Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard  I believe I am familar with the equivalence principle. I am not questioning its results, just the interpretation of them. Inertial mass provides a resistive and opposite force to acceleration. You imply that inertial mass is 'generated' by acceleration and is not a measurement of matter. 1.. Do you believe inertial mass to be a function of matter?
------------------------------ It is my understanding that inertial (inert) mass and gravitational (heavy) mass are unexpectedly found to be identical - hence the 'equivalence principal'. It is my station that inertial mass value is inherent to all material entities, resisting forces to move it when it's at rest, and resisting forces to slow it down when it's in motion... (negative & positive inertia)
------------------------------ 2.. Do you accept that resistance to acceleration could be 'wading' thru the Higgs field?
------------------------------ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Higgs field, named after the BritishphysicistPeter Higgs, is a postulated quantum field, mediated by the Higgs boson, which is believed to permeate the entire universe. Its presence is said to be required in order to explain the large difference in mass between those particles which mediate weak interactions (the W and Zbosons) and that which mediates electromagnetic interactions (the photon). With the next generation of particle accelerators, especially the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, which as of 2007 is still under construction, CERN scientists will try to look for particle interactions characteristic of the Higgs Field.
---------------------------------- Yes. I suppose that the hypothetical Higgs Field could be the cause of inertia (resistance); so (conversely) could, for that matter, Mach's Principle. There doesn't seem to be enough information - yet - in these considerations and for this reason Truly Yours is without a resolute perspective at the submitted junctures. ---------------------------------- Your 'action-at-a-distance' effect you imply is caused by 'the generation and long distance projection of electricity and magnetism'. My reference to a Neutron Star which displays a gravitational field, would seem to contradict your statement. We may not be near a Neutron Star physically but since when has that stopped us from theorising or experimenting with the data?
--------------------------------- Your allowance for 'theorizing and experiment' may be somewhat liberal, Greg. Though I will accept your intentions to venture forth with discussion in these issues. Do you happen to know if there are any neutron stars with planets orbiting them?
---------------------------------- A Neutron Star, presumably, has no charge yet still can create action at a distance.
--------------------------------- IMO, Greg, the operative word here is 'presumably'.
--------------------------------- 3.. Can we be clear on one thing. Do you accept any part of Quantum Mechanical behaviour, or do you intend to maintain the continuity of matter as governed entirely by Newton-Einstein maths?
---------------------------------- Chapter (part) Seven, at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie specifically addresses this question and contingent isssues. Please let me know what you think of it. In a word, no I do not intend to maintain the continuity of matter as governed entirely by Newton-Einstein maths.
---------------------------------- This link will take you on a journey to a Neutron Star. May the classical force field be with you.  May you return safely in order to answer my three questions. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/rjn_bht.html cool bananas ... greg |
-------------------------
"Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one". - Einstein
Best regards,
- RP
(PostScript) Hope you've got time for the stated portion of the provided URL. Looking forward to your response. In a word, I do not maintain the continuity of matter as governed entirely by Newton-Einstein maths - I find quanta a result of continuous field.