[RascalPuff]

Might not the equivalence of inert and heavy mass - the principle of equivalence - be considered an absolute principle?

To my present knowledge no difference can be discerned, beyond nanoseconds of comparative observation...

Regards,
-RP

[north]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Thanks North for that profound insightful response,I agree. regards michael.

thanks michael.

[north]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Might not the equivalence of inert and heavy mass - the principle of equivalence - be considered an absolute principle? To my present knowledge no difference can be discerned, beyond nanoseconds of comparative observation... Regards, -RP

don't quite get you here? but what of the energy to move an , inert mass( which you don't define) and a heavy mass. is the energy expended the same?

or perhaps I've missed your point somewhere?

[RascalPuff]

Dear North:
I"m addressing the so called 'universal rate of descent', where Newton's laws hold that more massive objects should descend faster than less massive objects, due to the mutual impelling force between the more massive test object and the earth, and the less massive test object than the earth...

The fact that all objects descend at the same rate of descent (in the absence of air resistance) contradicts Newtonian law. The contradiction is said to be compensated for by the more massive test objects negative inertia preventing it from falling faster - what Einstein called 'an astonishing coincidence' and forthwith based his entire General Principle of Relativity on.

Best regards,
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

The principle of mind and consciousness inherit within the entire physical universe,which
is both relative and absolute simultaneously.



regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick The principle of mind and consciousness inherit within the entire physical universe,which is both relative and absolute simultaneously. regards michael.

______________________

Dear Michael:

Might you please find another way of saying that?

Best regards,
- RP

[north]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Dear North: I"m addressing the so called 'universal rate of descent', where Newton's laws hold that more massive objects should descend faster than less massive objects, due to the mutual impelling force between the more massive test object and the earth, and the less massive test object than the earth... The fact that all objects descend at the same rate of descent (in the absence of air resistance) contradicts Newtonian law. The contradiction is said to be compensated for by the more massive test objects negative inertia preventing it from falling faster - what Einstein called 'an astonishing coincidence' and forthwith based his entire General Principle of Relativity on. Best regards, - RP

RP

you know I have still a problem with this.

say at fifty thousand feet I let go a 50lb ball and at the same instant I let go a 1lb ball both with exactly the same dimensions( the size of both balls being exactly the same).

I still say the 50lb ball will hit the Earth sooner than the 1lb ball.

if gravity is bassed on mass then the 50lb ball will hit the Earth before the 1lb ball.

[RascalPuff]

Dear North:

In the absence of air resistance, both test objects strike the ground simultaneously.
Until further notice, this is a very well established empirical fact.
(Re: 'Roland von Eotvos' in google)

Best regards,
- RP

[RascalPuff]

Dear North:

So far as Truly Yours can see, you're employing Aristotliean (intuitive, inductive) thought.
Galileo, as the Founder of Experimental Science, superceded Aristotles conclusion regarding the presumption that heavier, larger objects fall faster than lighter, smaller objects.

We are addressing the equivalence of inert and heavy (inertial & gravitational) mass, here.
It is the foundation of General Relativity.

Best regards,
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff ______________________ Dear Michael: Might you please find another way of saying that? Best regards, - RP

You ask a lot Rascal,The absolute principle has to be LIFE ITSELF which is expressed
as spirit-then consciousness-which is then express by the will of LIFE itself as energy
and the formation of FORM=matter etc,this is absolute in its essence,but "appears"
relative within this physical universe,which is a school for us to learn?



regards michael.