[General] Sciama's inertia

[Hodge John]

WolfThanks for your reply. You had requested a list of assumption I used in developingthe Young’s Experiment simulation. 2 others did too. So I’ve put together apaper (yet to be published) listing them. 2 assumption are particularlytroubling to me:  (4) Thehods cause gravity in the plenum. The plenum (``space'') has inertia. The hodscapture an amount of plenum to form matter (mass). Therefore, there is aproportionality between gravitational mass and inertial mass if each hod holdsthe same amount of plenum captive in matter \citep{hodg16}. The amount ofplenum captured depends on the $\rho$ of the photon environment. This derivesthe Equivalence Principle. (11)The most problematic assumption is the equation governing the flow of theplenum. If the plenum has inertia, there is a possibility to treat the forceexerted by the plenum as a fluid flow with a gradient term plus a timederivative term. The analysis of rotation curves suggested that the timederivative is either zero or is proportional to the gradient. Therefore, gravitypotential is only $1/r$ dependent. The STOE separated the inertia into twoparts. One part was the plenum captured by the hods. This inertia moved withthe hod because the force holding the plenum is greater than the gradientforce. This part of inertia then resists motion as does the hod. The secondpart of inertia in resisting hod motion was assumed to be the substantiveplenum moving around the photon and is proportional to the velocity rather thanvelocity squared which would imply turbulence.  Sciama’s paper and your thought seems one of the betterviews of inertia. Sciama’s paper derives his thought on the idea that gravitycould account for inertia assuming the reaction was like electric charges.Early in his paper he points out that later in the paper that vector potentialsmay be used. Then he uses them. This seems like circular reasoning. The analogywith electric force makes this an easy thing to accept. I had thought of usingelectric forces for inertia but got hung on the vector gauge part (specificallythe curl of the magnetic). So I stuck with scalar. In Sciama, the idea a gauge(why not a high order tensor?) can be the core of inertia is a bit repulsive tome. I really dislike gauge introductions into physical models. It seems to me Sciama didn’t address how distant mass couldaffect inertia instantaneously. That is, a violation of Relativity is requiredbut this model of inertia seems accepted (very odd to me). The speed of gravityis a part of my assumption also. However, gravity has a finite speed.Therefore, using Mach’s idea is problematical (instantaneous is still requiredby Sciama.) All matter, Sources, Sinks in the universe determines the $\rho$ ata point and it can change.  Suppose we take the $\rho$ (electric potential) of Sciama tobe the $\rho$ of the STOE (not a big leap because this is how it was done) andthe plenum to be substantive. Then we have a very similar development withoutthe gauge vector part. So the $\rho$ varies locally. The problem of flow stilloccurs. But the #4 and #11 overcomes the issue but it implies the inertial masschanges with the gravitational mass and the $G$ varies with large changes in$\rho$ which is why I mentioned the rotation curves. The MOND model suggests$G$ does change. Experimentally proving it could be difficult because itchanges only slowly. I’m also unsure of the assumption that the charge (mass)density increase with r^2 given the disk nature of the Milky Way and thedistance between galaxies. He also uses the overall charge density is zero butthis is not true for mass.  The simulation and the Hodge Experiment works. But inertiastill troubles. I wonder if there is an experiment for Sciama’s view that othermodels (STOE) would fail. Hodge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160507/02b2619e/attachment.htm>