Mass vs Inertia

Mathis Says Equivalence of Mass & Inertia Not Proven
The following quote from a Mathis paper at http://milesmathis.com/feyn.html was recently posted along with the images at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 120#p95482.

Eötvös and Dicke didn’t prove the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass, since their experiments never successfully isolated anything that we could call an inertial mass. When we weigh an object, we are already measuring a resultant force—we are measuring the gravitational force minus a force due to circular motion. If the earth stopped spinning, the object would weigh more on the scale, since the scale would then be feeling all the mass of the object rather than just a large fraction of it. All that happens when we suspend an object is that the negative part of this equation is allowed to express itself by a motion and an angle. The centrifugal component that we subtracted out to find the weight on the scale is allowed to push the object backwards, against rotation, and the object swings to a small angle. So the same vector subtraction is working whether the object is suspended or not. When the object is not suspended, friction keeps the ball from rolling backward. When the object is suspended, it swings a bit against the rotation of the earth.

Image

In other words, we are given (by the weight equivalence) that both objects have the same total force on them—gravity minus effect due to inertia. Then we showed by experiment that both objects have the same inertial mass, since they swing to the same angle or create the same torque. Therefore they must have the same gravitational masses. All true. The experiment of Dicke does in fact prove all that. But that is not a proof that gravitational mass equals inertial mass. Why? Because if inertial mass were 49% or 5% of gravitational mass, all that would still be true. Look at this bar graph.

Image

The inertial masses are equal, the gravitational masses are equal, the total masses (weights on a scale) are equal, but the inertial mass does not equal the gravitational mass.

Comments

  • DistintiDistinti Posts: 38
    edited April 2020
    Miles Mathis gets a lot of "milage" out of trashing the work of others because no amount of experimentation can prove a theory right

    The key is to ignore his critique of others, and listen to his explanations of things

    his explanations are gibberish. and many of his "equations" are bogus.

    Here are some examples:

    Precession of mercury (http://milesmathis.com/merc.html)
    "Einstein found .45 seconds of arc per year, whereas I seem to have found about .39 seconds of arc per 153s. But this is not how my equation works. My equation finds the same amount of precession no matter what time period you use. Whether you use 1s or one century, you still get .39 arcsec. This is because .39 arcsec is the curvature of the field"

    what gibberish -- if the equation finds the same precession regardless of time period than what is the point of stating that he gets .39 arc seconds per 153s?

    Then he states

    "Einstein's equations work the same way mine do, except in reverse. I give the curvature to the size/time plot and Einstein gives it to the vector field (where the curvature applies to lengths), but otherwise our math is doing the same thing."

    So he gets .39 seconds of arc no matter what the time period; Einstein gets .45 seconds of arc for per years and somehow these results are the same thing?

    http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf

    "In previous papers, I have proved that Newton's gravity equation is a disguised unified field equation,
    that Coulomb's equation is a disguised unified field equation, and that the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian is a
    disguised unified field equation. I have just discovered that Maxwell's equations are also disguised
    unified field equations."

    The idea of a unified field theory is that there is only one field! To have 4 unified fields is pointless.

    Michelson Morley http://milesmathis.com/mich.html
    Don't me started on this one.

    Sorry Lloyd but this guy does nothing for me.
    Lloyd
    Posts: 35
    Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 10:22 pm

    Re: Mass vs Inertia

    Post by Lloyd » Thu May 22, 2014 10:58 am

    Thanks. Hi Robert. Thanks for critiquing some of Mathis' statements. I don't see Mathis' work as trashing others' works, but as critiquing them. I don't think he uses name-calling or other unscientific practices much if at all. And he does admit that he may be in error. Your critique of him here could be considered trashing him, but I see it as critiquing, because you're using mostly logic, although terms like trashing and gibberish may be considered derogatory to some people. A non-derogatory term for "gibberish" might be "non sequiturs".

    Good & Bad. Much of Mathis' material is confusing or implausible, but in general I find a lot of good ideas and logic in it too. Although I'm generally favorable to his material, I critique it a lot too, because I want to understand something better or find proof against part of the theory.

    Bad. His most implausible idea to me is the claim that gravity is due to all matter expanding at a constantly accelerating rate, and two reasons that's implausible are (1) that space and matter would have to expand at exactly the same rate in order not to be easily observable and (2) that such expansion of matter would presumably require an accelerating creation of matter within all matter, since accelerating expansion is in part accelerating motion and the latter requires a constant force, which is an accelerating push by newly created mass. Your theory has similarities by stating that matter expands, but yours does so by increasing volume without increasing mass. And your expansion is limited and gradual, if I understand it. In January 2012 Mathis posted an alternative to accelerating expansion, namely universal spin, or spinning of the entire universe (as the cause of gravity), which is much more plausible to me.

    Good. Mathis' most plausible ideas to me are that there is no force at a distance or "attraction", that the ether/aether is photons, that subatomic particles are made of photons, that particles and atoms spin, that atoms have to be fairly symmetrical in order not to fly apart as they spin, that particles recycle photons and that photons have real mass and radius. And so on.

    Your theory again has similarities. You say that all matter consumes ether and the motion of the ether toward matter is the force of gravity, if I understand. I guess this means that you consider ether particles to have mass and radius, as Mathis does regarding photons. So far, I don't know the details of how you think matter consumes ether. I presume that it must turn into matter and thus help it expand. But it appears to me that may happen only in large bodies under the unusual conditions there.

    Dialog. I hope you and other supporters of your theory may like to have dialog with others to critique any related theories and try to advance science together. Charles Chandler has a website where he and I and others are trying to improve scientific process. In one video you said the logical way to do science is to find as many theories as can be found on an issue and then try to disprove them all. That's approximately what we're trying to do on Charles' site. He's setting up several work groups there now. One is for Science Reform. Another is an Aether team, of which Sebastian is a member and I plan to join. I hope you and other of your supporters may like to join too. The link is http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-13268-13309. I think he's working on setting up a chat room for each team. And I'm thinking about making questionnaires or something to help each team get organized. In the mean time it's fine to go there or anywhere on the site and start discussing, or writing, or posting papers etc.
  • LloydLloyd Posts: 35
    edited November -1
    <r><B><s></s>Thanks. <e></e></B>Hi Robert. Thanks for critiquing some of Mathis' statements. I don't see Mathis' work as trashing others' works, but as critiquing them. I don't think he uses name-calling or other unscientific practices much if at all. And he does admit that he may be in error. Your critique of him here could be considered trashing him, but I see it as critiquing, because you're using mostly logic, although terms like trashing and gibberish may be considered derogatory to some people. A non-derogatory term for "gibberish" might be "non sequiturs".<br/>
    <br/>
    <B><s></s>Good & Bad. <e></e></B>Much of Mathis' material is confusing or implausible, but in general I find a lot of good ideas and logic in it too. Although I'm generally favorable to his material, I critique it a lot too, because I want to understand something better or find proof against part of the theory.<br/>
    <br/>
    <B><s></s>Bad. <e></e></B>His most implausible idea to me is the claim that gravity is due to all matter expanding at a constantly accelerating rate, and two reasons that's implausible are (1) that space and matter would have to expand at exactly the same rate in order not to be easily observable and (2) that such expansion of matter would presumably require an accelerating creation of matter within all matter, since accelerating expansion is in part accelerating motion and the latter requires a constant force, which is an accelerating push by newly created mass. Your theory has similarities by stating that matter expands, but yours does so by increasing volume without increasing mass. And your expansion is limited and gradual, if I understand it. In January 2012 Mathis posted an alternative to accelerating expansion, namely universal spin, or spinning of the entire universe (as the cause of gravity), which is much more plausible to me.<br/>
    <br/>
    <B><s></s>Good. <e></e></B>Mathis' most plausible ideas to me are that there is no force at a distance or "attraction", that the ether/aether is photons, that subatomic particles are made of photons, that particles and atoms spin, that atoms have to be fairly symmetrical in order not to fly apart as they spin, that particles recycle photons and that photons have real mass and radius. And so on.<br/>
    <br/>
    Your theory again has similarities. You say that all matter consumes ether and the motion of the ether toward matter is the force of gravity, if I understand. I guess this means that you consider ether particles to have mass and radius, as Mathis does regarding photons. So far, I don't know the details of how you think matter consumes ether. I presume that it must turn into matter and thus help it expand. But it appears to me that may happen only in large bodies under the unusual conditions there.<br/>
    <br/>
    <B><s></s>Dialog. <e></e></B>I hope you and other supporters of your theory may like to have dialog with others to critique any related theories and try to advance science together. Charles Chandler has a website where he and I and others are trying to improve scientific process. In one video you said the logical way to do science is to find as many theories as can be found on an issue and then try to disprove them all. That's approximately what we're trying to do on Charles' site. He's setting up several work groups there now. One is for Science Reform. Another is an Aether team, of which Sebastian is a member and I plan to join. I hope you and other of your supporters may like to join too. The link is <URL url="http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-13268-13309"><s>;</s>http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-13268-13309<e></e></URL>. I think he's working on setting up a chat room for each team. And I'm thinking about making questionnaires or something to help each team get organized. In the mean time it's fine to go there or anywhere on the site and start discussing, or writing, or posting papers etc.</r>
  • SebastianGSebastianG Posts: 176
    edited April 2020
    Dialog:
    I think it is good to have an active conversation about all theories. But I can also understand that humans defend their accepted theories/models. This a good example about how our brain works. We have our accepted models of the world we can rely on. We learn this from the beginning, like for example: What happens if I have an apple in my hand and let it go. Since we have seen it so many times we have a model and can make the prediction that it will fall to the ground. We also have a mechanism in our brains which can test and verify these models if necessary. If we make an observation which can't be predicted by our models, we will have to make a new ones.

    I read a similar example in the book "On intelligence" from Jeff Hawkins. It is about how artificial intelligence and how the human brain works.

    Ether consumption:
    I'm not sure about this, correct me if I'm wrong:
    Every matter must consume ether to remain stable. As I understood the ether consumption is what keeps the Pretons in an atom "spinning". If there is not enough ether the orbits of the Pretons will decrease until they crash into each other. Heavier elements need more ether to be stable, if there is not enough ether the atom will decay into lighter atoms.

    In a radioactive chain reaction, an unstable atom like Uranium will decay faster if you fire additional neutrons into its core. Because with the new neutrons the overall demand on ether the atom is higher than the supply rate and will break down in lighter atoms and neutrons.

    In the earth core, heavy elements cook down into lighter elements. The lighter elements need more volume and the earth has to grow because the internal pressure is increasing. But I don't think that matter increases just because it is consuming ether.

    There is a great video from Robert about the growing earth:
    emV024: The Earth and Moon
    http://youtu.be/z8m_oK_b1xE
  • DistintiDistinti Posts: 38
    edited April 2020
    Its not the case that I'm defending my theory. I just want the truth, I 'm willing to walk away from my theory if someone can show me something better.

    If people are going to make assertions about nature (theories), the theories must match observed phenomenon otherwise they are wasting everyone's time; mine most of all.

    Miles states that the equality between the "inertial Mass" and "Gravitational mass" can not be proven. That is true (ROA #1)

    Just because something can not be proven does not mean that the relationship is false.

    Miles goes one step further to assert that they are most certainly not the same; this has never been observed (maybe it will be observed someday when we traverse off this planet and increase our footprint in the universe). But until then, the following observed relationship between "inertial Mass" and "Gravitational mass" works just fine.

    mgh = 1/2mVV

    The above depends upon the equality between "inertial Mass" (RHS) and "Gravitational mass" (LHS)

    So does the propagation of waves.

    Sorry to sound harsh in the previous email; that's the reality of living with this for the last 20 years. I have traveled down many wrong paths in the search for a better understanding of Mother nature. I've had to learn how to be harshly critical of myself, so that I don't waste time with gibberish of my own.

    Like I have stated in the videos: Don't get involved in any theory or model that you are not willing to walk away from in 30 seconds. (derived from a statement by Robert Deniro from the movie "Heat").

    Regards,

    RJD
  • nztykenztyke Posts: 14
    edited April 2020
    Hi Robert,

    Could TT Brown's Canadian Patent # 726958 be considered some kind of experimentation comparing Inertial Mass vs. Gravitation Mass of certain isotopes?

    Regards
  • tibortibor Posts: 11
    edited April 2020
    As far as I know, the gravitational acceleration was always measured on electrically neutral bodies. I don't know about any experiment which measured gravitational acceleration separately on proton or on electron. (What we know as electron's mass, is it's inertial mass, not the effect of gravity.)
    My question is: why everybody assumes, that both charges are accelerated similarly by gravity??? :grey_question:  From what experiment can we be sure about that? Sorry, if I ask something trivial, but I have not found any answer yet...

    For example, we can assign other acceleration values to proton and electron than g, while we can still have the usual g acceleration value for the neutral bodies. (As electrostatic force is much larger than gravity, the different gravitational acceleration values will not pull away the electrons from the atoms.)

    While I searched the internet for such experiments, I only found one, (but far not a perfect experiment - it is not satisfying for me): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkNjvCmsWOU The physicist who did this, has a model about it also: http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/a ... s_5844.pdf
  • nztykenztyke Posts: 14
    edited April 2020
    I find it fascinating how physicist over a 100 years ago were exploring these types of questions...

    The history of experiments and hypothesis is almost as important as the models themselves. In some cases, even more so.

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_The_Li ... _and_Ether
  • RadekCernyRadekCerny Posts: 14
    edited April 2020
    This is a very interesting video - replication of Boyd Bushman's experiment. Not conducted under rigorous conditions, but the theory is interesting. Would love Roberts (or anyone's) take on it.

  • nztykenztyke Posts: 14
    edited April 2020
    Yes, not very robust. I wouldn't call this a good example of a scientific experiment. Too many variables e.g. synchronizing the drop, the shape of the objects (affects terminal velocity), other (possibly paramagnetic) influences, etc. .. and of course, the obvious, hard to see which object is which.

    I didn't find any mention of a theory as such. Two opposing magnets somehow affects gravity? That's a vague assertion. How is this modelled?
  • RadekCernyRadekCerny Posts: 14
    edited April 2020
    Well according to Robert, gravity is an EM effect - the flow of ether into the massive body to keep in 'energised'. This flow is electro-gravity. But it works at the (sub)atomic level, not the molecular level so all matter is affected, not just magnetic material. So I am imagining the stress in the opposing magnets is causing an unduly high need for ether, thus drawing some of the downward flow into itself, effectively reducing gravity. There are 2 possibilities as I see it - either there is some funky interaction with the air or as I stated above. The simplest test would be using very accurate scales: weigh the components as a whole but not assembled; assemble the components and rather than dropping them simply weight them - do they now weigh less?
  • MenausMenaus Posts: 21
    edited April 2020
    Miles Mathis is a silly boy. He doesn't understand basic Newtonian Mechanics: He thinks that F =mv
  • RadekCernyRadekCerny Posts: 14
    edited April 2020
    Ah yes forgot the theory... I believe he uses an incorrect term 'magnetic monopole' for what he constructs. I dont believe he has had much rigorous training in EM, but he is clearly scientific in nature. The theory is yes, that 'gravity has a magnetic component' - thats verbatim from his video. Robert of course says that gravity is completely EM in nature. As I stated earlier, there are a few possibilities, and could be tested easily. I am keen on any theories that would predict this behaviour. Because if they do and the experiment confirms it, it would show that Robert really is onto something.
    One could surmise that the stresses caused by the forcing together of the opposing magnets requires a huge amount of ether, which subtlety changes the flow caused by gravity. Or that the magnets interact with the air somehow, as when magnets are dropped through a non magnetic tube such as copper. These can be tested - using the weight measurement I described earlier or by dropping them in a vacuum.
    I would just love to hear other opinions.

    Cheers
Sign In or Register to comment.

About Cookies

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.

Learn more: https://www.cookiesandyou.com/