Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- From: NovaJoe <relativetheorys@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:07:08 -0000
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.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- From: NovaJoe
- Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- From: NovaJoe
- Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- References:
- The Relativity of Motion in Space
- From: NovaJoe
- Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- From: harry
- The Relativity of Motion in Space
- Prev by Date: Re: Sagnac Fully Supports the BaTh.
- Next by Date: Re: What is the smallest unit of energy?
- Previous by thread: Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- Next by thread: Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
