Inertia in the Meta Model

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Astrodelugeologist</i>
<br />By what mechanism would inertia operate in the Meta Model? Would it be the result of a surrounding medium of particles, as gravity is?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For a complete answer, see my article "Does gravity have inertia?" in MRB 11#4 (Dec. 2002), wherein I answer the title question in the negative.

In brief (probably way too brief), when a force is applied to the surface of a body, the pushed atoms must push their neighbors in a cascade that eventually spreads through the entire body. But then, all the atoms that initially receive the push must share the momentum they receive among all the atoms in the body. The result is a considerable dilution of that momentum by an amount that is proportional to the inertial mass of the body, with each atom being given a momentum that is inversely proportional to that mass. This is perceived by us as "resistance to a change in motion", a process that we call "inertia".

By contrast, gravitons transmit the force of gravity equally and separately to every single atom (indeed, to every single matter ingredient) of the target body. This is possible because ordinary bodies obey a "transparency principle" whereby gravitons have equal access to every matter ingredient without needing neighboring matter ingredients to relay any momentum. This is why gravity has no inertia. The simplest manifestation of this lack is the observed fact that bodies of all masses, big or small, fall with equal accelerations in a gravitational field.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If so, what would be the reason for the lack of "shadowing" effects for inertial mass? (i.e. Why don't objects decrease in mass when moved closer to other objects?)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't understand this question. But you said "if so", and I answered the preceding question with a "not". So I hope that the preceding description answers the essence of your inquiry. -|Tom|-

The inertia story is clear enough. Thanks, also seen in other sciences. It's a very complex system there.

But for me gravity itself is strange.

When I was a little boy I thought only pushing away forces could exist.

Could you explain to people on highschool who have never heard of forces and not think of lover or human like forces. What isi an attracting force. What mechanism under it gives that result.

We are just accepting it. We are used to it. But those children are more critical then.

With the notion fractality I suddenly saw, no, also pulling forces can result. Do you hear that?... result. Gravity forces are a result from somthing. So there is an underlying structure. And I email a lot of scientists about those findings and they were enthusiast about it. I like to unite all scientists for we can learn so much from each other. While we are now fighting. Never underestimate another one.

Look at the many different ideas here. It's really time to work together.

Because fractality is a dynamical helping tool we can use metaphors. And the physical chaos view tells us why we may use them.

It's an extremely productive view.

have a nice day

Ed van der Meulen