turn is
> >structured by the matter in the universe.
>
> Nonsense, it is nonsense simply on the basis
> of simplicity, nature must be simple, for the sake
> of simplicity.
> Simplicity is the most powerful argument that
> can be put forth, and any effect of distant matter
> on physics here is the most complex concept possible.
>
> >The effect of distant
> >galaxies on the local metric may be small when considered to act
> >directly, but it is not nonexistent.
>
> The effect of the gravity of the sun is very evident,
> but it is not due to an attraction, nor is it due to any
> "force" acting. It is the very absence of any force
> acting, and the absence of Mach's inertia that makes
> the appearance of "a force acting" to produce gravity.
>
> >It's effect becomes greater
> >however as we expand the radius of what we are calling our local space,
> >up to the point of having sizable effects, such as in the gedanken
> >above, when applied indirectly to very local, even microscopic effects.
>
> With gravity, which must be identical to inertia,
> as the effects of gravity are those of inertia and _nothing_
> else (except something matter here is doing), the effect
> is an inverse square function, so expanding the radius
> is not a good argument.
>
> > The angular acceleration of a tossed baseball is greatly influenced by
> >the Earth's gravity, to a lesser extent by Sun, etc. Our assumed
> >inertial frame becomes more precisely inertial as we take a broader and
> >broader perspective of our system, i.e. as we view events from a greater
> >distance.
>
> We are a considerable distance from the center
> of the Milky Way, is that a detectable thing?
>
> >The Sun is in turn orbiting the center of the Galaxy, which is
> >in turn is rotating, and moving through space wrt the greater whole. The
> >trajectory of the baseball, as viewed from the perimeter of the visible
> >universe is thus somewhat different than our simplistic perception of it
> > when considered as only a local sequence of events.
>
> And it all can be explained by local intrinsic
> attributes of matter and the simple workings of
> nature.
>
> >It is also from
> >the perspective at the perimeter (the state of rest chosen to reflect a
> >net angular momentum of the universe of precisely zero) that angular
> >acceleration of the water in the bucket takes on its observed local
> >characteristics.
>
> Without gravity the water would not stay in the
> bucket, or at least without acceleration the water would
> not stay in the bucket.
> See how simple it is to see that the effects of
> gravity are the effects of inertia?
> Mach's idea, or even Newton's conjecture of
> support for Euclidean space is not simple, therefore
> they can be countered on the basis of simplicity for
> the sake of simplicity.
> Actually, it is idiotic, moronic and bizarre to
> argue that distant matter exerts any "forces" or
> control over motion or changes in motion here.
> For the sake of simplicity!
>
> > Though the effect of distant masses may appear to be
> >insignificant, by the interaction of successive layers of the envelope
> >with each other locally, an indirect strong influence perpetuates all
> >the way in to our position here on Earth.
>
> Just the way Newton's attraction of gravity
> propagates, but Einstein ditched that nonsense.
>
> >The layers are inertially geared together strongly via
> >local exchanges and weakly via long range interactions.
>
> Gravity is not a long range "interaction", it
> is simply the effect of inertia along with something
> else which may not be known or considered.
>
> >Think about water spinning down a drain and the frictional
> >exchanges between layers in concentric cross sections. Keep in mind the
> >inverse square law of force as applied to gravitational and
> >electromagnetic fields, and thus the local field density is barely
> >altered directly by distant objects. It will take a small bit of
> >imagination to understand what I mean by field density.
>
> Not if the "field' can be identified, which would
> take a lot of invagination.
> The flux density of starlight is easy to detect,
> yet it is very small compared to the light of the sun,
> but it is not imaginary.
>
> >Think in terms of flux density, same thing.
>
> There is nothing about gravity or inertia
> that is the same as "flux density".
>
> >By analogy, the ambient light energy
> >density that we experience locally is barely affected by distant
> >sources, and strongly by local sources, e.g. the Sun.
>
> But it is well studied, and the many factors that
> reduce the flux density of light from individual stars
> are well understood.
>
> >I essentially only reiterating Einstein's own conclusions here.
> >namely that there is indeed a medium, but it isn't the medium
> >that was expected.
>
> There is no medium, for the sake of simplicity.
>
> >Now here's another thought that might tie it together for you: Given
> >lorentz/fitzgerald contraction, it follows that if the universe were
> >more or less uniform in mass distribution wrt some frame of reference,
> >then in some other frame that approaches c wrt the first, the mass
> >density of the universe would approach infinity along the line of
> >motion.
>
> The vast distance between galaxies compared
> to the closeness of the stars of the Milky Way makes
> your argument baseless.
>
> >At c the universe would drop to zero length in the direction of
> >motion, for that observer.
>
> The view of the observer has nothing to do
> with physics, it is part of relativity for other reasons.
>
> > That we observe uniformity suggest very
> >strongly that we are more or less at rest wrt the universe.
>
> If we are not moving relative to the rest of
> the universe means we are at rest relative to the
> rest of the universe, nothing else.
>
> >IOW, when
> >viewing the bigger picture there is indeed a master frame, namely that
> >of the universe itself when taken as a whole, and in this observation
> >there is yet no contradiction to the special theory, which is equivalent
> >to LET,
>
> A three letter bad word.
>
> >which in turn is obviously consistent with the picture just
> >painted. Some have even argued that LET requires a master frame due to
> >the acceleration histories of masses within it converging at some point
> >in the past to a single inertial frame, even though that frame cannot be
> >discovered conclusively via measurements at this late date in the
> >universe's history. We can however look at the background anisotropy
> >(CMBR) and determine that we are in fact in motion wrt the surrounding
> >whole, though not at an enormous rate.
> >Richard Perry
>
> What is that an argument for or against?
>
> Physics is simple, the Earth's gravity is a
> result of inertia and an attribute of the matter
> and energy of the Earth, not of other matter.
> Gravity is intimately tied to inertia, and
> both must be intrinsic to local matter, for
> the sake of simplicity!
>
> This is a valid argument until and unless
> some mechanism for distant matter to effect
> local physics.
> All "forces" involved are imaginary if any
> concept of action-at-a-distance are presented.
> Gravity is a "fictitious" force, but inertia
> is not. And both are attributes of matter "here".
>
> Joe Fischer
Re: Einstein's Mistakes.
Re: Gravity Vs inertia.
$$ Gravity Vs inertia.
Gravity works automatically at-a-distance ..inertia only by contact.
Gravitational iMPULSE is applied per volume, inertial only per area.
Gravitational iMPULSE is centro-symmetric ..inertial, only latteral.
Where-as gravity has units Kg*m/(sec)^2 ..inertial units are Kg*m^2.
```Brian.
brian a m stuckless
Acceleration g has units, m/(sec)^2 ..but inertial units are kg*m^2.
Gravitational constant G has units, m^3/kg/(sec)^2 ..for attraction.
> Gravitational impulse is applied per volume, inertial only per area.
Gravitational impulse, centro-symmetric; inertial impulse is linear.
> Gravity works automatically at-a-distance ..inertia only by contact.
> $$ Gravity Vs inertia.
Acceleration g has units, m/(sec)^2 ..but inertial units are kg*m^2.
Gravitational constant G has units, m^3/kg/(sec)^2 ..for attraction.
> Gravitational impulse is applied per volume, inertial only per area.
> Gravitational impulse, centro-symmetric; inertial impulse is linear.
> Gravity works automatically at-a-distance ..inertia only by contact.
```Brian.
brian a m stuckless
> the force near the centre of a body.
>
> > > Gravitational impulse, centro-symmetric; inertial impulse is linear.
> << Gravity works automatically at-a-distance ..inertia only by
> contact.>>
>
> planet or the sum of the field perturbation of all the distant bodies.
>
> Barycentres like to merge because because minimum energy is
> expended in the coupling mechanism.
>
> Behold! The mechanism:
> http://www.hpc.susx.ac.uk/~ewels/science/thesis/html/node38.html
Thank's for the link ..i like that equation. You post it before:
2*(pi)^2*(impurity concentration)*(effective charge)^2
I = -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
(n)*(impurity Mass)*c
2*(pi)^2*(impurity concentration)*(effective charge)^2*c
I = -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
(n)*(impurity Mass)*c^2.
THEREFORE:
Velocity v = v1 is..
I*(impurity Mass M)*c^2 c^2 c
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- = ----- = ---
2*(pi)^2*(impurity concentration)*(eff. charge N)^2 (n)*c (n).
Note that it has the same c & n as my < ascii iSS GUESS > item 49:
49. Light VELOCiTY c ..< ascii iSS GUESS > exerpt:
$ The MEDiA between stars iNCLUDEs *in-transit* LiGHT ..a medium.
Light VELOCiTY v is "CONSTANT" ONLY with a CONSTANT particle-COUNT.
Light VELOCiTY c is a MATHEMATiCAL CONSTANT ..just like pi and ("e"):
Light VELOCiTY c:
c = ls / ts = lp / tp = hbar / {mph}*ls = h / k*{e} = rH*F / Ra
= 2*(magnetic flux quantum #) / k = 2*# / k = rH*{e} / k = Ub / Zs*h
4*pi*Eo*me*ve*c^2 C1 (n - 1)*C1 C1 C2
= -- -- -- -- -- -- = -- --- -- = -- -- - -- = -- -- - -- -- = ------
{e}^2 2*pi*k*C2 G*Mp*{mph} 4*pi*#*{e}*v1 {e}*v1
pi*("e")^128 h*("e")^128 10^44*pi*lp 1 lp
= -- -- -- -- -- = -- -- -- -- -- -- = -- -- -- -- -- = -- - -- = --
10^47*(pi + 1) 10^47*(h + 2*hbar) (pi + 1)^2*sec Uo*Eo*c tp.
Light VELOCiTY v:
2*pi*("e")^128 10^44*h*lp 1 c
= -- -- - -- -- -- = -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- = -- - -- = ---
10^47*(2*pi + nA) (pi + 1)*(h + nA*hbar)*sec Ua*Ea*c (n)
lp m1*wl m1*wl*v1*c nL*h 10^44*lp
= -- -- = -- ---- -- = -- ---- -- = -- --- -- = -- -- --- -- --
(n)*tp nL*h*Ua*Ea nL*h (n)*m1*v1 (pi + 1)*Ni*sec
2*10^44*pi*lp C2 (displacement x)*c
= -- -- -- --- -- -- -- = ----- = -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- = v1.
(pi +1)*(2pi + nA)*sec {e}*c {thickness*theta (nx - 1)}
[GUESS permeability Uo = 4*pi/10^7; And permittivity Eo is 1/Uo*c^2].
[Note, ABSOLUTE permeability is Ua; And ABSOLUTE permittivity is Ea].
Thank you, again. ```Brian.
> It is 'automatic'. Just as your refrigerator door 'automatically'
> aligns its dipoles to *attract* a magnet, no matter the orientation
> of the magnet.
>
> Radiation disperses energy. Mutual induction concentrates it.
> Did you remember to change the batteries in your refrigerator
> magnets when you changed your flashlight batteries ? :o)
$$ Nature says, "Vacu suck.!!"
You're wrong about your refrigerator magnets NOT doing work.
That is only what some people who don't understand much say.
[NOT to infer any lack of capacity on your part w.r.t that.]
A magnet does work at a very low rate w.r.t stored capacity.
Think of the magnet as you would a refrigerator suction cup.
Note, however, in both cases, there is a necessary friction.
Energy is always expended overcoming any amount of friction.
Behold.!! The link's typo..:
< http://www.hpc.susx.ac.uk/~ewels/science/thesis/html/node38.html >
Bottom sentence ought say, "N^2 is simply the square of this value."
```Brian.
> Sue...
> > ```Brian.
Re: Gravity Vs inertia.
jonathan
"brian a m stuckless" <bas...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:43D02E...@nf.sympatico.ca...
> Sue... wrote: > > brian a m stuckless wrote:
> > > > $$ Gravity Vs inertia.
> > > Acceleration g has units, m/(sec)^2 ..but inertial units are kg*m^2.
> > > Gravitational constant G has units, m^3/kg/(sec)^2 ..for attraction.
> > > > Gravitational impulse is applied per volume, inertial only per area.
> > > Gravitational impulse, centro-symmetric; inertial impulse is linear.
> > > > Gravity works automatically at-a-distance ..inertia only by contact.
You classical thinkers are so mired in confusion. Reality is not so
difficult to understand that we need equations and branes and
such contrivances. Reality is too simple to see with those ways.
If you can comprehend a cloud, you can understand all of reality
including life and ideas.
We must simply define the natural and degenerate forms of
an abstract cloud. And look at the properties when in either
form. These properties can then be seen in anything and
everything, and we can know all of reality through one
set of concepts so simple a child could see them.
Condensation and evaporation. The two opposite degenerate
extremes in possibility for our cloud. Water or air.
It's natural state is when it's both and neither at the same time.
Persistently poised at the transition conditions between the
it's opposites. When it's constantly changing states from
water molecules to air. When the component trajectories are
intractably entangled in phase space. When it's a continuous
sequence of step changes. When it acts as both a particle and
a wave at the same time. Like light for instance, an emotion
or panic selling. Criticality.
Self-Organized Criticality : Emergent Complex Behavior in
Physical and Biological Systems (Cambridge Lecture Notes
in Physics)
"When the temperature of the system is precisely equal to the
transition temperature, something extraordinary happens"
"It started out with sandpiles, earthquakes, and forest fires. Next
came electric breakdown, motion of magnetic domains, and growing
interfaces. The idea was soon suggested to apply to economics, and
SOC models have more recently been proposed as ways of
understanding biological evolution."
"Therefore, BTW described the behavior of these systems as self organized
criticality (SOC)"
"The system will now evolve in time under the influence of the external
driving forces and the internal interaction forces,"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521483719/102-0210728-8046552?v=glance&n=283155
This critical behavior is the natural state of all things, as it's the
probable final state of any sufficiently complex system.
The universe and everything wants to be a cloud, something
has to prevent it being so, something has to drive it
away from behaving as both a wave and a particle
at the same time.
So with gravity, when trying to put it in perspective
with everything else, we simply ask "what is the opposite
degenerative form of gravity?" That's easy, it's cosmic expansion.
I mean, every cloud has to have it's condensed and evaporated
degenerate forms.
But in it's natural state gravity and cosmic expansion
are intractably entangled, both and neither, critically
interacting. And when that happens we experience
that which we call inertia.
When a system is unnatural we can say it is two
things. It's two degenerate forms. When natural it is more
than it's sum as evolution now applies. A fractal dimensionality
just more than two.
So the only equation one truly needs to evoke
a description of reality is to say reality is ....
.......more than two, but just less than three.
Or just slap your hands together, then hold them
far apart. Everything in the universe including our
thoughts can be expressed without speaking
or writing even a word.
Instead of inverse square laws and certainty in the
solutions. Think power laws, and the uncertainty of
clouds. Instead of objective methods, think subjective.
Even a child can understand the Grand Theory.
No...that's wrong...I take that back.
Modern science uses a frame of reference that is
precisely backwards, hence all the arguing, confusion
and schisms. Science needs to be inversed, it needs
to be Born Again.
So....ONLY...a child can understand the GUT.
Jonathan
"But how shall finished creatures
A function fresh obtain?-
Old Nicodemus' phantom
Confronting us again!"
s
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message
news:9pBAf.2972$SB2...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
...
> Condensation and evaporation. The two opposite
> degenerate extremes in possibility for our cloud.
> Water or air.
http://www.physorg.com/news10033.html
... and maybe a little more...
David A. Smith