ngeo writes:

Yes, this is proven by the famous Eotvos experiment.

Except that without inertia, bodies would accelerate instantly under the influence of gravity.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Dear Ken,

I agree with you that the inertia of fundamental particles seems to exist, and that the inertia of the truck or your charged conductor must be due to the total inertia of its components.

However, imagine the seperate particles e.g. an electron, is made from millions of smaller charged particles, about half of which are positive, about half negative, which leave a total charge of -e overall. This electron would be stretched or compressed in the electric field, and its inertia (proportional to the force needed to accelerated it) may match the force needed to compress or stretch it.

This is just an argument that in principle, the inertia may not be due to distant stars , but due to compression/stretching. Machs principle does not have a defined mechanism whereby the inertia is caused by distant stars, so I'm just trying to show that in principle this alternative could define a reference frame relative to which the body 'knows' it is being subject to acceleration.

John Hunter.

Dear Kaptain K

Not really, because the apparent acceleration of bodies in a gravitational field, is not caused by a force but by the curvature of spacetime in GR. So even bodies with small or no rest mass move in the same way as more massive bodies. e.g. a photon of light.

John Hunter.

The Eöt-Wash Group has done a series of experimental test on this (or, the Equivalence Principle), several possible extensions to the Standard Model, deviations from the 'inverse square law' (i.e. Newton) at short distances, and more.

To date, the experimental results have shown no deviations from GR, period.

Here is the group's webpage, and here is a list of their publications. Enjoy!

Yes, I know about them, thank you (note the name of the group). So we are in agreement, correct?

As far as I know, we don't know anything about inertia but it's there in our calculations and observations. We don't know why it's there though.

Indeed.

I wonder, however, if the OP [upriver*] (or anyone else reading this thread) feels his (her?) question has been adequately answered.

We still have the other OP question: "Does relativity predict sidereal effects?"

My own answer would be something along the lines of "sure it does, because the curvature of space at any point on the Earth's surface would be expected to show variation with time, and you could analyse this variation into any number of (periodic) components, one of which could be 'siderial'."

Perhaps a more meaningful question might be something like: "Given what we know about the motion of the Earth, and the way the atmosphere and oceans move, in bulk, what is the expected size of a 'siderial effect' in the curvature of space at any particular point on the Earth's surface?

Is this expected effect large enough to be unambiguously detected using today's technology?

What experiments to detect such an effect have been conducted?

What were the results?"

[Edit: *strictly speaking, the OP is me, Nereid. However, I was merely acting as a reporter, taking upriver's two questions (in another section) and copying them here, so we could disuss them.]

Hum,
Mass may comes from the interaction of matter with the `seething Zero Point Energy field filled with virtual particle-antiparticle pairs.`

An old theory suggests that a zero point field exists at every point in space-time. These electromagnetic vibrations would exist at the lowest energy state of space-time.

Particles that we regard to have mass (eg protons, electrons), that are at rest, or have a constant speed through this `ether`(Zero Point Energy field) expierence no inertia effect but as soon as it brakes or accelerates the particle experiances an unsymmetrical or unbalanced pressure from the virtual photons from the quantum vacuum.
The particle would feel a `force` (inertia).

Similarly, a particle that can warp space-time (and the zero point field) would affect other particles by the same affect.
It would generate more virtual photons on the outside of the warp than on the inside.
For all intents and purposes another particle would `feel` a gravitational effect (v photons) emanating from the particle in the warped space-time.

The theory eloquently shows how a particle can have inertia.
And show perhaps how a warping of space-time can produce `mass` or gravity.
A massless neutrino for example would not warp the ZPF and therefore produce no V photons (it would have no mass or gravity) for other particles to bump into or feel.

However the major stumbling point in this theory is that (currently) it only works for charged particles. (but one to watchout for in the next year)

i won’t bother to mention the mainstream alternative...

But Gravity does compress. Its what Gravity does best. Everyone gets sucked into the 3D model, yet direct force equals equates to trajectory . You go from point A to point B. Pushing an object such as a truck compresses the Iron atoms, you are asking of the molecular bond to maintain integredity. In an Atmosphere you need apply speed of sound , as well as friction. In space space the speed of sound does not applynor friction.
Inertia is the E plus mass

That's good, because logically, it is an untenable idea. The Higgs field cannot exist.

Proof: If the Higgs field (and the Higgs boson) conveys mass on matter and the gravitational field (and the graviton) conveys gravitational attraction to the now-massive matter, the Universe demonstrates the most exquisite fine-tuning problem that can be contrived. If matter gains its mass from its interaction with the Higgs field and if that matter interacts according to its interaction with the gravitational field, both of these fields must be absolutely and perferctly congruent across all space and time, or else the Universe would look very different than it does. These are NOT separate fields.

__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter.

Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924

Intuitively I think we are offending Occam with way too many bells and whistles on our creation (endurance) theory. It seems more likely that we are dealing with the equivalent of a Higgs field being modulated in some complex way in a Euclidean 3-space through time. This conglomeration cycles, not necessarily in regular intervals, in periods lasting up to several billion years and what we are observing from 6 billion years ago was an expansion rate minimum. What we now think of as the inflation period may be a misinterpretation of an expansion rate maximum.

Long ago (several months back prior to the merger) I introduced the Shmoo version of the Higgs Field which I can no longer find in the BAUT archives. Behold its rebirth.

Tsk! Tsk! By epiphanic intuition I, perhaps only I, can see it is not spacetime that is warped but the Riemannian geometry of the Shmoo field which permeates a flat (Euclidean ) space geometry of boundless volume which persists in and affects the measurement of time...but only the measurement. The Shmoo field is busy seeking its zero energy state which erases each transitory artifact of the warpage such as mass, charge, gravity, and the measurement of time. Then a miracle happens and it all starts over again with perhaps a Shmoo field with different characteristics. My! Occam! what a long beard you have. Is your razor broken.

In the spin I put on cosmology, it is the Shmoo Field, not spacetime (the difference may be smaller than I know), which gets warped (curved, kinked, krinkled, etc.,) by gravity . I assume an absolute vacuum of three dimensional Euclidean space existing through time permeated by the Shmoo field which provides the essence of being to each of the other characteristics manifested by and within the universe. At the initiation of the current big bang all energy was undifferentiated and contained within a small volume of space within a hyper-contorted (warped) small portion of the Shmoo field with Riemannian geometric characteristics at a maximum as was the energy density. I further assume a quantum nature for the Higgs field such that macroscopic objects (you, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.,) interact on a much higher quantum scale than do quarks, electrons, protons, etc., The mass and charge and subcharge, if there be such, are the minimum states of warping of the Shmoo field. Since the big bang the field has been, on net, dumping energy into the absolute vacuum (3-D Euclidian space) as a means of seeking its zero energy state while black holes are delivering some energy back to the field. There may be longer period oscillations manifested in the field evidenced by rates of expansion reversals. Dark energy is the name by which we currently call the expansion of higher density portions of the field (dumping of energy) into the more remote (from big bang location) regions of the absolute vacuum. zero point vacuum energy is the continual "ringing" of the field and the attenuation of this ringing drives what we observe as cosmological expansion.

My motivation for positing the Shmoo field is to pursue Einstein's assertion that gravity is geometry and to assign geometric definitions for mass, charge, and sub-charge parameters (if such exist). The thought occurred to me that the field (already named and tied to geometry) might cause the Euclidean geometry (another of my deviations from mainstream thinking) to have quantized properties across several scales that provide the essence of being to gravity, magnetism, mass, charge, and such properties as are yet to be discovered. This, if it has merit, will free us from positing non-Euclidian hyper-dimensions, strings, and branes as well as the something for nothing feature of the big bang. The Shmoo version of the big bang results from the random occurrence of accumulations of energy density that exceed whatever the yet to be determined warpage threshold of the Euclidian 3-space can accommodate.

Assume that the hypothetical zero energy state of the entire Shmoo field (not allowed by physics) would be manifested by an absolutely empty Euclidean sphere of infinite radius—the ultimate vacuum with no mass, no gravity, no quarks, no photons, etc., Now allow this Euclidean space to be "deformed" (warped) such that paths allowed for the transmission of energy tend to assume Riemanian (or Minkowskian) characteristics with bundles of lowest energy represented by the least deviation (warpage) from Euclidean space. Further assume that the possible deviations from Euclidean geometry are not continuous but are quantized such that a particular quantum corresponds to a specific energy level, gravitational field strength or magnetic field strength. From these quantized levels of deviation from pure Euclidean space come each of the artifacts of physics and cosmology which correspond to various energy states of the Shmoo field. Hence we, including each of our constituents, are but combinations and permutations of time variations of non-euclidian wrinkles in 3-space. The Shmoo field is similar to an imaginary bell which, once struck, rings forever with frequencies changing to allow every tone (energy manifestation) it is capable of emitting.

It is a commonly held assumption in physics that the most stable State of anything is its zero energy state. I am guessing the Shmoo field follows this trend since I have no reason to believe otherwise. It's like asserting that liquid water will run downhill if it is not constrained. Due to its elasticity the field never arrives at its zero energy state; however, large volumes of it may. If it ever was totally zeroed out, only Nirvana would be left. It can't zero out because the energy has nowhere to go. The energy of the universe is constant (or infinite) and must remain so.

The material (mass component) constituting neutrons, neutrinos, protons, and electrons as well as any subcomponents thereof seems to be nothing other than some quantized kink in space. Near the geometric center (I deliberately avoid calling this a signularity) of a black hole, my guess is that space must be experiencing hyper^(x)-kinking (aka warping) which can be considered as a set of path length densities (sort of an increase in space [volume] density) such that several light year increments of distance in "normal" (a light year or so away from any black hole event horizon) space is fractally crunched into a few angstroms distance near the geometric center of the black hole for each possible path available to any manifestation of energy. This suggests that space, or allowable paths through it, has a characteristic similar to a "spring constant" (a possible attribute of the Shmoo field) which is intimately associated with gravity in a quantized way. Should any truth reside in this description, white holes, short of big bang scales, are practically impossible.

Oh, by the way, momentum is a property of the Shmoo field.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Personally, I've seen it as something far simpler: inertia is not a thing, it is a lack of a thing. Meaning, it takes a thing to affect the motion of an object. Without that thing, the motion of the object remains unaffected.

Is there some attribute to GR that alters this basic definition?

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

@Kesh
Hum,
Yes, that is quite simple.
But it would be nice if it could also explain gravity.

(see my previous post to see your idea GR warped with nothing more than virtual photons - no, really!)


@GOURDHEAD
Yes that sounds familiar
But i didn't really understand anything you wrote.
Fancy saying it again in laypersons terms (for the benefit of Lay people)

Inertia, is the Possible Energy, or potential energy of an object in motion. However, inertia is not the same thing as mass or momentum (the product of velocity and mass)
If you push something and increase accelleration to a certain point,then stop pushing because the wall is getting closer. The hole in the wall is a result of the potential energy of inertia.

Hum,
yeah, that sounds good.
But how exactly is inertia is not the same thing as mass or momentum?

(ie could i invent a new particle, dimension, or scalar field to accommodate inertia? or can i just use the standard GR bendy spacetime to describe them all?)