RascalPuff's Blog

“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).
Repeat: Einstein's General Principle:
is the only recognizable explanation for this.

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.

The author (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'. 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...)


“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 Di#k (1964), one of the most important null experiments in all physics. Individual molecues fall in step, too, with macroscopic objects (Estermann, Simpson and Stern - 1935; 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

“The most dramatic of all early tests of the general theory took place in 1919 during a total eclipse of the sun. Einstein had reasoned as follows: if an elevator in interstellar space were pulled upward with an accelerating velocity, a light beam traveling from side to side inside the elevator would bend down in a parabolic path. This would be regarded as an inertial effect, but according to the general theory, one can make the elevator a fixed frame of reference and view the curving of the beam as a gravitational effect. Gravity, then, is capable of curving light beams.”
- Martin Gardner, RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLION


"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, TOTAL FIELD THEORY

Proving yet once again, space-time gravity is the 4th dimension.

Reality Check, continued:
As regards any question of, 'Why didn't Einstein say gravity is the 4th Dimension'? He did. And categorically. Einstein may have said and proved that gravity is the 4th Dimension much more eloquently and elaborately; much more absolutely than I or anyone else ever will.

We could reference an abundance of Einsteinian non-mathematical quotes at this time, quotes (many of which are included in this TOTAL FIELD THEORY presentation) - in other words - finding gravity the 4th Dimension. Instead, at this time and in the name of abbreviation, we'll reference what is literally the best-known mathematical formula in the world. The direct, non-mathematical translation of which irrevocably proves - as it always has - that gravity is the 4th Dimension.

The formula is E=MC2. The direct non-mathematical translation of which is: 'Energy equals Matter times the speed of light, squared'.
In grade school, I began to hear other students ask a question which I have since then learned is also familiar to many others; that question being: "In the formula 'E=MC2', why is C (light; field energy) squared (Out of M < Mass/Matter/ Particle>; which is perceived as a static, non-expanding, non-field)?"

I may have asked the question myself, but I knew less of mathematics than I do now. But others did ask that question, and that is understandable enough. The teacher's (ubiquitous) answer, which I have also learned since then is familiar to many others, was not so understandable. That (alleged) 'answer' being: 'It (C squared) actually isn't necessary'.

This answer, it will not surprise some of you to know, is quite standardized as a response to the question, 'Why is C squared, in the formula E=MC2?'
All are implored not to take my word for this. Simply ask the next physicist or mathematician you happen in to. If you pursue this question, you're apt to get that answer or its equivalent. I had no understanding of mathematics whatsoever, and yet it still left me and many others wondering:
'If in fact it isn't necessary, then why did Einstein include it in the formula?'

One may again reasonably ask, 'What is the speed of light squared from?' Of course the only answer is, 'The speed of light (C - celeritas constant) is squared from (out of) Matter'.

Smoke On The Perrier:
Affixed to that familiar explicit statement made by Einstein, is the familiar implicit statement - 'but it isn't necessary'.

Light energy is acknowledged to be, to say the least, expanding. Specifically, it is very accurately measured, originally in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, to do so at 186,282 miles-per-second.
*Light energy is also acknowledged to be qualitatively identical to *Matter energy; *their differences being only their densities. Light being much more thinly distributed and tenuous than matter. This is proven in the statement 'E=M' of the formula 'E=MC2. Originally published by Einstein in 1906. Light energy or electromagnetism is furthermore acknowledged to invariably originate within and expand-out-of *MatterEnergy - *generator of all spaces and times.

On the other hand, MatterEnergy is not acknowledged to be expanding.
Quite the contrary. Matter is unanimously agreed to be static and non-expanding.

Digressing To Reality, Geometric & Algebraic Law:
In the formula E=MC2 we have the acknowledged dynamical omni-directional expansion of electromagnetic or light energy, squared from presumably static/non-expanding MatterEnergy.
As long as there are those who demand and deny proof of the 4-Dimensional MassField, there will also be those who fail or refuse to recognize the accumulative achievements of historical and contemporary Academic Physical Science - and, the lessons of Algebra 101.