Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Inertia And Gravity

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on April 11, 2003 13:35:33 UTC

" I took your idea seriously because there is something in it that rings true. "

I think so too. I haven't given up yet, but I think there must be more to it. Making adjustments to fit it to fact doesn't seem productive though.

" If the fabric of space was constantly flowing toward a mass particle in one wave form carrying objects toward the mass with it while the reflected energy wave being emitted is in another form which does not have the acceleration affect. Something like a constant expansion could be experienced. "

This makes some sense, but how is it different from the inflating-balloon scenario? I mean, what difference does it make whether matter is expanding out into space or space contracting toward matter? Aren't both hypothesis exactly equivalent?

" [perhaps gravitational mass is not the same as inertial mass. Do you think that is possible?]
Inertia is the gravitational attraction of a mass to its previous location’s decaying gravitational field.
While gravity is the attraction of one mass to another mass. "

I wasn't talking about inertia and gravity, I was talking about the measurement of mass. Before Einstein people thought inertial mass (resistance to acceleration) was not the same as gravitational mass (weight). But Einstein pointed out that a free-falling object has no weight, even if it is in the presence of a gravitational field. I'm not sure what different people make of it, I could never find a clear explanation for the fact, but to me it seems to suggest that, contrary to appearances, a free-falling object is not accelerating at all. Trouble is, how do you explain the appearance of acceleration?

" They are close to being the same properties however an objects attraction to itself may have some special properties due to the identical nature of the objects of attraction. "

The problem with your hypothesis, in my opinion, is that if the object attracts itself then all uniform movement would eventually cease. In other words, your hypothesis seems to violate conservation of momentum. Can you explain why an object keeps moving when you seem to be saying it is attracted to its previous location?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins