🚀 go-pugleaf

$$        Any SPACE where a particle is, is NOT empty.
          You're so anti-Brian, jOE.!!
          What is æther?                     ```Brian.

Joe Fischer wrote: > > On Tue, RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Joe Fischer wrote:
> >>           I can't quote the exact words by Einstein,
> >> but I think by 1930 at least, he had discarded Mach.
> >
> >I don't recall issuing support for Mach, at least not for his ideas in
> >general--that was you putting words into my mouth.
>
>          Who else would try to connect distant matter
> with local matter?      Or distant matter with local
> Euclidean space, with "space" being the controlling
> "force" of inertia?
>
> > It was Weinberg's
> >fallacious argument that I was dismissing, not his objections to Mach
> >per se. IOW, his conclusion doesn't follow from his premises -- it was a
> >bad argument.
>
>          He covered a lot of ground in the address,
> he mayy be able to do better in a presentation paper.
>
> >Neither Weinberg nor Mach are correct in this article. Mach assumed that
> >inertia depended upon the fixed stars, in the sense that not only the
> >effect of inertia itself, but also the magnitude of that inertia, would
> >depend upon the mass and density of the universe in general. But the
> >negation of Mach's argument doesn't automatically equate to the motions
> >of particles being independent of the fixed stars.
>
>           So you want to cling to the idea that the fixed stars
> are hooked to computers that some how calculate just
> when and how much to resist acceleration, as that is
> what inertia is, and it is inertia that establishes the mass
> of an object by "weighing".
>
> >It isn't the
> >particular magnitude of the inertia of a given mass that is determined
> >by the fixed stars, it is rather the very existence of that inertia
> >itself that depends upon them, and is provided by them.
>
>          Yet you offer no description of the mechanism process,
> "it just does"?
>
> >Since it is this point, and this point alone that
> >Weiberg protested, then he was wrong.
>
>            Frankly I find any action at a distance as silly,
> not just plain wrong.
>
> >Though it may have been a premise of Mach's, it was not the entirety of
> >Mach's theory, and it was also a premise of Einstein's that endured post
> >GR.
>
>            I read a lot of Einstein's papers, and it it hard
> to tell when he supported a certain premise.
>            Early on, he naturally used the then-current
> accepted though on a subject, but how could he
> possible support the concept of the fixed stars
> controlling inertia, when freefall is inertial motion.
>           Forget old beliefs, and think of what is possible.
>
> >IOW, that premise can be correct and Mach incorrect.
>
>           A lot of the concept of Euclidean space is
> somewhat like Mach's inertia, and it cannot be
> supported in the presence of gravity.
>           While the fixed stars seem to be establish
> a visual/optical reference frame, it takes more than
> believing in magic to think they have any influence
> on local matter.
>           How could a lower object "fall" faster than
> a higher object in freefall if the distant stars had
> any control over freefalling or orbiting objects?
>
>            General Relativity does a better job of sorting
> out free motion based on motion history than Newtonian
> gravitation.     And I think it becomes obvious that the
> fixed stars are just so far away that they appear to be
> stationary with respect to local matter, but so far away
> that there is no possible mechanism for them to have
> any effect on local motion, and definitely no possible
> mechanism to control the mass of an object, which is
> what inertia does (resistance to acceleration).
>
> >This may seem
> >like a subtle difference in interpretations, but it is however quite
> >different than what Mach envisioned, and it is likewise quite different
> >than what Weinberg suggests in the article.
>
>            I have seen Weinberg talk a couple of times, and
> I think he s confident in what he says, and not hesitant
> to admit when he is wrong.
>
> >Now let's look at what Weinberg says:
> >
> >[...] Einstein was also at first confused by an idea he had taken from
> >the philosopher Ernst Mach: that the phenomenon of inertia is caused by
> >distant masses. To keep inertia finite, Einstein in 1917 supposed that
> >the universe must be finite, and so he assumed that its spatial geometry
> >is that of a three-dimensional spherical surface. It was therefore a
> >surprise to him that when test particles are introduced into the empty
> >universe of de Sitter's model, they exhibit all the usual properties of
> >inertia. In general relativity the masses of distant bodies are not the
> >cause of inertia, though they do affect the choice of inertial frames.
> >[...]"
> >
> >Note how the last sentence doesn't logically follow, as the premise
> >speaks of the magnitude of inertia, whereas the latter speaks only of
> >the existence of inertia itself.  The syllogism is broken.
> >Richard Perry
>
>           "The choice of inertial frames" is something
> man does, not nature.
>           I don't see how anybody can reconcile geodesic
> deviation with inertia determined by fixed stars.
>           I can't even imagine why anybody would assume,
> let alone postulate that matter a Billion light years can
> affect motion here.
>           This would be bad enough if there were no gravity,
> but in the presence of gravity, it becomes bizarre.
>
>           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.
>
> Joe Fischer
Re: Einstein's Mistakes.
Re: Any SPACE where a particle is, is NOT empty.!!