🚀 go-pugleaf

$$                   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.
 >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Joe Fischer wrote: >  > On Wed, RP <no_mail_no_spam@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.
  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.