Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space

On Oct 16, 8:47 am, NovaJoe <relativetheo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 16, 7:26 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:



"NovaJoe" <relativetheo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1192543019.940959.247290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Oct 16, 6:07 am, NovaJoe <relativetheo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 15, 8:07 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

"NovaJoe" <relativetheo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1192422352.548579.218410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The relativity of motion in space relative to the inertia phenomena
is
a subject that no one can seem to agree upon. It seems no one can
make
up there mind either. But, if we all we to take a deep breath, and
approach this difficulty by thinking "out side the box," we would
find
there is a easy way to go about this difficulty. Lets go back to the
basics and see what we can come up with. Assuming motion cannot
exist
without reference, the first thing that needs to be done is we need
to
define motion relative to the inertia phenomena. Let us simplify
this
statement by saying, "We need to define motion in space relative to
space" (spatial reference) If we imagine the universe in a perpetual
orbit, from the perspective of watching the univers from outside the
universe, how are we to know if the universe is spining in perpetual
orbit, or are we orbiting the universe while the universe stands
still? There is no motion to define here relative to a orbital
motion
without a third body of reference. The only motion that can be
defined under these conditions is the motion of the expansion of the
universe. Now were begin to get the picture. How are we to modify a
postulate for the functionality of the inertia phenomena by using
this
deduction. Let us assume that inertial mass and gravitational mass
are equivalent.

That reflects a common misunderstanding: originally (and there is no
reason
to change that), "mass" was postulated to be something physical and not
merely a constant in an equation. To claim about something physical
that it
is "equivalent" to itself when measured with different methods is
meaningless.

Inertial mass is relative to velcity in space, thus,
gravitational mass is relative to motion in space as well.

Perhaps you meant that "mass is RELATED to velocity (speed) in space"?
Indeed, relativistic mass m = gamma*m_0 = f(v) with v= relative to any
inertial frame of choice - incl."space" if you so desire.

Go to relativetheorys.com blogs and quotes page for more...

Sorry but... too many colours, underline etc. That gives a BAD first
impression!

Cheers,
Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

inertial frame of choice - incl."space" if you so desire.
To claim about something physical that it

is "equivalent" to itself when measured with different methods is
meaningless.

Yes, mass is what I mean when I speak of inertial and gravitational
mass and yes, to state two different measurements of the same thing
(mass measured either with inertia, or gravity) are equivalent is in
itself meaningless. But this seemingly meaningless statement is
fundamental to the point I am trying to convay.

Perhaps you meant that "mass is RELATED to velocity (speed) in
space"?

Indeed, relativistic mass m = gamma*m_0 = f(v) with v= relative to any
inertial frame of choice - incl."space" if you so desire.- Hide quoted
text -

It is known that space warps relative to velocity approaching the
speed of light.

1. Mathematical space such as in space-time diagrames "warps" but I it's a
bit weird to talk about "warping" of physical space. Physical space should
not be confused with mathematical space.

2. Velocity of an object doesn't "warp space relative to its velocity" - not
even mathematical space! Gravity may be said to do so, and thus (for heavy
objects) also the mass of the object.

Space expands in the direction of motion, while the
space opposite to the direction of motion contracts creating a
resistance opposite to the direction of motion.

In SRT, space (whichever) is not at all affected by motion and measurements
agree. There may be some negligible effects (in view of GRT) but certainly
not the enormous effects that you seem to suggest (you do imply a factor
gamma right?). I guess that that invalidates much of what you write below.

Regards,
Harald

B.S. Your preconceptions divert attention from the big picture
associated with the misconceptions of the general public view of the
inertia phenomena. These misconceptions, if considered to be "true"
when attempting to solve the difficulties of inertia/gravity make
solving these difficulties impossible. The only way these
difficulties will ever be resolved is to discard the present general
assumptions on the subject and approach this problem with new and
alternative angles. This is the only thing you can do when faced with
redundant solutions that make an absolute solutions impossible under
the current general public perceptions on the problem of inertia/
gravity. Once again i point out you cannot solve the difficulty of
the inertia phenomena by referencing this phenomena relative to
gravity because the two are one in the same making this solution
suggested in the link you posted "a pipe dream with no possible real
solutions to anything when explained in the manner of gravity as the
reference of the inertial affect" Inertial mass ang gravitational mass are measuring the same thing "MASS" and are the same thing so how can you reference the inertia phenomena with gravity? You cant and the statment itself is meaningless without explination of the reference of the inertia phenomena.





The greater the
velocity of a body of mass is approaching the speed of light (in a
vacuum) the greater the overall mass of the body becomes (increase in
mass relative to acceleration in velocity). The property of matter
experiencing an increase in overall mass associated with velocity in
space ("in space" because all motion in reality is in space/all
physical matter exist in space weather surrounded matter or not all
matter exist in space) is the connection in implying, because: this
suggest mass needs to be in motion for gravity to exist. Which raises
the question," how is velocity referenced relative to the warping of
space associated with velocity approaching the speed of light (inertia
phenomena)?" There must be a reference of motion in space relative to
the inertia phenomena. Understanding the connection between matter
(mass), inertia and the reference (also the need to define this
reference) of the inertia phenomena is fundamental to understanding
gravity, the curvature of space in the presence of mass, the
acceleration of the expansion of the universe (the so called "dark
energy"). My theory (Relativistic-Hyper-Unification Theory or RHU
Theory for short) defines the reference of the inertia phenomena, the
motion of the matter/mass (universal spatial expansion of all mass in
the universe spherically outward with the velocity of light, which
becomes the third reference unto which all other motion is defined
relative to the inertia phenomena), among numerous other difficulties
solved or explained by my theory (Relativistic-Hyper-Unification or
RHU Theory). The universal spatial expansion of mass with the
velocity of light is the reason for universal gravitation. The
universal special expansion of all mass in the universe with the
velocity of light sounds like a pipe dream the first time you imagine
matter expanding at the speed of light because we don't observe this
motion in reality. However, if space expanded equivocally
proportional relative to the expansion of mass so that two separated
bodies in space would not appear to be getting closer to each other so
long as two bodies are far enough away from each other so that gravity
is not a factor. Under these conditions the expansion of space
associated with the expansion of matter would be impossible to observe
relative to the lack of reference. The universal spatial expansion of
mass (PUM) velocity would have to be a continuously accelerated
velocity relative to the unit of measurement continuously expanding
with the expansion of space (associated with the expansion of
matter). Under these conditions the expansion velocity of mass would
be required to accelerate in order to maintain an equivalent
perception of inertia from moment to moment. If the expansion
velocity of mass was a constant unvarying velocity gravity would
appear to weaken over time. As the unit of measurement expands with
space and matter/mass inertia would weaken without acceleration that
maintains a velocity equivalent to our perception of a 186,000 miles
per/sec from moment to moment. As our perception of one mile remains
constant (under these conditions), the reality is the unite of
measurement continuously increases in volume requiring the expansion
velocity of matter (mass) to accelerate in order to maintain
equivalent perception of inertia (gravity). This hypothesis is
supported by the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Proven through experiment suggested and carried out by, Saul
Perlmutter with the Lawrence Berkley national laboratory. He
suggested 100 or more type 1-A supernovas be photographed so that they
could decipher the deceleration ratio of the expansion of the
universe. They discovered the expansion of the universe was
accelerating. They recorded a 20% increase in velocity of expansion
since the big bang, and of course no one was expecting- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

read more »


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
    ... space" If we imagine the universe in a perpetual ... defined under these conditions is the motion of the expansion of the ... Let us assume that inertial mass and gravitational mass ... Velocity of an object doesn't "warp space relative to its velocity" - not ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
    ... space" If we imagine the universe in a perpetual ... defined under these conditions is the motion of the expansion of the ... Let us assume that inertial mass and gravitational mass ... It is known that space warps relative to velocity approaching the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
    ... space" If we imagine the universe in a perpetual ... defined under these conditions is the motion of the expansion of the ... Let us assume that inertial mass and gravitational mass ... It is known that space warps relative to velocity approaching the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
    ... space" If we imagine the universe in a perpetual ... defined under these conditions is the motion of the expansion of the ... Let us assume that inertial mass and gravitational mass ... It is known that space warps relative to velocity approaching the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Could Machs Principle be a real force?
    ... inertia recuperated the 18/02/2009) ... M a distant mass ... due to acceleration and is  what is responsible for inertia. ... and opposite  force due to all the forces in the whole universe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)