Jonathan, just to make sure I understand. Is it correct to sum up your answer to the question like this:
A. if we measure the inertial mass in space and note the result number and then we let fall the experiment (the test object + the inertial balance) as described and repeat it in the lower...
We have the same kind of open question.
If the mass of the fallen object is less than it was in space after it was stopped at the surface (and its KE was removed) then theoretically after an inertial fall to a very massive mass the object can loose a substantial percentage of its mass. Yet...
Thank you. If I may, I would like to understand the difference between the local and the distant measurements. Why is there a difference in this case? Should not both the local and the distant observer see the same value on the inertial balance?
I suppose there is also the gravitational...
I would like to better understand the nature of gravitational attraction and the law of conservation of energy.
Imagine you measure inertial mass (using inertial ballance) of an object far from a gravitating mass which is at rest relative to the object. Then you release the object and let it...
Well obviously many people here don't think as clearly as you :smile:
And I need to make sure that they see that this is not the way to go or that they have a point that I have missed.
Thank you. I have sent the article to my Kindle and I will surely reflect on the topic in another thread. To...
Well you can construct "a geometry" out of any set of variables that change as a function of basically anything that you are able to define. Be it a table or a concept of a Pink fairy Unicorn from the Netherworld. But the fact that an object has an geometry doesn't mean that the geometry has an...
It's called inertia. And it's the reason why physical laws appear to be the same in all inertial frames. Details of how this is possible I would like to know too.
Geometry of a physical object like any piece of furniture is of course physical.
But geometry of an invisible object that is not made by anything physical (virtual particles aside, we are talking about space as a dimension now) and one of its dimensions is temporal (which is even a higher...
Ok, this is what I needed to know. My problem with this is more conceptual than physical, I guess. And I'm bumping to this problem from various sides again and again (as maybe DaleSpam will remember).
The problem is that I cannot see how a mathematical law operating within a seemingly...
Sure it does. Nothing else really happens or?
So the theory of Special relativity will say that (I'm quoting PAllen #9 from t=558360) "the path with greater deviation from an inertial path will accumulate less time".
Great, case closed. But does this answer really satisfy you? "Make a fire...
Well, take for example the twin paradox. One of the twins comes back to Earth and is evidently younger than the other twin that stayed on the Earth. Can you tell me what physical law (that involves exchange or transformation of energy) and by what mechanism caused the difference in age of the...
I try to get the gist of the Special and General theories of relativity for more than two years now. And I still don't understand if the geometrical explanation really explains or just describes what is physically going on when talking about all the relativistic effects (like gravitation, time...
I'm confused. What does this have to do with gravity?
I always though the 3rd law was about collisions like billiard balls kicking into each other and similar situations where gravity can be safely neglected.
Well, my question is not asking about anything that fundamental like why an electron has a charge or anything like that.
I just want to understand the Newton's third law better. My feeling is that the action-reaction pair of forces are not some fundamental forces described by the Standard...