Gravitational mass and Inertial mass

It seems that you cannot follow the simple basic mathematics required for physics.

Describing motion requires that one identify a space in which things move and a time over which they move. This is spacetime. Every physicist throughout history used spacetime in some way. We now speak of spacetime because we realize that there is an intimate relationship between space and time that means we can identify space and time in different ways.

If you have a problem with this, then take it up with the universe.

No, I am actually following the context of the equation that you posted in, what is now obvious to everyone, ignorance.

You are now espousing the metaphysical position that there is absolutely one space and time and that other decompositions of spacetime into other spaces and time violate this metaphysical truth. That is interesting, but it plays no role in physics.

Until you can at least do a physic problem, even a small one, I will continue to ignore your ramblings on metaphysics in favor of studying physics. Philosophers working in the metaphysics of physics usually have the decency to learn some physics first.

Your poor analogies are not details. Nobody can calculate with your poor analogies. Nobody can collect measurement evidence for your poor analogies.

So far, you have found one reference to "inhomogeneous" space (supposedly) in Einstein. You have yet to demonstrate that there is any actual application of this concept in any part of Einstein's physics. It's OK if you want to blindly trust this one statement of Einstein's, just do not lie to us and claim that you know physics. You continue to make it plain that you do not.

Take some time off from the internet, learn some physics.

It is ridiculous that you should think that your poor analogies should be enough in a world where physics is about detailed measurements. If you can't produce an account of how fast something should fall and how much energy it gains, loses, or transmits, then you are not doing physics.

I'm sure you are happy to find another crackpot who shares some of your views and who also likes to produce pictures rather than engage in real discussions of physics. However, until you can show how a pencil falls because of inhomogeneous space, you are not doing physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think I first referred to that about a year ago when I was writing for Delingpole's Bogpaper blog. See this. The rubber sheet-analogy is flawed because it uses gravity to pull the bowling ball down. And it's back to front. A better analogy is a big block of transparent silicone rubber, where you push outwards to emulate gravity. You push out rather than pull in because there's an energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor. This picture is nice, but it's back to front.

I like to engage in real discussions of physics. You obviously don't, you're trying to trash the discussion. So you're on filter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So once you filter everyone out but Farsight and like-minded cranks and you'll be right back at your own forum.

Don't let the doorknob hit you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a pathetic attempt to run away from real questions.

I ask you to produce a real physics application or scenario and you whine and cry that you are being abused. Thanks for yet another insight into your character and ability.