What is the root cause of Inertia?

I thought it was all a mystery. An ineluctable modality of the visible.

Does anybody know, or care for that matter, which way they are going or what way up they are or even what up is. We just make it work for us as best we can. Badgers do it too but they're not as good as us.

Einstein made it all up. It was a joke. Get the brainboxes thinking. He had C-squared because he knew it was too big a number for anybody to get their head round. You can understand why women find it boring. What works is all they are interested in. Hadn't you noticed and you being observant empiricists and all.

I mean to say- how heavy are you in these gravitational fields. Actually. What's a foot-pound per second per second. What's a bloody second anyway.

Ask fresco. He's the expert on the meaning of meaning I think.

It's distracting you from learning to play the guitar.

0 Replies

Quote:

We know that acceleration is related to gravity from General Relativity, and we know that gravity is a function of curvature of space.

We know that every object curves space due to its gravity, and we know that gravitational curvature is symetric for a body if it is not acted upon by another gravitational field, or by acceleration.

Quote:

"Gravity is a function of curvature of space".

Let G = gravity and S = curvature of space. Therefor S --> G

Quote:

"..object curves space due to its gravity.."

Same rules as above and we have: G -- > S

Now, the transitive rule states that if S = R(G) and G = R(S) then S = G.

So your assumptions show that gravity makes itself.

0 Replies

That seems fair enough. It always has and always will do. It never got started. Only art can get anywhere near capturing it for us. Giving us a bit of a vague idea. The vaguer the better.

It's not like a horse race getting started which begins, to make it simple, with getting the programs printed.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Quote:
"Gravity is a function of curvature of space".

Let G = gravity and S = curvature of space. Therefor S --> G

Quote:
"..object curves space due to its gravity.."

Same rules as above and we have: G -- > S

Now, the transitive rule states that if S = R(G) and G = R(S) then S = G.

So your assumptions show that gravity makes itself.

You left out 'object' from your equation. What all of that really led up to is that an object curves space (sorry if I dragged it out originally, but I was trying to establish the basics).

So, let me restate my assumption more simply: An Object (something with mass) curves space.

Can we agree on that?

If so, are we back to seeing if we can agree that a pure theoretical mass curves space symetrically? Can we agree on that?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
Quote:
"Gravity is a function of curvature of space".

Let G = gravity and S = curvature of space. Therefor S --> G

Quote:
"..object curves space due to its gravity.."

Same rules as above and we have: G -- > S

Now, the transitive rule states that if S = R(G) and G = R(S) then S = G.

So your assumptions show that gravity makes itself.

You left out 'object' from your equation. What all of that really led up to is that an object curves space (sorry if I dragged it out originally, but I was trying to establish the basics).

So, let me restate my assumption more simply: An Object (something with mass) curves space.

Can we agree on that?

If so, are we back to seeing if we can agree that a pure theoretical mass curves space symetrically? Can we agree on that?

Um... no. As you have already stated according to relativity, and object creates a gravitational field. The field curves space, not the object itself.

0 Replies

I have been accused of mental masturbation. This is mutual masturbation.

0 Replies

What is the root cause of Inertia?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know