[RascalPuff]

Why are inert (inertial) and heavy (gravitational) mass values, identical?

Why is it that, in the absence of air resistance and near the earth's surface, when objects of widely varying mass value are released from the same height at the same time, they descend at exactly the same rate of acceleration and strike the earth at the same time?

Regards,

- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Many thanks RP,prehaps the answer to your question lies in the inherit equality of all
existence,we think we see inequality,because we cannot see deep enough into substance.

Things fall at the same rate,because they are the same!



regrds michael.

[dleviwing]

There is Inertial mass, Gravitational mass, and Relative mass. Heavy is a reference to weight and thus is not mass but is a reference to the effect of gravity on a body; a very common error of the science novice.

To answer your question, you need to know what gravity really is. Any good thoughts on the topic?
To me, gravity is the process of condensing spatial matter into particle matter structures or the conversion of long wavelength states to short wavelength states.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Why are inert (inertial) and heavy (gravitational) mass values, identical? Why is it that, in the absence of air resistance and near the earth's surface, when objects of widely varying mass value are released from the same height at the same time, they descend at exactly the same rate of acceleration and strike the earth at the same time? Regards, - RP

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

[Graybeard]

Rascal .. This quote is from a thread posted on this forum on 2-Apr-2005. The thread was never replied to. It contains three website links.

Originally Posted by d p fitzpatrick You asked for a Theory of Everything. I just happened to have exactly what you want: Just click any of these links below. Fitz's Theory of Everything A short, concise version Fitzpatrick's First Book Enjoy these DPFJr

This is an excerpt from the concise version:

Why do we have this thing called inertia or inertial mass? What is this thing called energy? Go back to 1917 when people all believed in Einstein's cosmological constant, which gives a steady repulsive force between all the stars, galaxies and super clusters. Most people believed in a steady state universe way back then. All the universities now claim that this was a big blunder made by Einstein. But was it? Saul Perlmutter says, "Einstein was right all the time." And now more scientists are swinging over and saying Perlmutter is correct and perhaps all these universities have been wrong now for the past 75 years. See, if we have this acceleration that Perlmutter's group recently discovered---and others have added to Perlmutter's findings---then we are back 75 years again to a repulsive force, steady state universe and here's why.

cool bananas ... greg

[Lakshya]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Rascal .. This quote is from a thread posted on this forum on 2-Apr-2005. The thread was never replied to. It contains three website links. This is an excerpt from the concise version: cool bananas ... greg

Hey graybeard how to open the 3 links you provided in your prevous posts.

[RascalPuff]

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

[Graybeard]

Rascal .... To access the links in the quoted post of D P Fitzpatrick just click the little gray arrow after his name in the quote. This will take you to his thread and you will be able to access the links.

Otherwise let me know and I will paste his links here.

As to the 4-D geodesics ... I have read all your posts on this theory. I am a bit ambivalent about it at the moment. I am trying to find a flaw in it. Its tantalising. In short, you base your belief in this on the fact that it is undetectable. A closed system cannot be measured from the inside. Is my interpretation correct?

My initial opening 'attack' on this idea is that a closed system is detectable from the inside if it is continually expanding, including its mass. Because its mass increases continually its opposition (in time .. 4D) to acceleration will change between any two measured points in the systems expansion.

But I am unsure of my own ideas which are a bit hazy around this at the moment and I need more time. Perhaps that polymath of a moderator, not being a science novice like me, will read this and give me a few pointers on how to dissemble your 4-D geodesics. (no offence Dave)

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Hey Greg:

There's another presentation of the entire enchilada at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
Hope you check it out. You can skip the intro and click on 'start reading'.
It's getting a lot of compliments I'm happy to receive.
There's apparently a lot more 'out of the box' people out there than the 'in the box' folks are comfortable with. Then again, there's a culminating school of 'new age', tentatively grounded, Einstein - and Classical Physics - bashers, as well.
We live in transitionally interesting times...
Do you happen to know, is Michael still on vacation?

(Thanks)

- Cool cucumbers.
- RP

[Graybeard]

Rascal ... I have been to your site, and I will re-read it again. That bloody pommy bugger is back on english turf, but I think he is busy winding up his former self in preparation for a move.

Kewl Kewkumbers ... its one of mine. where did you get this. have I signed as such in a previous post?

But Rascal, do you agree that the 4-D geodesic expansion theory places ourselves inside a closed system. Therefore making it difficult (possibly impossible) to test the theory. Which in turn relegates it to one more hypothesis ? Or do you consider there is proof enough, if so, tell me.

Could make an interesting thread. I am really interested in hearing your view on why this theory deserves more.

cool bananas ... greg