Re: OT...Big Bang?


"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T_2dnU88PY9Q6YbaRVn_vwA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Beldin the Sorcerer"

I have also proposed a modification of the "experiment" ... hang a stick
by a thread and post a sentry at each "end" of the stick. The
"information" to be transmitted from the "place" where the string is
held is "when did the holder let go of the string?"

The stick bends.
It is the nature of matter to do so.

Of course it bends.

When the holder lets go of the string, does it matter where the observer
is located?

Yes.

Does not the "whole stick" move down in the gravitational field at
the same "time?"

No.

Yes.
No.
Inertia prevents it.


Inertia is a factor, as is elastic recoil.

No
Yes.
Again, did you fail physics?


There is nothing to "recoil" from. There is only one force acting on all
parts of the "thing" ... that is the force of gravity. Gravity acts on
each and every tiny assumed "piece" of the thing, Beldin. It does NOT act
differently on the ends than on the middle or any other part.

Wrong, idiot boy.

The object is held in one point.
It bends at the ends.
Why? Because the support AGAINT gravity is weaker there.

Simple example (because you seem to need one). Tie a rope around a long 2x4
at the center and raise it up. The ends droop slightly (it probably wobbles
all to hell, but let's deal with it).
The ends droop, the board is no longer straight. If you release the rope,
the center will start moving first. The ends will have more inertial drag .


I think we need to go back to Galileo for this part.

No, you need to think, period.



If Galileo had held a barbell like "thing" with 20# on one end and #10
pounds on the other, then he would have to tie his string one third of the
way along the bar to make it "balance." When he let go of the string, it
would NOT rotate toward the #20 pound end. It would hit the ground in
exactly the same orientation it was in when it was in balance. Gravity
does NOT cause greater or lesser masses to accelerate at any differently
than any others ... that was the point. (We assume a perfect "thought"
experiment here, of course.)

If Galileo had hung his barbell, BOTH ends would have drooped slightly.
Given the short length of his barbell, you'd never have seen it. It would
need to be very long for it to even be perceptable.

In imperial units, the speed of light is about 670,616,629.2 miles per hour
or 983,571,056 feet per second, which is about 186,282.397 miles per second,
or roughly one foot per nanosecond.

Gravity isn't the only force here. The force holding the barbell up is also
in play, the theoretical string. Moreover, there is the molecular bond
holding the barbell itself together, and resisting the bend.

The support point moves first when the rope is cut, or the string released.
Inertia at the ends prevents them from moving at the same time.
We're talking fractions of fractions of seconds.


(And don't confuse gravitational inertia with inertial mass ... although
it does not matter here.)

Pickle, you're the one deeply confused here.

And it's because you aren't thinking at all.

Inertial mass is a measurement of mass, not inertia.

According to Isaac Asimov
According to Isaac Asimov in "Understanding Physics": "This tendency for
motion (or for rest) to maintain itself steadily unless made to do otherwise
by some interfering force can be viewed as a kind of "laziness," a kind of
unwillingness to make a change. And indeed, [Newton's] first law of motion
As Isaac Asimov goes on to explain, "Newton's laws of motion represent
assumptions and definitions and are not subject to proof. In particular, the
notion of 'inertia' is as much an assumption as Aristotle's notion of
'natural place.'...To be sure, the new relativistic view of the universe
advanced by Einstein makes it plain that in some respects Newton's laws of
motion are only approximations...At ordinary velocities and distance,
however, the approximations are extremely good."


[edit] Mass and 'inertia'
Physics and mathematics appear to be less inclined to use the original
concept of inertia as "a tendency to maintain momentum" and instead favor
the mathematically useful definition of inertia as the measure of a body's
resistance to changes in momentum or simply a body's inertial mass.

This was clear in the beginning of the 20th century, when the theory of
relativity was not yet created. Mass, m, denoted something like amount of
substance or quantity of matter. And at the same time mass was the
quantitative measure of inertia of a body.

The mass of a body determines the momentum P of the body at given velocity
v; it is a proportionality factor in the formula:

P = mv
The factor m is referred to as inertial mass.

But mass as related to 'inertia' of a body can be defined also by the
formula:

F = ma
By this formula, the greater its mass, the less a body accelerates under
given force. Masses m defined by the formula (1) and (2) are equal because
the formula (2) is a consequence of the formula (1) if mass does not depend
on time and speed. Thus, "mass is the quantitative or numerical measure of
body's inertia, that is of its resistance to being accelerated".

This meaning of a body's inertia therefore is altered from the original
meaning as "a tendency to maintain momentum" to a description of the measure
of how difficult it is to change the momentum of a body.


[edit] Inertial mass
The only difference there appears to be between inertial mass and
gravitational mass is the method used to determine them.

Gravitational mass is measured by comparing the force of gravity of an
unknown mass to the force of gravity of a known mass. This is typically done
with some sort of balance scale. The beauty of this method is that no matter
where, or on what planet you are, the masses will always balance out because
the gravitational acceleration on each object will be the same. This does
break down near supermassive objects such as black holes and neutron stars
due to the high gradient of the gravitational field around such objects.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Frank Wilczeks book Lightness of Being
    ... real) seem to be the degenerate vacuum manifold for the SU2 flavor ... emergent gravity from QCD sigma condensate? ... Isn't that the whole point of the Higgs model for inertia? ... But from Einstein & Wheeler's "Mass without mass" we also know that ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • expansion mechanisms - the inertia story
    ... the Big Bang created kinetic energy and a gravity potential in equal ... constant angle in any complete story on expansion mechanisms. ... So we can say the second mass ... velocity inertia), ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Frank Wilczeks book Lightness of Being
    ... real) seem to be the degenerate vacuum manifold for the SU2 flavor ... emergent gravity from QCD sigma condensate? ... Isn't that the whole point of the Higgs model for inertia? ... But from Einstein & Wheeler's "Mass without mass" we also know that ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: If you ask the time to Nature, she just shrugs
    ... In order to see what inertia is, consider a string and put ... each mass m in a node, ... money and spending money? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass
    ... >and gravitational mass is only coincidental. ... Now set the same block down subject to gravity, ... In the first example the inertia is resisting force F and in the ... The pressure gradient would be a function of the shape. ...
    (sci.physics)