Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 02:56 pm 11-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote:> > > <snip> > >> I think any measure of weight, is really a measure of inertia. >> Thus a change in weight is really a change in the inertia of the body. >> The only way to definitely measure a change in gravity is to measure the >> time of fall from a given height. >> >> As you can see I prefer 'anti-inertia' research to 'anti-gravity' research. >> >> Harry > > > I agree with that Harry - and I think it is very perceptive - if you will > forgive my sounding patronizing. ;-) > > I have often thought that when I standing on the ground I am really being > accelerated in a stationery position by the force being applied through the > soles of my feet. In this way one can see more clearly that weight does indeed > represent inertia.
I would stop short of saying weight represents inertia. Rather, it is the measure (quantification) of weight that represents inertia. Qualitative judgements are as important as quantitative judgements in forging a new physics. Be wary of quantifiable analogies. > Now if I were to circle the earth at orbital velocity then I would experience > equilibrium between two quite distinct forces the gravitational force acting > downwards and the inertial force acting upwards. Then you should feel your weight, just as you do standing on the surface of the Earth. > I believe these two forces > act at distinct levels, or depths if you prefer, of matter. To illustrate what > I mean with an analogy, consider a more familiar set of forces which are > conveniently spatially separate so that one can really see what is going on - > one can visualise the gravitational force as acting on the keel and hull of > matter, and the inertial force acting on the sail of matter. > > This brings to mind a wonderful example I saw of a body (more specifically a > yacht) which was stationary under the action of two forces acting at different > levels of matter. > > The yacht was trying to enter Littehampton harbour. The tide was going out and > the combined tide and river flow was driving the yacht out to sea. > > In contrast, a rather strong wind was blowing on-shore and driving the yacht > into the harbour. The net result that there was a wonderful sight of a yacht > sailing away like the clappers but completely stationary relative to me > standing on the harbour wall. > > Cheers > > Grimer > As poetry this opens a portal to a new physics. But if you process the poetry with establishment physics you risk closing the portal. Harry
