Earlier I wrote,
> You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract? This
> answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference to having its
> gravitational acceleration impeded by another body.
>
and Robin van Spaandonk responded,
>> For in as much as I understood what you wrote above, I get the impression
>> that you have simply reversed the definitions of gravitational and inertial
>> mass, and without apparent cause as near as I can tell.
Well, after giving it some thought, I have decided there is no need (within
my theory) to impute inertial mass with the power of gravitational
attraction.
However, I will explain why I aim to distinguish between inertial and
gravitational mass.
I contend the law of inertia is over applied . To borrow a phrase from
jurisprudence, what matters is the spirit of the law rather than the letter
of the law.
The spirit of this law should not apply to the motion of bodies _between_
collisions or beyond obviously mechanical systems. By extending this lawto
the motion of gravitating bodies the nature of gravity becomes unduly
perplexing. Where are the mechanical linkages? Where are the colliding
particles? etc.
Einstein's response to this puzzle was to let the logic of the law of
inertia dictate the nature of space and time.
My response is to leave space and time alone and explain gravitational
motion (free fall, projectile, and celestial motion) with concepts that
differ from the science of motion known as "mechanics".
I explore the metaphysical ground on which the conceptual foundations of
mechanics and quantum mechanics are situated.
Harry
