[RascalPuff]

Dear Nobody:
Please consider the following empirical information.

The Father Of Experimental Science, Galileo, proved that Aristotle was wrong when the latter surmised that heavier objects, fall faster in descent, than lighter objects, when dropped from the same height at the same time, above the earth's surface.
It does seem logical. It just doesn't happen to be true. Everyone who is anyone in physics today, falls on hocus pocus, to make this annoying fact go away. Reduce it to a trivial matter of no - ho hum - importance. Whereas, it is a major, unresolved enigma in theoretical physics. It is often falsely held up, either as a non-issue, or as a (falsely) resolved issue.

Galileo is said to be the first to make and note proof of that unexpected - ever since, bitterly disappointing - fact of reality. Being the universal rate of descent of all objects in free fall, regardless of their mass values (in the absence of air resistance). 16 (32) feet per second squared, for bodies descending on or near the surface of the earth.

'God is subtle, but not malicious.' - Einstein

Much (low key, back stage) concern has been given to Galileo's unarguable fact of descending bodies in a gravitational field; ever since it was proven. Especially after Newton made a law of gravity that does indeed dictate: the heavier object should indeed descend faster than the lighter - less massive - object...
Because, according to Newton's laws, there should inevitably be a greater mutual attraction between, say, a descending cannonball and the earth, than between a descending bb shot and the earth.

The (ironic) mystery is frequently and glibly said to be resolved in the fact of the coincidence of inertial and gravitational mass values intersecting at the same qualitatively accelerating coordinates.


An obligatory description of the unanticipated and astonishing coincidence is not any explanation of the still completely unexplained *coincidence...

By definition - like gravity and for exactly the same reason - *not understood (and stonewalled) by the scientific- academic status quo. Representatives of which all too often are found pretending an understanding of that which they do not understand. Furthermore, falsely representing what they (often capriciously and coyly - with all authoritative gravity)tragicomically misrepresent.


That is to say, a cannonball, according to Newton's Law, should (is supposed to) fall faster than a descending bb shot. The cannonball does not fall faster than descending bb shots or grains of sand or a leaping pod of airborne Blue whales. Everything falls at the same rate of acceleration, regardless of its mass value: *in the absence of air resistance...

*This last qualification is important; there are many critics who aggressively introduce 'terminal velocity' of descending object in free fall above the earth's surface as being 120 m.p.h., which is true, the critic sums up the argument by adding that if the earth is truly accelerating - expanding ever faster to rise up and meet apparently descending objects, then there wouldn't be a terminal velocity, and free falling objects 'would accelerate', instead of reaching 'TV' - terminal velocity - a free falling parachutist before the chute is deployed, for example. All of this is to remind any such critic that terminal velocity limits the free falling object, due to air resistance: in the absence of air resistance the descent rate does in fact accelerate in corroboration with the 'proposed' <abundantly proved> acclerating expansion of the earth.).

Proclaiming that inertial mass resistance (in allegedly unmoving space) to gravity (in descent time) exactly cancels out the gravity: does not explain why the allegedly unrelated (space and time) values are equal.

Inertial values always (without explanation) proportionately canceling out what would be the difference between inertial and gravitational mass values...
Einstein's *General Principle is the only functional solution to this (The descending objects are not really falling at all.) It continues: *unemployed.


“It was Einstein’s feeling about the form which the laws of nature should take that guided him. It led him to question a certain coincidence in Newtonian Law which, all too conveniently in his opinion, made everything come out right. This was the perfect balance between the mass of a body, considered as a source of gravity in Newton’s Gravitation Law, and the mass of a body as a measure of inertia in Newton’s Laws of Motion.


“According to the last, the amount of force necessary to change the motion of a body depends on its mass; a heavy object has a greater inertia than a lighter one and therefore is harder to move, or to slow down. To this law there was, apparently, an exception: the case of falling. Instead of falling more slowly, a heavy object reaches the same acceleration as a lighter one. Newton (*allegedly) accounted for this with his Law of Gravitation, which states that the attractive force exerted on one body by another increases with the mass of the attracted body. Thus, most conveniently, the force of gravitation always is exactly sufficient to overcome the inertia of a body so that all bodies fall at the same speed.

“This perfect balance, this same mass constant which appeared in two different roles, looked to Einstein a bit suspicious, a bit forced. It should not be necessary to bring in a coincidence of this sort in order to explain the universe; God did not present such malicious complexities.
“He began to wonder whether the (*popularly perceived) distinction between inertial and gravitational forces might not be artificial. Could motion which was due to what Newton called ‘gravity’, in fact be distinguished from motion due to what he called ‘inertia’? It could not be, Einstein found, after he had made an analysis of experiments which might be done in answer to the question, the distinction was artificial. It had no experimental support and therefore - according to the rule: ‘If you cannot relate it to measurement, you do not know it’ - the distinction had (has) no place in a physical theory.”
- Barbara Lovett Cline, THE MEN WHO MADE A NEW PHYSICS, p.p. 184 - 5


“A defect (of Newtonian Classical Mechanics) also eliminated (resolved) only by the General Theory of Relativity, lies in the fact that there is no reason given by the mechanics itself for the equality of the gravitational and inertial mass of the material point.” - Albert Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS.


Newton was fully aware of the unexplained, hauntingly unresolved problem: the functional intersection of inert and heavy mass values. Describing this coincidence too often passes as explanation for this coincidence; which falsely currencied description is no explanation at all.

According to Aristotelian intuition and Newton's laws, heavier objects should indeed, fall faster. They don't.

Instead: Everything in free fall on or near earth invariably descends at exactly the same rate (in a vacuum. Sans air resistance).
Einstein's General Principle:
is the only recognizable explanation for this.

Pursuing The Irresolutely Descending Cul De Sac.

At the turn of the 19th century, a Russian scientist, Roland Von Eotvos, pursued finding a difference in descent rates of heavier and lighter objects. A difference which is supposed to be there, and isn't.

Eotvos, was inspired to achieve technological measurement of differences in descent time for variously light and heavy falling objects, down to a billionth of a second (A nanosecond).

He could find no variants in rates of descent (in time) for variously massed test objects (in space)..
No difference in descent rates - gravitational time from inertial space; uniformly perceived as unrelated - of comparatively lighter and heavier objects has ever been measured; to date.

Truly Yours submits that no difference will ever be found. Due to the more than coincidence - but rather the identity - of the fact that apparently descending objects are not really falling at all. The ever-expanding earth, matter of factly rising up to 4 dimensionally overtake and meet - make contact with - apparently falling bodies/objects.
(Upon occasions of free falling objects being overtaken and struck by, then to be inertially pinned down upon the earth's surface, present day science does not recognise the consequent gravitational fulfillment of the scientific definition for 'work'. This discussion will be presented in more detail, in Part VII of this ongoing dissertation <TOTAL FIELD THEORY>. May it suffice to clarify for the moment, that contemporary theoretical physics does not acknowledge and consequently does not employ the advantage of comprehending and accounting for a proper understanding of 'objects at rest', while constantly acted upon by gravity: the unidentified 'force' - F; on the earth's surface. That is, such objects are perceived and conceptualized as 'not moving'. Whereas, the scientific definition for 'work' requires motion, which, in the case of the ever-accelerating 4-D space-time continuum and the - en perpetuatem - prevailing dynamics of the General <and Special> Theory of Relativity, is not recognised or acknowledged. Meanwhile 'force' is defined in several categories of motion, none of which are attributed to 'objects at rest' on the earth's surface <for example> in a gravitational field; all of which definitions are fulfilled. Not only in the inertial resistance to the acceleration of earth's suface upon the 'object at rest', but also and importantly, the - en perpetuatem - omnidirectional, accelerating enlargement of the - whatever - test object, itself... This unprecedented explanation is further subjected and clarified in Part VII, of the ongong TOTAL FIELD THEORY.)

The ('Impossible') reason all objects (appear to) descend at the same rate of acceleration. Fact #10.

“Objects of such different nuclear constitution as aluminum and gold fall with accelerations that agree to better than one part in 10-11, according to Roll, Krotkov, and #### (1964), one of the most important null experiments in all physics. Individual molecues fall in step, too, with macroscopic objects (Estermann, Simpson and Stern - 193; and so do individual neutrons (Dabbs, Harvey, Paya and Horstmann - 1965), individual electrons (Wittborn and Fairbank - 1967), and individual mu mesons (Beall - 1970).”
- GRAVITATION, pp 13 - 16, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.

"A defect (*in the Newtonian Classical system of 3-D mechanics) eliminated only by the introduction of the General Theory of Relativity, lies in the fact that there is no reason given by mechanics (*The Newtonian system) itself for the equality of the gravitational and inertial mass of the material point." - Albert Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS, p.71

"*In a neutron (cyclotron) experiment, a beam of fast neutrons close to that of the speed of light was shot into a moderator block, the emerging neutrons were observed to rain down from the block with about the same speed as rain droplets fall". - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 145

(*A beam of light projected horizonally over the earth's surface 'falls' at the same rate as any other test object. Only the hyper-speed of light sustains an apparently straight line, which is actually slightly parabolic, in accordance with slower moving - horizontally projected test objects with more easily measured arcs. - KBR)

Proving yet once again, gravity is the 4th dimension.
_______________

I wish to cite another accordance of the General Theory; which states that a thrown baseball or a fired bullet does not actually describe a curved or parabolic path to the earth, when projected horizontally above its surface. Instead, they actually move in straight lines which only appear to be curves and parabolas.

The reason for this says Einstein, is that, 'What is 4-Dimensionally straight gives the illusion of being curved or parabolic when projected on the 3 recognized Dimensions Of Space'.

These quasi 3-D parabolas and curves which are not really parabolas and curves, but instead are 4-D straight lines, are called 'geodesics'.
Einstein's geodesic account of gravity is that, 'Matter causes the 4-D Space-Time continuum to curve in the area surrounding it'. This fact is formally referred to as, 'Einstein's postulate of the 4-D Space-Time metric'.

If we find this Einsteinian description of gravitation vague, it is simply because it is indeed a vague description, yielding small conceptual compromise when compared with the familiar if mysterious 'tug' of Classical Newtonian gravity.

One may question, What does Relativity mean when it accounts for gravity by referencing the 4-D Space-Time metric and the curving of the 4-D Space-Time Continuum? And how does this 4-D Space-Time Continuum cause bodies to descend, or geodesically appear to descend?
The 'answer' is that physicists do not understand the identity of Einstein's 4th Dimension; since space-time is one of the many effects of the 4th Dimension, it is not understood or recognized what the geodesic gravitational curvature of space-time is either.

“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance. These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE

The false enigma is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging, pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accomodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object. (Now you know. <Know you now?>)
Here's what false authority says of Einstein's 4-D geodesic:
"We cannot visualize such a curved space. Because humanity is not four dimensional." - The LIFE Science Library's UNIVERSE, p. 179
“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. "As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance." These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE
Neither will it ever be visualized, until Matter is recognized to be 4-Dimensionally expanding. As simply illustrated here and affluently verified throughout this mere historical - previously unrecognized - review.

Image-9.gif Picture by Txpoet 800 x 364 (175 kb) ShowHide Exif Data

(Illustration C: 4-D MASS-FIELD STRAIGHT-LINE GEODESIC <Back to Euclidean geometry>.

Post Script.
Dear Nobody: Please tell me what you think of this information.

Best Regards
- RP