[quote]
On 2002-08-23 18:19, Gsquare wrote:
Richard J. Hanak,
Thanks for
finally revealing the conclusion to the novel you were presenting; (that way I don't have to pay for the book!) .... I figured you were going to blame gravity for causing inertia; (God also gets blamed for a lot a' stuff He doesn't do, but that's another story).
Actually there is quite a similarity to what you are saying and what Mach was saying; it's just that Mach attributed inertial effect to distant mass, you are
trying to arrange it locally.
I'm all for alternative theories, ...
Nevertheless, there are some problems:
If I'm going to challenge Einstein's assumptions, you should expect I'll certainly challenge yours:
Quote:
|
It is surprising that Mach did not realize that if the Earth rotated around the bucket, let alone the whole universe, no mere meniscus would have been formed.
|
I don't believe this has ever been proven either way. SO.. How did you find out??
Quote:
|
The strongest tidal force imaginable would have emptied the bucket.
|
Uh,..I don't believe that inertial effect in Mach's proposal, or otherwise, was ever attributed to tidal forces. Nevertheless, I believe a quick calculation of tidal forces of earth orbiting about the stationary bucket would show negligible effect; [the minimum 'nearness' the earth could get to the bucket would be one earth radius, (~6.6 x 10^6 m.)]
Quote:
|
If distant bodies caused the inertia of a body, we should expect nearer bodies to cause directional variation in that inertia.
|
Not neccesarily. This statement implies you have arbitrarily decided a'priori that the magnitude of inertia is directly proportional to that part of gravitational force that varies at 1/R^2.
**
By the way, it may interest you to know: one Einstein's GR predictions (based on the
same expectation from Mach's ideas) was that a body's inertia would increase as massive bodies were brought 'near'. The effect, though, was calculated to be so small as to be immeasureable by typical experiments.
However, this effect was shown later to be untrue by Brans (mid 60's) due to the fact that it would have broken equivilence principle, and his analysis is generally accepted.
Mach thought that inertia depends upon
a mutual action of matter, without specifying the nature of the interaction; whereas Einstein specified the nature (and magnitude) of the interaction. You, however, make no mention of the equation you are using ....therefore, any local directional inertial variation or
lack thereof is presumptive.
Also, I notice
no equation for the local inertial effect that you predict, except to say it is somehow equal to the distortion of grav. potential energy. Without an equation it may be hard to convince even those willing to re-think relativistics.
Quote:
|
Inertial force is a manifestation of the dynamic gravitational field of a body interacting with the body itself.
|
Show me the equation.
Quote:
|
The kinetic energy of a body, then, is stored as a distortion of its gravitational field.
|
Show me the equation!
Quote:
|
If the distortion is increasing the body is accelerating. Thus, the states of rest, unaccelerated motion, or accelerated motion of a body are potentially determinable from its own gravitational field.
|
Great concept, but fill in the blank below.
SHOW ME THE ____________!
Quote:
|
The so-called relativistic increase in mass at high velocities, then, is not really an increase in mass. It is an increase in a body’s inertia as its gravitational field piles up ahead of it.
|
1st of all, lets get on the same page. 'Mass' and 'inertia' in physics are the same quatity,(used interchangeably), its called inertial mass.
The rest I address later.
G^2