Re: Is spacetime curvature the source of inertia?
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:09:58 -0700
On Jun 1, 4:39 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
Is an inertial frame a massless coordinate system or does
the frame include a volume of interstellar gas (hydrogen)?
The mathematician wants to deal with the former. The
physicist may have to deal with the latter.
Even Newton concluded that such an "aether" cannot exist, else the
drag would prevent the perpetuation of Keplerian orbits. A smattering
of dihydrogen does, but that's beside the point. There is still an in-
between between those molecules that a smattering of molecules can't
account for.
Have you compared the Coulomb force in a single hydrogen
atom to the gravitational force of our planet?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
It appears you wouldn't need the domains of very many
hydrogen atoms aligned to put a good strong lasso around
a planet.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
Now if "inertial" means "at rest or in rectilinear motion" wrt
something else that is also "at rest or in rectillinear motion", then
it cannot mean "resistance to accelleration". And here again, I'm at a
loss to associate the term resistance with an apple in freefall.
Resistance typically refers to some sort of friction or counter-force.
While there is an equal and opposite force generated, it isn't a
counter-force on the accellerated mass.
We can *call* it impedance and rectify that problem but it isn't
clear where we would measure true resistive heat
loss. I am just accepting the term "reisistance" as innacurate
rather than guess at a more complex term that is likely also
inaccurate. If we could resolve Tate's mass anomaly and
make 377 ohms pop out of problems in classical mechanics
then we could make that substitution... and collect our
Nobel prizes. ;-)
I'm not going to get into the 377 ohms debate. As far as I know, its
just an artifact of an incorrect approach to em in general.
Oh! We anxiously await the publicaction of your pre-prints
and course material. Can we get a sneak-peek at what
your new approach is going to alter here: :o)
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
This isn't a subject that I've only started to ponder after the OP's
post, it's a subject that has beguiled me since my first introduction
to it as a child. After chasing it around for many years I've finally
decided that the word is just a catch-all term that is used to make a
statement about masses and their interactions sound a bit reasonable
and ordinary, that is, without the user of that word understanding in
the slightest why these interactions occur or how. After a time
people actually gain a false sense of knowing what the word means
through sheer repetition of it. But it has found no place to land in
my thoughts
Indeed. Ya don't have to know all the words in the English
language by rote and confirm the accuracy of their spelling
and root forms to use the term "dictionary". You can even print
one without knowing all those things. Have you ever noticed
that no two are alike. ;-)
If you push a car on level ground, it pushs back for a period of
time. A bigger car pushes back with more force.
Only if you apply more force to it! The same force begets the same
back reaction regardless of the mass chosen. That's the catch, and
that's exactly the sort of confusion that I was alluding to. People
have this mental impression that simply has no mathematical
correspondence.
Hmmm... I suppose that is why think bigger rabbits get bigger
gunshot wounds. The semantic-ice is getting too thin to
support adults that should have some reasonable confidence
in the way NASA calculates trajectories. Start a new thread
challenging Newton's third law if you want to sort it out.
The confusion isn't adding anything to this thread.
A cranky GP-B, an anamalous London moment and a silent
LIGO don't have the authority to decree that "inertia" a dirty word.
I guess the sentiments of Tom and myself will have to do :)
I don't think you were expressing Tom's POV.
You praised his conciseness.
"Matter there causes the inertia here"
....is a very concise statement. But it tells us nothing
about the Coulomb force
of the hydrogen atoms here. It tells us nothing about
induction mechanisms alluded to in GR.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but not one bit simpler ".-- Albert Einstein
(advise he ignored more than a few times)
<<... it was just this aesthetic judgment that led him
[Einstein] to regret that he had ever introduced the
cosmological constant.
Since Einstein's time, we have learned to distrust this
sort of aesthetic criterion. Our experience in
elementary-particle physics has taught us that any
term in the field equations of physics that is allowed
by fundamental principles is likely to be there in the
equations. It is like the ant world in T. H. White's
The Once and Future King: Everything that is not
forbidden is compulsory. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
We can specify conditions where we *think* the inertial forces
should be zero and write a mathematical formalism without the term.
I am sure you recognise the approach.
Oh yes, definitely, but pray tell, what's the difference between a
force and an inertial force?
If we were sure, then experimenters could save a bundle on
cryogentic supplies.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Tate+mass+anomaly&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
But as Mark Twain was recently quoted:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Seems to mostly be both in my case :)-
Well... Nature won't let us hire professors from her talent
pool so it is understandable how the professors that we
can get sometimes propagate falsehoods, superluminally.
Sue...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: In Einstein's 1905 Relativity a single body must be at rest
- Next by Date: Re: O'Barr: What is the real velocity of light in Frame A?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is spacetime curvature the source of inertia?
- Next by thread: Re: Is spacetime curvature the source of inertia?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
