Inertia = Gravity: Literally?
From: Seymour Grass (daddio45_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/08/05
- Next message: Lady Chatterly: "Re: Nancy lying her ass off on Coast to Coast. A complete laugh riot."
- Previous message: Russell B Waters: "Re: VOTE! - Usenet Kook Awards, December 2004"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 03:29:41 -0600
From: "Seymour Grass" <daddio45@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Galactic Rotation: A Question of Direction
Date: Friday, January 07, 2005 4:40 PM
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:RjTCd.76386$k25.51009@attbi_s53...
> Sun in moving [rotation of the galaxy] in the direction of Lyra.
There is a 20km/sec motion in that direction (from here, wherever here is)
on top of the ride our star is taking with the galaxy at a velocity of 250
km/sec. Furthermore, while our planet is moving (with the sun) at both
those rates, it has, of course it's own mean orbital velocity of somewhere
around 30km/sec.
This raises the question:
Someone not long ago thought to refute the case I keep trying to make about
gravity = inertia by suggesting that it could not be so because if gravity
is nothing but a conservation of angular momentum, the effect would be like
trying to keep a cup of coffee on the roof of a car while driving around a
curve--you'd need other vectors of force working to keep it there.
You bet.
If earth had nothing but its own rotational and orbital accelerations
conserved in its mass as momentum, I would be forced to concede, but that is
not the only acceleration of earth's mass going on, so I would put the
question: if all the combined accelerations of Earth (with the sun) are
taken as a sum of conserved angular momentum got from at least 4 different
vectors of angular velocity -- well, then what?
Do the various quantities of angular momentum combine to form the one force,
the inertia we know as "gravity"--or does the force of the greatest
momentum, that 250km/sec rotation of the galaxy act as a counterforce to
cancel the momentum of the rest--or rather, do we take the conservation laws
seriously?
In other words, can it not be this: The coffee cup (any body on earth) does
not fly off the car (our earth) in the direction of the one or the other
most obviously imposed vector because the other vectors *are* there to
counterbalance that force, combining in a conservation of angular momentum
as the sum inertia of that mass.
What if inertia be defined not as "momentum", not as "angular momentum" but
as *conserved momentum* (angular or otherwise) found in the mass of any
accelerating body, as weight--and depending on the amount of mass and
weight, as "gravity"?
But how would *action at a distance* be explained? If a person, not a
coffee cup, is standing on the roof of that car and he jumps up high enough,
obviously, he is going to come back down, hard, to the asphalt. But the
huge mass of the earth is not a car.
Let's talk about man and Earth: The far lesser mass of the man has been a
reservoir for the sum angular momentum conserved in the whole earth. Okay?
No? Well, look: as the man is in contact with the earth, he *is* the earth,
receiving into his own body all the inertial force (conserved angular
momentum) of the earth--all that momentum is in him, and stays in him when
he jumps, and he has to exert much force against all that rotational and
orbital velocity, that acceleration, which works against, and reacts to the
motion he exerts against that inertia in earth, in himself.
As the man springs from the ground, the amount of force he can exert against
his earth-gained inertia is not sufficient to be sustained against all the
other vectors of force conserved in his body which had been generated in the
mass of the earth, and in him from all earth's accelerations. He is
fighting against the earth in his own body, exerting himself against all the
inertia of Earth conserved as angular momentum in his own mass, which energy
is immensely more than could ever be generated by his own mass without the
earth, just floating around in space.
As the man jumped upward it was against rotational and orbital vectors of
force in his body's mass which work parabolically to impede that upward
motion, and while the momentum of his upward acceleration is conserved as
force vectors with all the rest, rotational and orbital, the pressure of
his feet against the earth, the force from the power of his muscles had only
been sufficient to gain the upper hand momentarily over against all the
other force vectors of angular momentum working as inertia and weight in his
body's mass--but one thing is radically changed, which is that no sooner did
his shoes leave the surface of the planet than he was cut off from any
further source of upward going force.
Now the vectors of force from the orbital and rotational acceleration
conserved by angular momentum in the inertia of his body's mass are still
active, still conserved right along with the momentum of his upward going
acceleration--but the direction of orbital vectors, being angular are now
pointed downward. The resistance, the inertia, of downward pointed vectors
of *conserved* angular momenta is energy now being converted from potential
to kinetic, or i.e. to velocity of downward acceleration, in other words,
"fall", and this at an observable mean rate of 32 feet per second per
second, which is the constant which comes into being as the sum of all
earth's motions of terrestrial rotation, of orbital velocity, of
intra-galactic solar velocity in translation through the Orion arm, of
galactic rotation, and inter-galactic rotation of the super-group.
There is nothing in the mass of earth to attract the mass of the jumping
man. Quite to the contrary, there are angular, downward pointed vectors of
force conserved in the mass of his jumping body, the sum of which is greater
than what is conserved in the upward going vectors and when that positive
upward acceleration of body mass has risen so far as the force will permit,
equilibrium is very rapidly attained, and then lost as that vertical tending
force goes negative against the resistance conserved as inertia to become
converted to weight-downward turning angular velocity.
Now: what about the Moon?
Whether it was ever part of the earth, or was a body formed separately in
adjacent space is of no moment. All the motions, both solar and galactic
imparted to the earth are imparted also to the moon, and because Galileo has
proven the rate of acceleration for a falling body to be independent of
mass, so all bodies will fall at the same rate, then both earth and moon are
destined to occupy the same region of space in orbit of the sun.
So what acts to cause the moon to begin orbiting the earth? The Earth has a
magnetic field and that field has influence in the space it occupies; it is
a field of force in the highly ionized environment or "void" of "empty"
space. But of course, space is neither void nor empty. It is full of ionic
matter and electromagnetic energy from all the stars, black holes, and the
sun. There is a veritable "aether sea" of ionic particles or waves in which
all massive bodies are afloat, and via their electric fields, exist in
communication. Those fields are both attractive and repulsive so that any
body neighboring another will each exert force upon the other which force is
transformed to motion, as waves of particles wash between the bodies,
pushing one against the other, pulling one from the other in continual
oscillation.
The very nearness of the moon may be the chief cause for rotation of the
earth. Mercury has no moon and it does not rotate. Jupiter has many moons
and rotates like a house on fire, and so it goes with Saturn, and so forth.
The rotation of a planet creates a field flux in the space about it which
captures the mass of any satellite to set it in motion of revolution about
the larger body, while the smaller body imparts its influence to rotate the
larger body.
-- JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/ http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/ "Once when Sir Isaac Newton--a mere lad--got over into the man's apple orchard--I don't know what he was doing there--I didn't come all the way from Hartford to q-u-e-s-t-i-o-n Mr. Newton's honesty--but when he was there--in the main orchard--he saw an apple fall and he was a-t-t-racted toward it, and that led to the discovery--not of Mr. Newton (who got back over the fence quick enough) but of the great law of attraction and gravitation." --Mark Twain (if any bowdlerizing parenthesis may be pardoned or ignored)
- Next message: Lady Chatterly: "Re: Nancy lying her ass off on Coast to Coast. A complete laugh riot."
- Previous message: Russell B Waters: "Re: VOTE! - Usenet Kook Awards, December 2004"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
