UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > Sep > Sep 28

Re: UFOs Gravity & Inertia - Dickenson

From: Ray Dickenson <ray.dickenson.nul>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:53:28 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:56:46 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs Gravity & Inertia - Dickenson


>From: Martin Shough <mshough.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:48:28 +0100
>Subject: Re: UFOs Gravity & Inertia

>>From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 05:13:23 -0700
>>Subject: Re: UFOs Gravity & Inertia

>>>From: Eugene Frison <eugene.frison.nul>
>>>To: UFO Updates List <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 22:54:58 -0300
>>>Subject: Re: UFOs Gravity & Inertia

<snip>

>There was also an old theory of gravity based on filling space
>with a field of particles that exert pressure from every
>direction, and you could explain inverse square "attraction" in
>a crude way because the angular area of objects that shadow one
>another from the particle flow would vary as the inverse square
>of separation. I don't know if anyone seriously worked this up
>but I've seen it mentioned. Feynman discusses it somewhere. This
>is similar to your proposal.

Hello Martin & All

Yes, Feynman considered that theory and, for same reason that
Michelson-Morley experiment was considered a failure, he
dismissed it because he, and everyone else was considering a
*slow universal pressure (*slow - i.e. light speed or below).
At a *slow speed such a force would be obvious, giving you extra
gravitational effects when you moved, even uniformly: which
doesn't happen [we don't detect uniform motion'].

But if the universal force were incoming at many, many multiples
of light speed then we wouldn't be able to detect it by movement
because our movement wouldn't be able to make more than a tiny,
undetectable difference. That's also real reason why the
Michelson - Morley experiment has not been correctly evaluated.
But we *could* detect a small effect at relativistic speeds - and
NASA has been detecting such a mystery force for about seven
years or more (check "LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY NEWS RELEASE
- September 24, 1998" in Google").

>Some properties of mass could be produced by your particle-
>resistance. But one main problem with an idea like this would be
>explaining why Newton's First Law is valid. Why do objects keep
>moving? Inertia isn't just about them sitting still of course,
>but about them needing a reason not to just keep on going.
>Motion ought to be damped out.

Right Martin, and Feynman spoke on that - "The reason why things
coast for ever has never been found out. The law of inertia has
no known origin" (Lecture published as "The Character of
Physical Law" p. 19). I.e. exactly as you went on to say:-

>But GR itself doesn't explain
>inertia; it describes how the spacetime metric responds locally
>to the presence of mass but I personally think some way is
>needed of implementing Mach's principle non-locally to explain
>inertia.

>Intriguing stuff though.

Right again, but now we've got a force that _will_ explain the
"extra" inertia you get by spinning something: a coin, a bucket
of water (Newton) or water filled balloon (Einstein); it's
_got_to_ come from surrounding space and, by Occam, it's the
same force that confers both mass and "ordinary" inertia (only
one force - because mass & inertia are always exactly
proportional).

Which means there's a likely "Inertia Drive" and an "Inertia
Shield" just around the corner from now.


Cheers

Ray D

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Perceptions" http://www.perceptions.couk.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com