You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog My Lecture in Mechanics 1-12-12

Inertia is about something, not nothing. Nothing has no inertia. :-)

By "inertia" I mean REST MASS of real particles m0. I don't know what you and Jim mean by the same word.

I do not think that rest masses need Mach's principle. Higgs field and QCD explain them LOCALLY.

So Newton's 2nd Law in curved space-time is

F = DP/ds

P = MV

M = m0(1 - (V/c)^2)^-1/2

D/ds = covariant derivative with respect to proper time ds and the Levi-Civita Chistoffel connection

DP/ds = MdV/ds + VdM/ds

V = Dx/ds = dx/ds

On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

about electrical contact forces, it's about inertia. You push on an object, and you push yourself back at the same time.

Doesn't matter whether there is direct contact or not.

SORRY Z BUT YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!

I'm afraid you don't.

Action-Reaction is from conservation of linear momentum, there need not be PUSHES at all!

NO! It need not be a "pull" either. Push or pull - another Laputan difference that does not make a difference!

That's what I told you. However, there are no central forces in gravity. It's purely geodesic no forces at all. No real pushes or pulls. By definition, a push and pull transforms a geodesic to an off-geodesic path in the local curvature field.

In the EM case, the static EM field has linear momentum (e/c)A at the position of the charge!

kinetic momentum - (e/c)A is a local gauge invariant

so that is a CONTACT interaction.

Conservation of linear momentum comes from space translation symmetry in the dynamical actions of the systems involved via Noether's theorem.

Another not-even-wrong difference that makes no difference.

What does "explain" mean here? Noether's theorem connects translation symmetry to conservation of linear momentum.

Conservation of linear momentum in the two-body problem gives equal opposite reaction quite trivially.

P(A,B) = P(A) + P(B)

dP(A,B)/ds = 0 conservation from invariance of the action S(A) + S(B) + S(A,B) under rigid global T3 group.

Therefore,

DP(A)/ds + DP(B)/ds = 0

i.e. F(A) = - F(B)

Elementary physics.

Indeed, in the two-body pure gravity problem there are no PUSHES (INERTIAL REACTION FORCES) because both masses are on force-free timelike geodesics in their combined composite curvature field.

No Z you fail to understand the physics here. Even in Newton's theory there is no inertial reaction force associated with Newton's "fictitious" gravity force. You still don't get the difference. You are weightless when Newton's "gravity force" acts on you. In contrast, if you carry an electric charge floating in space, you will feel the electric field pushing you off the local timelike geodesic! You never feel Newton's gravity pseudo force. You always feel Maxwell's electric force.

All that matters here is

DP(A)/ds + DP(B)/ds = 0

where

DP/ds = MdV/ds + VdM/ds

And M does appear. Is that what you mean?

I keep telling you (and even Jim sometimes) not to handwave with words when an equation will pin down what you mean.

PUSHES OFF MINKOWSKI GEODESICS BY NEWTON'S GRAVITY FORCE ARE A CHIMERA, A DELUSION, BECAUSE NO-WEIGHT NO-g-force is felt. NEWTON'S GRAVITY FORCE IS NOT LIKE AN ELECTRICAL FORCE IN THAT REGARD.

example?

That's right. There is no REAL PULL there is only GEODESIC MOTION. Pull means local g-force from Newton's 2nd law with F =/= 0.

You can say there is a PSEUDO-PULL - AS IF A FORCE ACTED. BUT IT'S NOT A REAL FORCE. A REAL FORCE CAUSES OFF-GEODESIC MOTION RELATIVE TO THE ACTUAL TENSOR CURVATURE FIELD.

There is no g-force in any purely gravitational system.

The above case is different from when you step on a scale on Earth - there you have quantum EM near field intermolecular forces pushing both you and Earth off timelike geodesics of the total local curvature field. Of course the perturbation of Earth's worldline is generally too small to be detected.

NO Z, EVEN IN NEWTON'S THEORY THERE IS NO g-FORCE IN A PURELY GRAVITY INTERACTION. UNLIKE THE EM INTERACTION. YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND EINSTEIN'S THEORY AND EVEN NEWTON'S THEORY.

Mach's Principle is completely irrelevant to both examples above UNLESS YOU HAVE GRAVITY AND/OR EM WAVES emitted - you may need Mach's Principle for the Dirac-Wheeler-Feynman-Cramer transactions as a future de Sitter event horizon total absorber of last resort.

Category: MyBlog

Written by Jack Sarfatti

Published on Thursday, 12 January 2012 19:23

't Hooft 100 Year Star Ship Abner Shimony accelerometers action-reaction principle Aephraim Sternberg Alan Turing Albert Einstein Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer American Institute of Physics Andrija Puharich Anthony Valentin Anton Zeilinger Antony Valentini anyon Apple Computer Artificial Intelligence Asher Peres Back From The Future Basil Hiley Bell's theorem Ben Affleck Ben Libet Bernard Carr Bill Clinton black body radiation Black Hole black hole firewall black hole information paradox black holes Bohm brain waves Brian Josephson Broadwell Cambridge University Carnot Heat Engine Central Intelligence Agency CIA Clive Prince closed time like curves coherent quantum state Consciousness conservation laws Cosmic Landscape Cosmological Constant cosmology CTC cyber-bullying Dancing Wu Li Masters Dark Energy Dark Matter DARPA Daryl Bem David Bohm David Deutsch David Gross David Kaiser David Neyland David Tong de Sitter horizon Dean Radin Deepak Chopra delayed choice Demetrios A. Kalamidas Demetrios Kalamidas Dennis Sciama Destiny Matrix Dick Bierman Doppler radars E8 group Einstein's curved spacetime gravity Einstein's happiest thought electromagnetism Eli Cartan EMP Nuclear Attack entanglement signals ER=EPR Eric Davis Ernst Mach ET Eternal Chaotic Inflation evaporating black holes Facebook Faster-Than-Light Signals? fictitious force firewall paradox flying saucers FQXi Frank Tipler Frank Wilczek Fred Alan Wolf Free Will G.'t Hooft Garrett Moddel Gary Zukav gauge theory general relativity Geometrodynamics Gerard 't Hooft Giancarlo Ghirardi God Goldstone theorem gravimagnetism gravity Gravity - the movie gravity gradiometers gravity tetrads Gravity Waves Gregory Corso gyroscopes hacking quantum cryptographs Hagen Kleinert Hal Puthoff Hawking radiation Heisenberg Henry Stapp Herbert Gold Higgs boson Higgs field hologram universe Horizon How the Hippies Saved Physics I.J. Good ICBMs Igor Novikov inertial forces inertial navigation Inquisition Internet Iphone Iran Isaac Newton Israel Jack Sarfatti Jacques Vallee James F. Woodward James Woodward JASON Dept of Defense Jeffrey Bub Jesse Ventura Jim Woodward John Archibald Wheeler John Baez John Cramer John S. Bell Ken Peacock Kip Thorne Kornel Lanczos La Boheme Laputa Large Hadron Collider Lenny Susskind Leonard Susskind Levi-Civita connection LHC CERN libel Louis de Broglie Lubos Motl LUX Lynn Picknett M-Theory Mach's Principle Mae Jemison Making Starships and Star Gates Martin Rees Mathematical Mind MATRIX Matter-AntiMatter Asymmetry Max Tegmark Menas Kafatos Michael Persinger Michael Towler microtubules Milky way MIT MOSSAD multiverse NASA Nick Bostrum Nick Herbert Nobel Prize nonlocality Obama organized-stalking Origin of Inertia P. A. M. Dirac P.K.Dick P.W. Anderson Paranormal parapsychology Paul Werbos Perimeter Institute Petraeus Physical Review Letters Physics Today Post-Quantum Physics pre-Big Bang precognition presponse PSI WARS Psychic Repression qualia Quantum Chromodynamics quantum computers quantum entanglement quantum field theory quantum gravity Quantum Information Theory Quantum Theory RAF Spitfires Ray Chiao Red Chinese Remote Viewing retrocausality Reviews of Modern Physics Richard Feynman Richard P. Feynman Rindler effect Robert Anton Wilson Robert Bigelow Roger Penrose rotating black holes Roy Glauber Rupert Sheldrake Russell Targ Ruth Elinor Kastner S-Matrix Sagnac effect Sam Ting Sanford Underground Research Facility Sarfatti Lectures in Physics Scientific American Second Law of Thermodynamics Seth Lloyd signal nonlocality Skinwalker Ranch social networks space drive space-time crystal SPECTRA - UFO COMPUTER spontaneous broken symmetry SRI Remote Viewing Experiments Stanford Physics Stanford Research Institute Star Gate Star Ship Star Trek Q Stargate Starship Stephen Hawking Steven Weinberg stretched membrane string theory strong force gluons Stuart Hameroff superconducting meta-material supersymmetry symmetries telepathy Templeton The Guardian Thought Police time crystal time travel topological computers Topological Computing torsion UFO Unitarity unitary S-Matrix false? Unruh effect Uri Geller VALIS virtual particle Virtual Reality Warp Drive weak force Wheeler-Feynman WIMP WMAP WMD world crystal lattice wormhole Yakir Aharonov Yuri Milner

- November 2015(1)
- January 2015(1)
- December 2014(1)
- August 2014(2)
- July 2014(2)
- June 2014(2)
- May 2014(1)
- April 2014(6)
- March 2014(6)
- February 2014(1)
- January 2014(3)
- December 2013(5)
- November 2013(8)
- October 2013(13)
- September 2013(8)
- August 2013(12)
- July 2013(3)
- June 2013(32)
- May 2013(3)
- April 2013(6)
- March 2013(6)
- February 2013(15)
- January 2013(5)
- December 2012(15)
- November 2012(15)
- October 2012(18)
- September 2012(12)
- August 2012(15)
- July 2012(30)
- June 2012(13)
- May 2012(18)
- April 2012(12)
- March 2012(28)
- February 2012(15)
- January 2012(25)
- December 2011(29)
- November 2011(30)
- October 2011(39)
- September 2011(22)
- August 2011(41)
- July 2011(42)
- June 2011(24)
- May 2011(13)
- April 2011(13)
- March 2011(15)
- February 2011(17)
- January 2011(31)
- December 2010(19)
- November 2010(22)
- October 2010(31)
- September 2010(41)
- August 2010(30)
- July 2010(27)
- June 2010(12)
- May 2010(20)
- April 2010(19)
- March 2010(27)
- February 2010(34)