Lesage and Inertia

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by buffoil</i>
<br />According to classical Newtonian theory, as well as TVF's interpretation of Lesage, this is all just coincidence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You betray that you have not read what I had to say on this subject in "Does gravity have inertia?", MRB 11, 49-53 (2002). The equivalence principle is now replaced by the transparency principle.

I presume you have already read "Pushing Gravity"? If not, you will want to do that soon so you understand the model your are critiquing. -|Tom|-

Tom;
Your transparency principle seems to rest on the tacit assumption that inertia is an intrinsic property of the individual "matter ingredients" comprising bulk matter. But the same arguments used by Berkeley and Mach in support of an extrinsic source for the inertial interaction apply here. To suggest that the individual matter ingredients "know" just how to behave (in accord with Newton's second law) is to invoke spooky action-at-a-distance, nominally anathematic to proponents of Lesage.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by buffoil</i>
<br />Your transparency principle seems to rest on the tacit assumption that inertia is an intrinsic property of the individual "matter ingredients" comprising bulk matter. But the same arguments used by Berkeley and Mach in support of an extrinsic source for the inertial interaction apply here. To suggest that the individual matter ingredients "know" just how to behave (in accord with Newton's second law) is to invoke spooky action-at-a-distance, nominally anathematic to proponents of Lesage.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Is it your regular style to erect strawmen, then beat the stuffing out of them?

The transparency principle rests on no such tacit assumption. I specifically denied that inertia is an intrinsic property of matter or matter ingredients. So the rest of your conclusions do not follow.

If you are at all interested in what my article did have to say about the nature of inertia, I again recommend reading it. Critiquing before reading is not a recommended practice in science. [] -|Tom|-

Tom;
Many thanks for the info and friendly suggestions.