Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX

Jürgen Clade wrote:
Hayek schrieb:

Will a handwritten testimony of Einstein himself do ? http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp543.html
There ist no "handwritten testimony" of Einstein, and
nevertheless "testimonies" are not helpful in physics.
It was written at the time he wasa composing GR, and it is about a
key element of GR, crucial to understanding my interpretation.

Nevertheless, "testimonies" are not helpful in physics.

It is not a testimony as such, it is proof that Einstein understood
Mach's principle, it was even Einstein who gave it that name, and that
he wanted to incorporate it in GR.

Concerning gravitation and inertia, you should read e.g. this
book by Ciufolini and Wheeler:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5635.html
The link I gave you, is also written by Wheeler. And Thorne and
Misner.

The rest of the discussion later, but start reading this : http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp543.html

Ok, I read it - and what is your question now?


So, mass over there creates inertia over here.
Thus, inertia is not a property of mass an sich, but an external
property, caused by the mass of say galaxies and the universe,
surrounding the (test) mass.

You agree so far ?



Next step : If mass creates inertia, more mass creates more inertia.
Mass does not only create gravitation but also inertia.

Realizing this, we look at the Eotvosch experiment again, and the
equivalence principle, gravitational mass always= inertial mass.
Because they are caused by the same field ?

It would be silly that nature would let mass create two fields, that in
every point in space would have the same strength, exactly compensating
eachother. One rather concludes these are two properties of the same
field. And whenever the inertial field has a gradient, we call it gravity.

We are subjected to enormous gravitation from the masses of the
universe, but we do not feel it, since it cancels out, but we still
undergo the inertia.

Ok so far...?



Next step : clocks runs slower in gravitation, you call it differently,
but it is effectively saying the same.

So if we put a clock in space, it runs faster, there is less
gravitation, if we put it on the surface, it runs slower more
gravitation, and then we put it at the center of the earth : NO
gravitation, we are weightless there. But the clock runs SLOWEST there !
So clock speed has nothing to do with gravitation, but it nicely follows
the inertial field, or the inertial component of the field created by mass.


Finale : how would you build an inertiameter ? Well, to measure inertia
you have to accelerate a mass, and see how much resistance to speed
change it puts up. So you trow a mass back and forth, by a fixed force,
and see how long it takes to go back and forth. And count that,
integrate the time period.
We exactly described a clock.

A clock is an inertiameter, and GR time is nothing more than an
expression of inertia.

THE MISSING INERTIA IN GR
-------------------------
In 1917, Einstein was disappointed that GR did not describe inertia, he
never talked about it since, he was evading the question, but inertia
was in GR all along, it was in the TIME variable. It is quite logical
that you cannot include time and inertia in a theory if they are both
the same physical phenomenon. The theory or better the formalism would
yield simply wrong results. So Einstein left GR as it was and wondered
were the inertia went to.

This was truly his biggest and truly enormous blunder, favoring some
mythical notion of time, and its non-existing dimension, over a physical
and simple, down to earth notion of inertia.

If you can follow my reasoning so far, I will explain its importance for
understanding uncertainty.

I know that not all steps are sound reasoning, or that there is proof,
but at least, these are reasonable assumptions, and if in the end they
yield correspondence with reality, they are to be considered.

Also, we could consider inertia as the field we absolutely do not notice
locally, as we cannot compare an inertiameter (formerly called clock) to
one next to it. They would measure the same inertia. Also, our
biological processes, consisting of moving molecules, are subjected to
the same inertia. So our biology runs at the same speed as our clocks.
And everything else in physics, inertia is the base variable, that
influences all physics in the same way, and we absolutely do not have a
clue of detecting its strength. This is the principle of relativity, but
now expressed in mechanistic terms.


Uwe Hayek.









--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... temporal mist when separated, you are not doing physics, or if physics ... to know if you consider physical problems dealing with gravitation. ... namely the length of worldline sections. ... Of course GR accounts for inertia! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... Thus, inertia is not a property of mass an sich, but an external ... I would express it somewhat different: "Inertia" means that a test ... You don't feel gravitation as long as you move along a geodesic. ... But the clock runs SLOWEST there! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... QM describes a quantum object ... and to their inertia, but it does not tell us where the inertia comes ... Formulae don't replace but render an understanding of physics. ... sections as related to the mass creating them. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained
    ... Inertia mass = Gravitational Mass = Accelerated motion ... attempts to stop the object, which is a form of acceleration, “slowing ... including the lifting of object from gravitation ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... or slower when it is separated from another clock. ... problems dealing with gravitation. ... Of course GR accounts for inertia! ... You agreed with Mach's principle, you agreed with mass creating inertia, you agreed with more mass creating more inertia, the latter mass NOT being the test mass, but the mass "over there", around the test mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading