Joe Fischer wrote in message ...
Gauge wrote:
: Joe Fischer wrote
: Inertial motion is the dominant type
: of motion in the universe, and it seems
: absurd to me that anybody at any grade level
: can think that a force is involved with the
: objects in inertial motion.
: Inertial forces are a resistance to
: acceleration, nothing more, and are not
: and CANNOT be centripetal.
:
: Then you have yet to even understand what an inertial force is. Even
: after a prolonged description of them it's like you're not even
: listening!!!

I am waiting and listening for anybody else
to question my understanding of inertia.
I still think placing the words inertial
and force in the same term is a major misrepresentatiom
of the physics involved.

And that's why you should read more - to learn.



Do you know what an inertial frame of referance is? Do you know what
a non-inertial frame of referance is?

In an inertial frame of referance, a "free" object will move in a
straight line at constant speed. This property of matter is called
inertia. That is to say, the term "inertia" is defined as

Inertia - a property of matter by which it remains at rest or in
uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some
external force



Now inherent in that statement is that this holds true in an
"inertial" frame of referance." If I leave an object along and **I**
change to a **non-inertial** frame of referance then that object will
accelerate relative to me. Why? Because of inertia. So if one chooses
to **DEFINE** force as the time rate of change of momentum then I
would calculate a non-zero force for this object due to its motion.
Again - the reason why the object is accelerating relatvive to me is
due to inertia - the reason that one calculates a non-zere force is
due to that very fact - hence the force is called an inertial force
since that is the origin of the force - I.e. the origin of an inertial
force is the property of inertia.





: In fact you've just proved to me that you have NO idea of what an
: inertial force is. Seems that you're TOTALLY confusing inertial force
: with weight.

Of course I am, when the elevator in space
accelerates upward, my weight is my mass times the
acceleration in g units.


That's not what an inertial force is - you've got it confused.

: If a bopdy is in free-fall then *** THERE IS AN INERTIAL FORCE *** on
: the object. And THAT means that the force can be transformed away by
: moving to an inertial frame.

Total moronic misrepesentation of physics, this
type of thinking should mean a failed GR course.

Bull**** - ity's a basics FACT of a GR course. Look at the cousenotes
from Cal Tech and MIT etc.


Do you see anybody objecting to me saying that
freefall is an inertial frame when I say that freefall
is inertial motion and zero acceleration?

: Please learn about what you're talking about before you claim it's
: wrong.

I sure know what inertial motion is, and
so does an inertial guidance unit.

: Do you know what "momentum" is?

In Newtonian mechanics or General Relativity?

: Do you know what "change in momentum" is?
: Pmb

Nothing in freefall has a change of momentum
in General Relativity.

Totally wrong - but I guess that until you pick up a GR book an have
an open mind then you'll never learn