Quote:
A decrease in the ‘inertial capacity’ of the system leads to an underestimate of mass. Let me use electronics to illustrate the concept: I can hang my Christmas lights up on any house in the valley and get a good estimate of the distance from the luminosity. But if I plugged them into my house and ran a long extension cord, my estimate would be way off if I did not include the line loss in the calculation. When we launch a probe away from the Sun, As the mass of the system decreases, so does the apparent mass of the rocket. No, this is not Newton and Einstein, and we know it.
I am hypothesizing the equivalence principle is wrong: Inertia is not intrinsic in matter but a function of the total electromagnetic mass. Energy is conserved because the momentum lost is literally radiated. All of the space probes arriving at destinations further from the sun contain less kinetic energy, and this 'line loss' is proportional, as a log function of the distance traveled. The only time this effect is obvious is in carefully monitored probes like the pioneer 10 and 11.
|
I do hope that makes some sort of sense to you because it certainly doesn't to me.
Quote:
|
Inertia is not intrinsic in matter but a function of the total electromagnetic mass.
|
Oh? And the difference would be?
Quote:
|
Energy is conserved because the momentum lost is literally radiated.
|
By what means?
Quote:
A decrease in the ‘inertial capacity’ of the system leads to an underestimate of mass....
As the mass of the system decreases, so does the apparent mass of the rocket
|
So, are you saying that different masses fall at different rates in an equal Gee field? If not, then that statement makes no sense. If so, then it makes no sense. A decrease in mass (if that were true) still does not lead to a decrease in velocity or the action of gravity. If a screw rattled loose from one of the pioneers and through thermal effects drifted a few microns away from the craft it would still accompany it even though it's mass is considerably less.
A decrease in the Gee constant would fit your conjecture. But, that is not the case.