Mach's principle

Please provide speculation or documented scientific consensus on the subject.

Any member please provide speculation on why you suspect gravitational mass and inertial mass is equal?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Haven't you been banned yet? Can you rationally describe the difference between stupid and ineducable?

Would you please stop your fucking troll?

I truly hope that people as stupid you are can understand my post, but Dunning and Kruger really do get in the way, don't they?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"I truly hope that people as stupid you are can" ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Look people can we just not stop the insults and focus on the op.

The OP is why you are on this thread, is it not?

 

Perhaps it is best to start with Mach's Principle.

Which is:

Mach's Principle (Newton's law of Inertia F=m.a, is established by all the matter of the universe) is sensibly and simply explained by the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter. The obvious problem of the particle conception of matter is to explain how all the distant matter of the universe could instantaneously act upon a moving body here on earth. This paradox is completely resolved by the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) which shows that all distant matter establishes its presence throughout the universe by their In-waves and Out-waves which produce a nearly uniform mass-energy density of space throughout Space.

 

Is there a particular reason why you gave a "definition" from a crank site, as opposed to the actual one?
(Apart from the usual reason: you don't know science, you don't want to know science and you'll take every opportunity to denigrate it).

 

Why is this site a " crank " ?

I googled Mach's Principle this came up. So what?

What is this " actual " site ?

 

Because it's not doing science it's pushing a nutcase "theory". (Something that's abundantly evident to anyone who knows anything about science[1] - even from the quote you gave, let alone from reading that site).

And carefully ignored Wiki (two separate links), ArXiv and a couple of others while going for the 6th link down.

Wiki is always a good start.

1 I suppose that's your excuse though: you don't know what you're talking about most of the time.

 

Refer to post#8

 

Because it blathers meaninglessly about Mach's Principle being related to some bogus concepts called "In waves" and "Out waves", which have nothing to do with science. Any attentive 6th form science student can see it is crap, from the extract you quoted, just as Dywyddyr said.

 

Needless to say, you make no acknowledgement of your error, but instead try feebly to make it look as if Dywyddyr was not paying attention to the thread.

 

Because when both are measured in the rest frame of the particular object or particle in question, they are equal.

 

It's called the Principle of Equivalence, and it is the single assumption on which GR rests, analogous in some respects to the invariant speed of light, the single assumption on which SR rests. The Principle of Equivalence means that any physics that is done in an elevator accelerating upward at a rate of 1 g, (9.8 meters or 32 feet per second per second) is locally indistinguishable from the force we call gravity at the surface of the Earth in terms of time dilation, length contraction, bending of light, or any other objective physical measurement (excluding tidal forces, of course).

The Principle of Equivalence is only an approximation, but it happens to be a very good one. It is more than good enough to synchronize the clocks associated with fast moving GPS satellites in low Earth orbits. You may consider the PoE to have been verified to better than 1 part per billion as a physical law that applies to how inertial and gravitational masses behave everywhere and anywhere they are found.

As the rising elevator used as an example of the principle of equivalence gains altitude, of course the acceleration due to gravity would need to be reduced from the value observed at the surface of the Earth in order to effectively simulate the gravitational field of the Earth, but at each point along the way, any experiment done aboard the spacecraft would correspondingly reveal that the inertial mass was equivalent to gravitational mass, regardless of the mass of the planet or the distance of the elevator from its center.

Correspondingly, the occupants of an elevator or a spacecraft that is FALLING (as in FREE FALL with no atmosphere) in a gravitation field would experience no effects of such acceleration nor gravity on any objects within the spacecraft except for the tidal forces previously mentioned which depend only on the bearing toward the center (negligible for most small elevators or spacecraft) of the gravitating body. In this way the principle of equivalence is verified to be valid each and every time a spacecraft is inserted into planetary orbit, isn't it? If it were not, it would be rather difficult not to notice.

 

With an instrument such as gyroscope or equivalently a Foucault pendulum, the Principle of Equivalence in the previous post may in principle be violated. An occupant of an orbiting spacecraft, or an observer on the surface of the Earth may tell by means of one of these instruments that they are doing physics in an accelerating (rotating) reference frame. A gyroscope or a Foucoult pendulum would make one rotation per orbit in an orbiting spacecraft, or one rotation per day on the surface of the Earth, but no rotation at all would be observed in the 1g elevator unless it shared the angular momentum of the Earth from wherever it left the Earth. The further out from the center of rotation it proceeded, the more the angular velocity would slow down, due to the conservation of angular momentum. The reverse is true for something in free fall approaching a gravitating body (angular velocity speeds up).

This is one of the reasons that Mach's principle (the idea that something rotating is equivalent to something remaining still while the rest of the universe rotates) is so much nonsense. With one of these instruments, it would become apparent which of the two frames was subject to rotation, however slowly that rotation might proceed. Basically both of these these instruments (gyroscope or Foucault pendulum) use their own rotation in order to detect the direction and magnitude of any other axes of rotation.

 

I thought that the equivalence of inertial & gravitational mass was established by experiments & measurements.

 

This is news to me. I don't usually ask for such things, but, do you have a reference that can corroborate this idea? This is nothing close to what Einstein formulated, so who exactly changed GR into this?

How does one even calculate an orbital slot for a spacecraft or a satellite without explicitly making this assumption, when one type of acceleration is set to equivalence or balance with the other? This doesn't require tensors or Riemann geometry; just the right amount of thrust and a 1960s era calculator will get you to the moon and back.

If that is the case (that there is only inertial mass), why do particle physicists like Matt Strassler even bother to defend the idea that the Higgs mechanism is not related to gravitational, but only inertial mass?

 

No. General Relativity does not EXPLAIN the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. It ASSUMES this. It is axiomatic. Without the Principle of Equivalence, GR fails before the rest of the mathematical infrastructure GR supports can even be scaffolded.

If you have been taught otherwise, your instructors receive a failing grade in relativity physics.