[RascalPuff]

*Mach's principle submits that in an isolated space (bereft of any but one entity) an object would have no negative inertia

The fields from isolated, individual charges look like this:


Whereas, in context of Matter in 4-D expansion, the defect in Mach's principle is that an isolated positive charge is confined to it's location - exhibiting negative inertia (a tendency to remain at rest; resisting outside forces) - by the recoil of - it's own, inherent - omnidirectionally expanding electrical energy.

The isolated negative charge is confined to its location - also exhibting negative inertia (a resistance to outside forces) by the omnidirectional influx of electrical energy. These are the causes of negative inertia. - RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

______________________________

*The core of "Mach's Principle" is something like this: the inertia of a body is determined in relation to all other bodies in the universe (in short, "matter there governs inertia here". Mach's principle does not compensate for the omnidirectional expansion of all matter from it's center.

[N0B0DY]

I love this kind of posting, RP, with the easy-to-understand depictions. How do they relate to the Archemide Spiral?

Also, I read somewhere recently, but can't find the reference now, that an electron at rest at close proximity to the earth's surface would not be affected by the gravitational field, but if moving parallel to the surface of the earth it would tend towards the surface. Is there any truth to that do you think?

[RascalPuff]

The lines of force depicted, move at right angles to the center of the illustrated system - and at right angles to a considered archimedes spiral, which is more a logarithmically shaped spiral (of 'phi'), in consideration that we're talking about an accelerating spiral when subjecting the inclusion of a spiral in the presentation. I don't know how else to compare the illustrations to an Archimedes spiral...

I don't understand enough about your second query to respond to it, Nobody.


Although 'the cause of negative inertia' is mentioned as an afterthought in the post, I consider it a very significant, apparently unprecedented point; worthy of a discussion of itself. Am considering another post, dedicated to that issue - what are your thoughts on the identification of the cause of negative inertia? Are there any precedents that you know of?

Thanks for the compliment, best regards to you and yours,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

Your explanation is fine, RP. I just wasn't sure if the perpendicular references were supposed to be considered as exactly at right angles to the system, or it was a generalization and the lines actually follow a more spiral pattern.

I'm going to try to find the article about the electron. I read it a few days ago and it seemed strange seeing as though the electron should conform to the gravitation you propose.

As for the inertia, I understand it similar to yourself, but any propagation of the charges is recreated according to mass and carried incrementally through the field as electromagnetic radiation whereby we only observe and come into contact with em waves and never any isolated system. The system essentially annihilates and effectually produces the observed radiation, though the effect is identical as if it were the standing centers we were coming into contact with. Then, the inertia would be due to a decrease in the velocities of light through denser media of the field in the form of inertial mass/gravitation, which I think can be directly linked or unified with your 5th and 6th dimensions if we think in terms of the point mass or standing center expanding as radiation - the greater the speed or acceleration, the greater the density of the field proportioned maybe by the opposing reaction of the force applied.