So, despite Einstein's hopes, general relativity
does not in any way explain or obviate the principle
of inertia. Granted, if the field equations didn't
include the trace term (so that the covariant divergence
didn't vanish), the resulting theory would have many
problems and be subject to many objections, but no one
disputes that the principle of inertia is extremely
well-founded in observation. It is an extremely
well-justified postulate - but it is still a postulate.
General relativity does not explain inertia, nor does
it dispense with the need to organize our spatio-temporal
theories on the principle of inertia and the associated
coordinate systems.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath588/kmath588.htm


Sue...
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...dee0ace?hl=en&

Sue... wrote:
So, despite Einstein's hopes, general relativity
does not in any way explain or obviate the principle
of inertia. Granted, if the field equations didn't
include the trace term (so that the covariant divergence
didn't vanish), the resulting theory would have many
problems and be subject to many objections, but no one
disputes that the principle of inertia is extremely
well-founded in observation. It is an extremely
well-justified postulate - but it is still a postulate.
General relativity does not explain inertia, nor does
it dispense with the need to organize our spatio-temporal
theories on the principle of inertia and the associated
coordinate systems.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath588/kmath588.htm


Sue...
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...dee0ace?hl=en&

Note that the 377 ohms fixed impedance of space is the same
thing as inertia, being a once-off 'displacement current'
resistance
which is independent of distance that energy travels through space.
The cause of inertia is the setting up of a wave from front to back
of the accelerating energy particle. Once the wave is set up, no
further resistance is encountered. This is different from a
particulate conductor or resistor like copper wire, whose resistance
depends on distance (a fixed number of ohms/metre of length, not
just a fixed number of ohms).
--Nigel B. Cook
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook4.htm

Sue...

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
So, despite Einstein's hopes, general relativity
does not in any way explain or obviate the principle
of inertia.


GR contains the principle of inertia which says in an inertial frame a free
particle moves at constant velocity - actually that is the definition of an
inertial frame so really it is not saying anything. The question is why do
inertial frame exist. No GR does not answer that any more thane Maxwell's
equations answer the question why do electric fields exist.

Granted, if the field equations didn't
include the trace term (so that the covariant divergence
didn't vanish), the resulting theory would have many
problems and be subject to many objections, but no one
disputes that the principle of inertia is extremely
well-founded in observation. It is an extremely
well-justified postulate - but it is still a postulate.
General relativity does not explain inertia, nor does
it dispense with the need to organize our spatio-temporal
theories on the principle of inertia and the associated
coordinate systems.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath588/kmath588.htm


Sue...
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...dee0ace?hl=en&

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
So, despite Einstein's hopes, general relativity
does not in any way explain or obviate the principle
of inertia.


GR contains the principle of inertia which says in an inertial frame a free
particle moves at constant velocity - actually that is the definition of an
inertial frame so really it is not saying anything. The question is why do
inertial frame exist. No GR does not answer that any more thane Maxwell's
equations answer the question why do electric fields exist.

Reference frames are imaginary.
A mechanism that can store energy when you push it and
release that energy by splashing into a bucket of water
and do it conservativly, near or far from a massive body
is quite real.
An electro-dynamic theory of the 'mechanism' is being suggested.

Sue...




Granted, if the field equations didn't
include the trace term (so that the covariant divergence
didn't vanish), the resulting theory would have many
problems and be subject to many objections, but no one
disputes that the principle of inertia is extremely
well-founded in observation. It is an extremely
well-justified postulate - but it is still a postulate.
General relativity does not explain inertia, nor does
it dispense with the need to organize our spatio-temporal
theories on the principle of inertia and the associated
coordinate systems.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath588/kmath588.htm


Sue...
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...dee0ace?hl=en&

Sue... wrote: Bill Hobba wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

The question is why do inertial frame exist. No GR does not
answer that any more thane Maxwell's equations answer the
question why do electric fields exist.

Reference frames are imaginary.
A mechanism that can store energy when you push it and
release that energy by splashing into a bucket of water
and do it conservativly, near or far from a massive body
is quite real.
An electro-dynamic theory of the 'mechanism' is being suggested.

Sue...

$ The Relativity ANTHROPiC FRAME of REFERENCE Principle.
FRAMEs of REFERENCE constitute the ANTHROPiC PRiNCiPLE of GR.!!
We see GR-POiNT-mass on TiME-lines (WORLD-lines) in SPACE-time.
brian a m stuckless

"Sue..." wrote in message oups.com...

I snipped your quote, we can all read text books.
Did YOU have anything to say?

Androcles.

"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
So, despite Einstein's hopes, general relativity
does not in any way explain or obviate the principle
of inertia.


GR contains the principle of inertia which says in an inertial frame a
free
particle moves at constant velocity - actually that is the definition of
an
inertial frame so really it is not saying anything. The question is why
do
inertial frame exist. No GR does not answer that any more thane
Maxwell's
equations answer the question why do electric fields exist.

Reference frames are imaginary.

So are points with position and no size and lines with length and no width.
Just because you have not grasped the fundamentals of abstraction like the
average 10 year old it does not mean everyone is as backward as you.

Bill

A mechanism that can store energy when you push it and
release that energy by splashing into a bucket of water
and do it conservativly, near or far from a massive body
is quite real.
An electro-dynamic theory of the 'mechanism' is being suggested.

Sue...




Granted, if the field equations didn't
include the trace term (so that the covariant divergence
didn't vanish), the resulting theory would have many
problems and be subject to many objections, but no one
disputes that the principle of inertia is extremely
well-founded in observation. It is an extremely
well-justified postulate - but it is still a postulate.
General relativity does not explain inertia, nor does
it dispense with the need to organize our spatio-temporal
theories on the principle of inertia and the associated
coordinate systems.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath588/kmath588.htm


Sue...
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...dee0ace?hl=en&

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 02:24:12 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:


"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
So, despite Einstein's hopes, general relativity
does not in any way explain or obviate the principle
of inertia.


GR contains the principle of inertia which says in an inertial
frame a free particle moves at constant velocity - actually
that is the definition of an inertial frame so really it is not
saying anything. The question is why do inertial frame exist.
No GR does not answer that any more than Maxwell's equations
answer the question why do electric fields exist.

The Faraday/Maxwell model answers the question as to why
the electric field is govened by those equations...

Reference frames are imaginary.

So are points with position and no size and lines with length
and no width. Just because you have not grasped the fundamentals
of abstraction like the average 10 year old it does not mean
everyone is as backward as you.

Nature is NOT! Absractions... There exists in nature no
point without volume, lines without thickness nor infinities
in field properties. Abstractions, while useful mental
aids are worthless as physical constructs. Just like believing
equations are ordained by god as you do Bill!

Paul Stowe

Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
....
Nature is NOT! Absractions... There exists in nature no
point without volume,

electrons. photons.

lines without thickness nor infinities
in field properties. Abstractions, while useful mental
aids are worthless as physical constructs. Just like
believing equations are ordained by god as you do Bill!

Goodbye again.
plonk

David A. Smith

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:05:19 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote:

Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .
...
Nature is NOT! Absractions... There exists in nature no
point without volume,

electrons. photons.

Nope & Nope...

lines without thickness nor infinities
in field properties. Abstractions, while useful mental
aids are worthless as physical constructs. Just like
believing equations are ordained by god as you do Bill!

Goodbye again.
plonk

Then why bother to read or reply Dick!?

Paul Stowe