Re: on origin of inertia

shevek4_at_yahoo.com
Date: 03/29/05 

Date: 29 Mar 2005 09:25:36 -0800

aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
> google groups doesn't let me quote the usual way, so I'll answer you
by
> numbers.
>

The new google groups takes some getting used to. To get the quoted
printable format, don't use the "reply" button below the message,
instead click "show options" at the header of the message you want to
reply to, then click "reply" in those options.

> 1) I start with a very basic definition, of "union of points in
space"
> only to define next concept, the field. So the definition of matter
as
> I introduce it is actually the 2nd definition, which makes more
sence.
>
> 2) Cannot be changed in the sense suggested by SR/GR.

Eh? It -can- be changed, that's the whole point of SR/GR. Metric is a
physical, I would say mechanical, entitiy. Get used to it, there is no
other way to go about it! Think back to the bar of metal with marks on
it, as the official meter. This is material - metric is defined with
material. Without stuff, there's no distance or time.

>
> 3) I didn't consider it necessary. Collection of fields is obvious
> answer. A bowling ball is harder to accelerate as it has more generic
> fields than a golf ball. I also did not expect field lines to cause
> confusion. The real fields are symmetrical 3D fields (take for
example
> electrons/protons). I can't draw 3D symetrical field on 2D paper.
> Non-symmetrical fields comprised of several lines are for
> presentational purposes only.

You will need to be more specific than "more generic fields". How are
you quantifying "more"? Certainly, we can draw just as many lines in 2
or 3D that end on a golf ball as a bowling ball. Their volumes contain
the same number of points in union. Do you mean there is more energy
in the fields? How do 2 protons have "more generic field" than one
proton? There is more electromagnetic energy in the field of the 2
protons.. is this what you mean? But if so, there is just as much
electromagnetic energy in the far field of a proton as an electron, yet
the former has more inertia.

Care to speculate as to why?

I don't know the answer, just trying to encourage dialog.

Cheers - shevek