Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard  As to why (M)ass and (m)ass have identical values I'm not sure. 'I'm not sure' is a very common answer from the science novice.
My answer to the second question is the same as Michaels, things fall at the same rate because they are the same. One marble (small mass) will fall at the same rate as ten marbles (big mass). This is why Galileo and Newton directed us down the road of Atomic structure or the 'particulate' structure of matter.
But there is one thing I am very sure about ... its lucky that big 'M' and little 'm' are equal. 10 marbles requires ten times the gravitational force to overcome its inertial resistance which is ten times that of one marble. This maintains equality. Otherwise big things would accelerate much faster than little things, solar orbits would be peculiar, trucks would beat cars in races ....the world would be a strange place!
Because none of these things do happen, is the proof that matter is 'particulate' in structure.
I don't think we really know what matter is yet. Hey Rascal. I'm sure you know all this anyway, why are you asking?
cool bananas ... greg |
___________________________________________
Dear Greg:
You're on to me in saying that I know the answer to the question I'm asking. I asked it to promote controversy around what I present as the answer in my Total Field Theory work, as it appears in one of my articles at this site ('The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Cosmological Constant - Total Field Theory', etc.)
The equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values is, since the two are supposed to have nothing to do with one another (otherwise), as Einstein called it, 'an astonishing coincidence' (the proposal that inertial mass happens to exactly cancel out gravitational mass; causing all descent rates to be the same) - upon which he based his entire General Theory. My resolution is that the apparently 'falling' objects are not descending at all, but rather that the (4-dimensional) acceleration of the (ascending - ever expanding) earth <and all other physical material>) is rising up to overtake and strike the apparently 'descending' objects (refer below excerpt w' illustration):
_______________________________
"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>.
__________________
Greg. Please tell me if you find this information tenable, valuable and/or interesting. Been working on it since 1958, though I had no idea at that time that the unexpected results of Galileo's experiments would lead me to this - and much more...
I hope you find time to familiarize yourself with the work the above information is extracted from. Ostensibly, there's a lot more to it than what appears here. Like Mr. Perlmutter, I too say Einstein's Cosmo Constant was right all along, also.
Cool bananas back to you my good friend:
RSVp
Best regards,
- RP