| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Mar 2005 07:33:02 AM |
| Object: |
origin of inertia explained |
New theory introduces geometrical model of field, which makes inertia
an obvious and imminent property of matter. Some related issues, such
as relativity and gravity are also discussed, with some original
conclusions.
Visit http://www.masstheory.org and download pdf of the first chapter.
Aleksandar Vukelja
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: origin of inertia explained |
22 Mar 2005 11:34:35 AM |
|
|
<aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1111498382.632563.77960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[follow-up set to sci.physics.relativity]
New theory introduces geometrical model of field, which makes inertia
an obvious and imminent property of matter. Some related issues, such
as relativity and gravity are also discussed, with some original
conclusions.
Visit http://www.masstheory.org and download pdf of the first chapter.
Aleksandar Vukelja
The proof of your theorem 2.1 is wrong.
If A stays still and B starts moving (feels a sudden
acceleration, or jump), then B's clock will show less
elapsed time.
If B stays still and A starts moving (feels a sudden
acceleration, or jump), then A's clock will show less
elapsed time.
If A and B each move at the same speed toward the
midpoint between them as seen in their original frame,
i.o.w. if the both feel the same acceleration pattern, or
the same jumps - one for starting and one for stopping,
then both clocks show the same elapsed time.
The result of what they both say depends on how they
move. If you insist on "intentionally not saying who
is moving and who not", then your proof is not only
wrong, but simply bogus, fake, intentionally wrong.
You ask:
| "But where is the error then? They are both in the
| same coordinate system now, and they both see
| opposite things. How can that be?"
It seems that you are not interested in the real answer.
Right?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: origin of inertia explained |
22 Mar 2005 12:56:38 PM |
|
|
"aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com" wrote:
New theory introduces geometrical model of field, which makes inertia
an obvious and imminent property of matter. Some related issues, such
as relativity and gravity are also discussed, with some original
conclusions.
[snip]
Bottom line: Empirically wrong and unamusing.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: origin of inertia explained |
22 Mar 2005 08:31:01 AM |
|
|
wrote:
New theory introduces geometrical model of field, which makes inertia
an obvious and imminent property of matter. Some related issues, such
as relativity and gravity are also discussed, with some original
conclusions.
I couldn't get past the first page of the pdf... ILLUCID definitions.
Can't understand why those who work on "new theories" fail to learn
existing theories (supported by empirical data) first.....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: origin of inertia explained |
22 Mar 2005 11:10:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
New theory introduces geometrical model of field, which makes inertia
an obvious and imminent property of matter. Some related issues, such
as relativity and gravity are also discussed, with some original
conclusions.
Visit http://www.masstheory.org and download pdf of the first chapter.
Aleksandar Vukelja
Why should anyone read your crap in light of the fact that you have
vanished from at least two threads now where your claims were
thoroughly refuted?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: origin of inertia explained |
22 Mar 2005 08:36:01 AM |
|
|
Aleks All Particles spin and all particles have inertia. All matter
creates gravity,and gravity and inertia are two sides to the same coin.
This is all part of my "Spin is in theory" Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
