[RascalPuff]

“It was Einstein’s feeling about the form which the laws of nature should take that guided him. It led him to question a certain coincidence in Newtonian Law which, all too conveniently in his opinion, made everything come out right. This was the perfect balance between the mass of a body, considered as a source of gravity in Newton’s Gravitation Law, and the mass of a body as a measure of inertia in Newton’s Laws of Motion.

“According to the last, the amount of force necessary to change the motion of a body depends on its mass; a heavy object has a greater inertia than a lighter one and therefore is harder to move, or to slow down. To this law there was, apparently, an exception: the case of falling. Instead of falling more slowly, a heavy object reaches the same acceleration as a lighter one. Newton (*allegedly) accounted for this with his Law of Gravitation, which states that the attractive force exerted on one body by another increases with the mass of the attracted body. Thus, most conveniently, the force of gravitation always is exactly sufficient to overcome the inertia of a body so that all bodies fall at the same speed.

“This perfect balance, this same mass constant which appeared in two different roles, looked to Einstein a bit suspicious, a bit forced. It should not be necessary to bring in a coincidence of this sort in order to explain the universe; God did not present such malicious complexities.
“He began to wonder whether the (*popularly perceived) distinction between inertial and gravitational forces might not be artificial. Could motion which was due to what Newton called ‘gravity’, in fact be distinguished from motion due to what he called ‘inertia’? It could not be, Einstein found, after he had made an analysis of experiments which might be done in answer to the question, the distinction was artificial. It had no experimental support and therefore - according to the rule: ‘If you cannot relate it to measurement, you do not know it’ - the distinction had (has) no place in a physical theory.”
- Barbara Lovett Cline, THE MEN WHO MADE A NEW PHYSICS, p.p. 184 - 5

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


Pursuing The Irresolutely Descending Cul De Sac:
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 (far beyond a nanosecond); to date.
The author 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...

The ('Impossible') reason all objects (appear to) descend at the same rate of acceleration.


“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 - 193; 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


"*In a neutron (cyclotron) experiment, a beam of fast neutrons close to that of the speed of light was shot into a moderator block, the emerging neutrons were observed to rain down from the block with about the same speed as rain droplets fall". - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 145

(*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)

Proving yet once again, gravity is the 4th dimension.
(We hope no one has spilled their Oolong?)

[mkirkpatrick]

What exactly is hyper speed light? Nothing to do with a tachyon I hope!




regards michael.