Re: ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
- From: Stamenin <tasko.s@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 15:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 8, 4:32 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 8, 4:55 pm, Stamenin <task...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:06 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 31, 7:04 pm, Stamenin <task...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
What I can conclude after all that is said, is the fact that the
General theory of the relativity has a messy base and not a base of
powerful arguments and fundamental laws of the nature.
Stamenin
<< No preferred frames
In theories that comply with Mach's principle,
even the preference for inertial frames is removed:
observations made by observers in nominally
"inertial" and "noninertial" frames may seem
superficially biased in favour of the inertial
observer, but ultimately, a full description of
the physics becomes similarly complex in either
case.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame
<<Newton recognized that the law of
inertia is unsatisfactory
in a context so far unmentioned in
this exposition, namely that it gives no
real cause for the special physical
position of the states of motion of the in-
ertial frames relative to all other
states of motion.
I can't accept that Newton said such a thing when he has discovered
the formulas used for the description of the law of inertia.
The second law of mechanics is Fe=ma. But according to the Third law
of mechanics There must exist and the force with which the body
opposes to the exterior force and we have Fe=-Fi
The first law results from the second law by puting a=0.
This means that if do not act upon the material body exterior forces
the body will stay or will move with v=constant.
The body will follow a curved path, so the velocity
will not be constant.
The material body will start moving in accelerated motion only if
upon it will act an exterior force Fe. Then the material bofy opposes
with the inertial force Fi shown above. So the inertial coordinate
system do not influence the body to act so because the reaction of the
body is an inner property of the body.
Like gerbils running in a wheel or something. :o)
This situation is valid for a space where do not exist gravitational
forces.
Try selling the idea in some other universe. The inverse
square law applies in this universe so you can't find
such a place.
For the case where exist gravitational forces is valid my principle of
the insensibility of the gravitational and inertial forces of the
man's body. And this principle isn't in contradiction with Newton
theory but only an additional explanation.
Gerbils on a wheel inside a bullet? Ya really think so?
So for the first case we have the example of the cabin in cosmos
where do not exist gravitational forces, and for the second case we
have the example of the cosmic cabin which evolves now around the
earth. Practically the seccond case is the cause of misunderstanding
the existence of the first law of the mechanics.
Now you just need an empty universe to sell the notion in.
Don't forget to offer the customer special food for the
gerbils. Gillette didn't get rich giving razors away. It
was the continuing sale of the patented blades that kept
his banker in good spirits.
Don't forget that Einstein gives this experiment with a chest in that
empty space. And Newto's absolute coordinate system was negated
because of this yours now and evidently correct observation. The
result was not the descovery of the empty space but the empty black
hols. So what can we do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_C._Gillette
Sue...
Stamenin.
It makes the observable
material bodies responsible for the
gravitational behaviour of a material
point, yet indicates no material
cause for the inertial behaviour of the mate-
rial point but devises the cause
for it (absolute space or inertial ether).
This is not logically inadmissible although
it is unsatisfactory. For this reason
E. Mach demanded a modification of the
law of inertia in the sense that the
inertia should be interpreted as an
acceleration resistance of the bodies
--> against one another <--
and not against "space". This interpretation
governs the expectation that accelerated bodies
have concordant accelerating action in the same
sense on other bodies (acceleration induction).
This interpretation is even more
plausible according to general relativity
which eliminates the distinction between
inertial and gravitational effects.
It amounts to stipulating that, apart
from the arbitrariness governed by the
free choice of coordinates, the g ì v -field
shall be completely determined by
the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured in
general relativity by the circumstance that
acceleration induction in accordance with
the gravitational field equations really exists,
although of such slight intensity that direct detection
by mechanical experiments is out of the question. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le...
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
- Next by Date: Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
- Previous by thread: Re: ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
- Next by thread: Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
