Recent content by renormalize

I have already reported this as spam to the mentors. Based on past experience, it should soon disappear!

Welcome to Physics Forums, but do note that discussing unpublished personal work is not allowed here: Speculative or Personal Theories: Physics Forums is not intended as an alternative to the usual professional venues for discussion and review of new ideas, e.g. personal contacts, conferences...

But that observation in itself does not falsify Mach's principle, which seems to be the goal of your rather disjointed arguments; i.e., distant stars rotating faster than light, centrifugal force is independent of ##G##, and so on. If you can't supply actual references supporting your claim...

I ask you again: please cite a credible physics reference that espouses that version of Mach's principle and quote the specific passage from that reference. As I showed in post #9, your Bondi & Samuel reference certainly does not support that version. Or just admit it's a personal theory.

Again, you make an assertion without providing credible proof. Please cite a physics reference that actually states that inertial mass "does not vanish when you turn off gravity".

That argument is not persuasive. How do you know that the inertial mass ##m## doesn't depend on the gravitational constant ##G## such that ##m\rightarrow 0## as ##G\rightarrow 0\,##, so that the force ##F## vanishes in that limit?

Water climbing the walls of a bucket rotating relative to the fixed stars is an empirical result observed in our universe where ##G\neq 0##. How can you claim to know by mere thought the result of the same experiment conducted in some hypothetical alternative universe where ##G=0\,##? Is this a...

Nope. Your Bondi & Samuel reference enumerates 10 versions of Mach's principle (some of which are contradictory!) and discusses their applicability to the theories of Newtonian absolute space (N) and Einstein in asymptotically-flat (EA) and cosmological (EC) universes. Their "Mach3" is most...

Can you cite a physics reference that defines "strong Mach" in this way? I ask because, to my understanding, Mach's principle applies only to particle motion relative to the preferred frame in which the distant universe is at rest.

I don't see the validity of your argument. Consider this quote about Mach's principle from S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, pg. 17: "... if Mach is right, then the acceleration given a particle by a given force ought to depend not only on the presence of the fixed stars but also, very...

Closed loops of virtual low-mass magnetic monopoles would modify the QED prediction of ##g-2## for the electron and muon. @Roberto Pavani should look at: Mass limit for Dirac-type magnetic monopoles Abstract We calculate the contribution of virtual monopole-antimonopole pairs to the anomalous...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

I think that's an eccentric view. What I would say instead is that, for each particle/field we observe in nature, we discover that the behavior of each individually derives from a Lagrangian and the concomitant principle of least action. We can add those individual Lagrangians, along with...

Our best current model of fundamental physics is the Standard Model of particle physics combined with General Relativity for gravitation. Both of those theories are based on Lagrangians. So the existence of a "combined action" is an empirical observation about nature.

Can you define what what you mean by the word "principle"? Or are you asking: "We all know that the Energy is conserved, what I'm asking if for modern physics it is just a postulate or a theorem." If that's your actual question, then the answer is: the conservation-of-energy is a theorem.