Quote from: grondilu on 02/09/2013 10:50 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/09/2013 10:14 pmAgain, it seems more like Woodward is trying to fit the universe to do what he wants it to do instead of trying to figure out how it /actually/ works and only then exploiting it.Again, I applaud your amazing capability of reading people's minds.It goes along with the non-locality of the Woodward Effect. ;)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/09/2013 10:14 pmAgain, it seems more like Woodward is trying to fit the universe to do what he wants it to do instead of trying to figure out how it /actually/ works and only then exploiting it.Again, I applaud your amazing capability of reading people's minds.
Again, it seems more like Woodward is trying to fit the universe to do what he wants it to do instead of trying to figure out how it /actually/ works and only then exploiting it.
General Relativity isn't compatible with the Mach principle, despite what Woodward claims. GR is intrinsically /local/. The existence of gravity waves actually supports this.
Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf
On P. 6: phi=GM/R.So uhhhh, what's the radius of the universe? Since it is expanding, what is the force constant that the following equations seem to be demonstrating?
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/09/2013 11:08 pmNot sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf[finger raised.]On P. 6: phi=GM/R.So uhhhh, what's the radius of the universe? Since it is expanding, what is the force constant that the following equations seem to be demonstrating?IOW, is the M-E a constant, or is it getting larger as time goes on?You all skip so much of the math. It would be nice to start at the beginning.
Quote from: cuddihy on 02/08/2013 05:38 amI don't understand your focus on the weight or apparent weight of the active mass. Nothing terribly interesting happening there, the amount of mass actually experiencing the effect is very small, and it's a transient. It's the apparent change in inertia that really matters, because with the push that is what provides the useful force.You say you don't understand the focus on weight and then you say that what matters is change of inertia. Well, according to general relativity, isn't there an exact correspondence between gravitational mass (aka. weight) and inertial mass (the tendency to resist to an external force)?
I don't understand your focus on the weight or apparent weight of the active mass. Nothing terribly interesting happening there, the amount of mass actually experiencing the effect is very small, and it's a transient. It's the apparent change in inertia that really matters, because with the push that is what provides the useful force.
Just because there's a correspondence doesn't mean it's the same thing.
In fact it's a key point for Mach Principle that whereas gravitational mass is a local effect that is only observed in the immediate vicinity of a massive object, inertial mass is an explicitly non-local phenomenon that local objects have a negligible effect on, because compared to the mass of the rest of the universe the mass of a massive object is so small.
Quote from: cuddihy on 02/10/2013 06:28 pmJust because there's a correspondence doesn't mean it's the same thing.I've always thought that's precisely what Einstein meant, though.Edit. Also, I wrote "correspondence" but the correct term is "equivalence", which is less ambiguous.QuoteIn fact it's a key point for Mach Principle that whereas gravitational mass is a local effect that is only observed in the immediate vicinity of a massive object, inertial mass is an explicitly non-local phenomenon that local objects have a negligible effect on, because compared to the mass of the rest of the universe the mass of a massive object is so small.Something tells me there is something wrong in this reasoning. I think it's because you consider mass (either gravitational or inertial) as being an effect of some sort. I think Mach was talking about inertial forces resulting from the action of distant stars, not the inertial mass.Mass, either gravitational or inertial, is a form of energy. E=mc2 does not come in two flavors.
You can tell apart weight from inertial mass only in the case that observed inertial mass is variant...which is what Woodward suggests.
I've always thought that's precisely what Einstein meant, though.Edit. Also, I wrote "correspondence" but the correct term is "equivalence", which is less ambiguous.
The inertial mass of a body is determined by the distribution and flow of mass-energy in the universe.
The struggle for me is partly this: Let's say we have a universe which started from one Big Bang, and during an early period of FTL expansion, a good bit of the universe got away from our light cone of observation. But how could causality stop at the radius of observability? Doesn't make sense to us simpletons. I prefer to think that the entire universe is fraught with causality of a sort that is different from the speed of light observability.
With the universe getting bigger, somehow the scalar term of the "fixed frame" is getting bigger too, but apparently that doesn't matter.
I think the limit of observability is actually the last scattering surface. ... Beyond the last scattering surface, there is what I think is called the cosmological horizon.
Indeed it doesn't matter, because in the end what you use is the literal expression phi, not GM/R. I don't know why Woodward mentions it. Sciama does not.
Unfortunately, this does not explain the matter at all. It is fundamental to the argument that phi=c^^2.
This is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/11/2013 12:54 pmUnfortunately, this does not explain the matter at all. It is fundamental to the argument that phi=c^^2.I did not get this either. phi = GM/R is not fundamental to the argument that phi=c^2 since Sciama does not use it. Sciama writes about a page and half to justify it. It's page 38 to 40. Not much maths, but essentially cosmological and relativistic considerations. I don't get it all.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/10/2013 07:24 amThis is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.That's absurd. I was taking you seriously until you got histrionic. You can't defeat silly claims with silly claims. Double down on the silly claim if you want, but you'll only be doubling down on a patent falsehood.