C-Graviton Inertial Mass Augmentation

Actually the book does explain why gravitational interactions don't exhibit inertia.

Short version - since 99.999999( ... 9999942)% of all c-gravitons pass through matter w/o interaction, absorbtion is distributed "evenly" throughout the entire volume of an object, rather than just on the surface. When two masses are close and shadow each other, the push imbalace thus created is also distributed evenly throughout the volume of the objects, rather than just on the surface.

The total push is proportional to the total mass. No inertia.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Actually the book does explain why gravitational interactions don't exhibit inertia.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually, I wasn't going after inertia as relating to gravity.
I was going after, "WHY inertia." At all.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Short version - since 99.999999( ... 9999942)% of all c-gravitons pass through matter w/o interaction, absorbtion is distributed "evenly" throughout the entire volume of an object, rather than just on the surface. When two masses are close and shadow each other, the push imbalace thus created is also distributed evenly throughout the volume of the objects, rather than just on the surface.

The total push is proportional to the total mass. No inertia.

LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Your argument, while correct as relating to C-gravitons, starts with the assumption that inertia is due entirely to uneven distribution of force.

Uneven distribution of force through a "rigid" body distends it momentarily, storing energy in the deformation of its structure that must then be released as the object "snaps back" to its original shape.

Yes, if you poke a balloon, it will distend and rebound, pushing away from your finger in the process. But surely an ant walking along the surface of that balloon does not go through a similar deformation, yet it experiences inertia to exactly the same degree.

Now, try this with a much larger, more rigid body... say, a rectangular solid one centimeter square by one light-second long. Apply a constant force to one end. The end getting the force will accelerate immediately, the far end some short time later. Tensile strength in the material will cause a rebound, and that does explain an initial (if infinitesimally delayed) kick toward the original force.

However, keep that force steady for long enough, and the length (and therefore shape) of the solid should stabilize as the amount of energy stored as lengthwise distortion reaches equilibrium with the external force. Do the effects of inertia stop at this point? The external force hasn't stopped, and neither has its resultant acceleration.

Are the feelings of inertia simply related to the mass being distended? Possible, but then by what mechanism would the matter know what shape it's -supposed- to be in? Note, any answer to that would have to apply equally to crystalline and amorphous materials.

One last nail in the coffin: Inertia isn't simply a feeling of resistance, but an -actual- resistance to the acceleration of the object. Against what is the object resisting? Whatever it is, in the Meta Model it has to be physically proximate to the test object.

In summary, your argument (thus the book's) may serve to explain why gravitational attraction doesn't display inertia; but it does nothing to explain why inertia exists in the first place. Adding another independent mechanism to explain inertia would require a swidget to explain why C-graviton bombardment cancels that other mechanism.

All that said, darn good response. Just the kind of stimulus for thought that really winds my clock. I see problems with the inertia-from-uneven-force hypothesis, but I'm willing to be convinced if you or someone else cares to argue it.

Further discussion, please?

One shouldn't think of inertia as "resistance to acceleration". Mass doesn't resist at all ... it just ... goes ... at some rate. We use the term "resistance" to compare that rate with accelerations caused by other mechanisms. So we can say that one produces more acceleration than another. Mostly, the difference is between the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions.

If you push a small mass and then another larger mass, the acceleration is proportional to the mass. I don't see that as resistance ... just the rate that things go. Momentum conservation determines the difference here. What else could one imagine would happen?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kcody</i>
<br />The Meta Model appears to explain inertia, although the details of that explanation are missing from the book. I haven't found it anywhere else either.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The details appeared in a <i>Meta Research Bulletin</i> article titled "Does gravity have inertia?" in vol. 11 #4 (2002). [Single back-issues can be ordered in our on-line store.]

In brief, MM explains that a given force other than gravity is applied only to part of the body, usually the surface, and is therefore diluted as its effect must spread to and be shared by many other molecules in the body. The more molecules, the more dilution of the applied force occurs. That looks to us like "resistance to acceleration".

However, gravity obeys the "transparency principle", which essentially means that all molecules are affected equally, no matter how big or small the applied force or the mass of the target body. As Galileo discovered at the Tower of Pisa, all masses fall at the same rate in a gravitational field.

That makes "inertia" a property of the type of force applied, not of the bodies doing the accelerating. And gravity therefore has no inertia because even the biggest masses respond equally to even the smallest forces. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>

In brief, MM explains that a given force other than gravity is applied only to part of the body, usually the surface, and is therefore diluted as its effect must spread to and be shared by many other molecules in the body. The more molecules, the more dilution of the applied force occurs. That looks to us like "resistance to acceleration".

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So, by deduction, a force applied to a single molecule has no dilution, and thus no measurable effects of inertia?

Back that up to more fundamental particles. How about a single atom, or a single particle of the light carrying medium, or even a single C-Graviton colliding with another. Do they not display apparent resistance to acceleration?

Of course they do, otherwise the incident particle would not change course after the collision; nor could collisions at a small scale be inelastic; the atom might thus have been unsplittable.

I think it's become clear that C-Gravitons are of a vanishingly small scale as compared to atoms. Why should a single molecule be immune to distending as a result of a particle impact?

It would seem that at every scale the result of impact is non-uniform, as per the scale-consistency requirement of the model. All the transparency principle says is that there are so many collisions per unit time that the effects seem uniform at the -large- scale.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>

However, gravity obeys the "transparency principle", which essentially means that all molecules are affected equally, no matter how big or small the applied force or the mass of the target body. As Galileo discovered at the Tower of Pisa, all masses fall at the same rate in a gravitational field.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Deduction alone tells us two properties of the sea of C-Gravitons:

1. If all molecules are affected equally, they must all be the target of C-Graviton collisions in order to preserve large scale uniformity.

2. If 99.99xxx% of C-Gravitons pass through the test mass unmolested, there must be many orders of magnitude more C-Gravitons present per unit volume than conventional subatomic parts, even in a neutron star.

This would seem to give rise to a "sea" of such density as to actually affect the passage of any significantly larger particles. Is this property observed?

Hypothetical Experiment:
Set a satellite in deep space, beyond the reach of gravity as defined in the Meta Model. Stop it, relative to some arbitrary stellar object. Point an ion emitter in any steady direction, and fire off one particle per second, ad infinitum. Is this minute force enough to ever actually accelerate the satellite?

Also, the idea of a finite (and substantial) density to the CG medium neatly justifies the "tired light" theory of intergalactic redshift, and also introduces the idea that the mean local density might vary from one place to the next at large scales.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>

That makes "inertia" a property of the type of force applied, not of the bodies doing the accelerating. And gravity therefore has no inertia because even the biggest masses respond equally to even the smallest forces. -|Tom|-

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Probably just a linguistic complaint, but it seems that there is only one type of force in MM - collision. So, we're talking about different configurations and delivery methods of one type of force.

So, the transparency principle explains why inertia is not -felt- during acceleration due to gravity, but does not explain what happens to the particles that -do- collide, nor what those particles do next.

What gives rise to the actual -amount- of force required to accelerate a real object to an arbitrary velocity, regardless of delivery? What system calibrates these numbers? Put simply, why does a kicked ball achieve 2 fps, and not 1 or 5?

The common answer is, "because that's how much force was imparted to the ball, and our units of measurement are arbitrary."

Is someone ready to claim that the exact same kick to the exact same ball will always produce exactly the same acceleration vector anywhere in the universe, at any time? How about at any scale? Tough to confirm or refute, short of taking a really long ride to a kickball game.

I'll agree on the amount of force imparted by a kick, but it seems there should be more affecting the amount of resulting acceleration than the number of "matter ingredients" comprising the ball.

--

I think I've argued that nature of inertia needs more study.

I know for sure I've argued that the "sea" of C-Gravitons must have significant density and temperature, and therefore secondary effects.

A refined hypothesis:

Inertia as we know it is composed of two parts:
A) Intrinsic requirement noone argues, unbalanced force is required to change an object's velocity according to ( a = F / m ).
Actual resistance from the surrounding medium, as in my first post.

These two components should be additive.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />

In brief, MM explains that a given force other than gravity is applied only to part of the body, usually the surface, and is therefore diluted as its effect must spread to and be shared by many other molecules in the body. The more molecules, the more dilution of the applied force occurs. That looks to us like "resistance to acceleration".
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hey, I like that idea.

So lets imagine only two objects in the entire universe, a small pebble and the earth. The pebble is moving toward the earth at high speed and it hits the earth. Because of what we call “inertia”, the earth is NOT knocked out of place by the pebble.

But another way to look at it that the impact of the pebble is spread out over billions of pebble-sized chunks of matter that make up the earth, and its energy is thus dissipated by hitting these billions of pebbles, rather than just by hitting one of them. So, the billions, as a large group, do not move out of place, whereas if the single pebble hit another single pebble of the same size, the energy of the impact would be felt equally by both pebbles.

And the earth not moving out of place, when hit by a single pebble, we perceive as “inertia”. Is that right?