It appears that each particle in this universe has an innate impulse that generates natural acceleration. This natural acceleration is resisted by the property of inertia of the particle, and the tendency is towards a balance. When a balance is reached, the particle ends up with a constant velocity, while the acceleration due to innate impulse and inertia are exactly balanced. Therefore, higher is the inertia of the body, the greater is the resistance to acceleration, the more quickly the balance is reached, and the lower is the constant velocity. This is obvious on a cosmic scale when we compare the velocity of light to the velocity of matter. When earth is revolving around the sun, the innate impulse of earth for linear acceleration is balanced by its inertia, and that keeps the earth in its orbit. If the inertia was any less, then earth will be flying away from the sun. If inertia were greater, then earth will be crashing into the sun. It appears that inertia decreases as earth comes closer to the sun, and earth has a tendency to move away. Similarly, inertia increases as earth moves away from the sun, and earth has a tendency to come closer. This leads to the interesting conclusion that inertia and velocity have an inverse relationship. It is inertia that converts into the constant velocity and vice versa. This satisfies Faraday’s principle of Conservation of Force.

G is the gravitational constant, and not the force of Gravity. The dimensions of force are MLT^-2. The resistance due to inertia has the same dimensions as force, because it is a resistance.

Ravi Mathur asked: Inertia is proportional to mass. Gravitational force is also proportional to mass . So how is the relation inverse?

I have to give some thought to this because nobody, so far, has accounted for an innate impulse in physics.

A quick answer lies in the variable of distance. The gravitational force is very sensitive to distance, whereas, the inertia is not. I don’t think that mass changes much, but the effect of that small change is huge on kinetic energy and velocity as evident in the relationship E = mc^2. But still, a lot has to be sorted out here. This is just the start of an idea that follows logical considerations.

My response to Ravi’s question today is as follows:

(1) Inertia is a property of substance. The substance has a spectrum and, therefore, inertia is expressed through a scale.
(2) Matter lies at the upper end of the spectrum. The inertia of matter is expressed through its mass.
(3) Therefore, for matter, inertia and mass are the same thing.
(4) The gravitational force between two material particles is proportional to the product of their masses (or inertia).
(5) In case of the Earth and the Sun, there is a gravitational force attracting them towards each other.
(6) But balancing this gravitational force is the centripetal force due to their orbital motion.
(7) This centripetal force is also due to their masses (or inertia).
(8) The inertia underlies both the gravitational force as well as the centripetal force.
(9) This balance between those two forces is expressed through the orbital speed of earth around the sun. It maintains a certain radius.
(10) Any decrease in the product of inertia shall be expressed through a higher speeds and a larger distance.
(11) It can easily be seen that speed is inverse of inertia.

I have revised the conclusion of my original post as follows:

“This leads to the interesting conclusion that inertia and velocity have an inverse relationship. It is inertia that converts into the constant velocity and vice versa. This satisfies Faraday’s principle of Conservation of Force.”

The tendency of substance to cohere and thicken seems to be the manifestation of GRAVITY. and the effect of cohesion seems to be an increase in INERTIA. Thus we have the spectrum of radiation presenting all the different levels of cohesion of particle-less and fluid-like radiational substance. This cohesion seems to parallel the mathematical parameter of frequency. Gamma rays are much “thicker” as the result of cohesion than the radio waves. They have higher inertia.

As cohesion occurs, the extents of the substance (space) shrinks and its duration (time) increases. This results in negative acceleration, which is associated with inertia as RESISTANCE to motion. The resistance due to inertia is normally in balance with acceleration due to innate impulse, and therefore not visible. It appears only when that balance is disturbed by the application of an external force. The acceleration due to the external force then encounters the resistance due to inertia.

When inertia and innate impulse are balanced against each other, the substance has a constant velocity in free space. This constant velocity shall depend on the natural state of inertia. Therefore, two substances of different inertia shall appear to have a relative velocity between them in free space.

It seems that there is a tendency for substance in a system to “flow” from higher cohesion to lower, until equilibrium is reached. This is very similar to what happens with temperature. When an object at high temperature is brought into contact with an object at lower temperature, heat flows from higher temperature to lower temperature until equilibrium is reached. Therefore, a temperature difference generates a temperature gradient when objects at different temperatures are brought into contact. Similarly, when objects at different cohesion levels are brought into “contact,” it sets up a gradient from higher cohesion to lower cohesion, along which substance flows.

So when the earth and the sun are brought into “contact,” a gradient of cohesion sets itself up from the earth to the sun. As the substance of earth “flows” out into the space in between the two bodies, its inertia starts to lessen, and the earth starts to accelerate away from the sun. On the other hand, as the earth moves too far away from the sun, the drain of substance due to cohesion gradient is not there, instead there is the usual flow of substance from the sun to the earth. as the inertia of earth increases, it starts to decelerate and backtracks itself towards the sun. This may happen to a very small extent even when earth is established in a stable orbit around the sun, because the relationship between inertia and acceleration seems to be extremely sensitive.

The presence of radiational substance between the earth and the sun may play its part in communicating the force by establishing lines of force. The thickening and thinning of this radiational substance may also provide a cushion, or a lack of it. This requires a closer look.

In the formula of gravitation distance is measured from a “point mass”. If the “point mass” is a heavenly body (usually spherical), then the distance is measured from its center. In the latter case, however, mass becomes a function of the distance inside the sphere. Mass is then assumed to be constant when distance is measured to a point outside the sphere. This picture assumes that matter exists only inside the sphere and that there is void outside the sphere.

This formula also assumes that space is something abstract and that it can exist without substance. The question arises, “Does the character of gravity changes when space contains substance, and when it does not contain any substance?”

We assume that moon is revolving around the earth, and therefore, it does not fall into the earth because of centrifugal force. This is the “stone at the end of a rotating string” analogy. Does this analogy really apply?

From moon’s point of view, earth is simply spinning on its axis. Moon is also spinning on its axis. Spinning always pins an object in space. Is their really a revolving with all this spinning going on?

Moon and earth do have their free drift velocities in space based on their individual inertia. The lesser the inertia the greater is the drift velocity in space. And, obviously, earth and moon have formed a system of mutual motion.

Is there really a revolving, or is there just the built-up inertia of space between earth and moon that keeps them connected as well as apart?

We assume that moon is revolving around the earth, and therefore, it does not fall into the earth because of centrifugal force.

I have noticed that gravity is bi-directional. Therefore, the Earth is orbiting our moon, just as the moon is orbiting the Earth. The massive differences between these bodies can make it seem that the Earth is holding its position but it is not.

I have been fighting with, “Gravity is NOT a force.” And I suppose that to a degree I am succeeding if I think of spacetime as having an elastic and sponge-like quality. Mass, in this simile, is a gathering-point for spacetime.

The “straight-line,” seems to be an human abstraction, metaphor, and an artificial human construct. I do not see this playing out in Nature. I do not see the straight line in Nature whatsoever.

Spacetime is in motion. It is flowing and spinning as well as all objects suspended in its embrace.

In your comments about Ravi’s question above regarding the inverse relationship of gravity and inertia, possibly as gravity weakens with distance, possibly friction (as you associated to inertia) increases. Possibly there is leverage occurring between celestial bodies.

## Comments

G is the gravitational constant, and not the force of Gravity. The dimensions of force are MLT^-2. The resistance due to inertia has the same dimensions as force, because it is a resistance.

LikeLike

Ravi Mathur asked:

Inertia is proportional to mass. Gravitational force is also proportional to mass . So how is the relation inverse?I have to give some thought to this because nobody, so far, has accounted for an innate impulse in physics.

A quick answer lies in the variable of distance. The gravitational force is very sensitive to distance, whereas, the inertia is not. I don’t think that mass changes much, but the effect of that small change is huge on kinetic energy and velocity as evident in the relationship E = mc^2. But still, a lot has to be sorted out here. This is just the start of an idea that follows logical considerations.

LikeLike

My response to Ravi’s question today is as follows:

(1) Inertia is a property of substance. The substance has a spectrum and, therefore, inertia is expressed through a scale.

(2) Matter lies at the upper end of the spectrum. The inertia of matter is expressed through its mass.

(3) Therefore, for matter, inertia and mass are the same thing.

(4) The gravitational force between two material particles is proportional to the product of their masses (or inertia).

(5) In case of the Earth and the Sun, there is a gravitational force attracting them towards each other.

(6) But balancing this gravitational force is the centripetal force due to their orbital motion.

(7) This centripetal force is also due to their masses (or inertia).

(8) The inertia underlies both the gravitational force as well as the centripetal force.

(9) This balance between those two forces is expressed through the orbital speed of earth around the sun. It maintains a certain radius.

(10) Any decrease in the product of inertia shall be expressed through a higher speeds and a larger distance.

(11) It can easily be seen that speed is inverse of inertia.

I have revised the conclusion of my original post as follows:

“This leads to the interesting conclusion that inertia and velocity have an inverse relationship. It is inertia that converts into the constant velocity and vice versa. This satisfies Faraday’s principle of Conservation of Force.”

LikeLike

GRAVITY & INERTIA (2)

The tendency of substance to cohere and thicken seems to be the manifestation of GRAVITY. and the effect of cohesion seems to be an increase in INERTIA. Thus we have the spectrum of radiation presenting all the different levels of cohesion of particle-less and fluid-like radiational substance. This cohesion seems to parallel the mathematical parameter of frequency. Gamma rays are much “thicker” as the result of cohesion than the radio waves. They have higher inertia.

LikeLike

GRAVITY & INERTIA (3)

As cohesion occurs, the extents of the substance (space) shrinks and its duration (time) increases. This results in negative acceleration, which is associated with inertia as RESISTANCE to motion. The resistance due to inertia is normally in balance with acceleration due to innate impulse, and therefore not visible. It appears only when that balance is disturbed by the application of an external force. The acceleration due to the external force then encounters the resistance due to inertia.

When inertia and innate impulse are balanced against each other, the substance has a constant velocity in free space. This constant velocity shall depend on the natural state of inertia. Therefore, two substances of different inertia shall appear to have a relative velocity between them in free space.

LikeLike

GRAVITY & INERTIA (4)

It seems that there is a tendency for substance in a system to “flow” from higher cohesion to lower, until equilibrium is reached. This is very similar to what happens with temperature. When an object at high temperature is brought into contact with an object at lower temperature, heat flows from higher temperature to lower temperature until equilibrium is reached. Therefore, a temperature difference generates a temperature gradient when objects at different temperatures are brought into contact. Similarly, when objects at different cohesion levels are brought into “contact,” it sets up a gradient from higher cohesion to lower cohesion, along which substance flows.

So when the earth and the sun are brought into “contact,” a gradient of cohesion sets itself up from the earth to the sun. As the substance of earth “flows” out into the space in between the two bodies, its inertia starts to lessen, and the earth starts to accelerate away from the sun. On the other hand, as the earth moves too far away from the sun, the drain of substance due to cohesion gradient is not there, instead there is the usual flow of substance from the sun to the earth. as the inertia of earth increases, it starts to decelerate and backtracks itself towards the sun. This may happen to a very small extent even when earth is established in a stable orbit around the sun, because the relationship between inertia and acceleration seems to be extremely sensitive.

The presence of radiational substance between the earth and the sun may play its part in communicating the force by establishing lines of force. The thickening and thinning of this radiational substance may also provide a cushion, or a lack of it. This requires a closer look.

LikeLike

GRAVITY AND SPACE

In the formula of gravitation distance is measured from a “point mass”. If the “point mass” is a heavenly body (usually spherical), then the distance is measured from its center. In the latter case, however, mass becomes a function of the distance inside the sphere. Mass is then assumed to be constant when distance is measured to a point outside the sphere. This picture assumes that matter exists only inside the sphere and that there is void outside the sphere.

This formula also assumes that space is something abstract and that it can exist without substance. The question arises, “Does the character of gravity changes when space contains substance, and when it does not contain any substance?”

LikeLike

We assume that moon is revolving around the earth, and therefore, it does not fall into the earth because of centrifugal force. This is the “stone at the end of a rotating string” analogy. Does this analogy really apply?

From moon’s point of view, earth is simply spinning on its axis. Moon is also spinning on its axis. Spinning always pins an object in space. Is their really a revolving with all this spinning going on?

Moon and earth do have their free drift velocities in space based on their individual inertia. The lesser the inertia the greater is the drift velocity in space. And, obviously, earth and moon have formed a system of mutual motion.

Is there really a revolving, or is there just the built-up inertia of space between earth and moon that keeps them connected as well as apart?

LikeLike

We assume that moon is revolving around the earth, and therefore, it does not fall into the earth because of centrifugal force.I have noticed that gravity is bi-directional. Therefore, the Earth is orbiting our moon, just as the moon is orbiting the Earth. The massive differences between these bodies can make it seem that the Earth is holding its position but it is not.

I have been fighting with, “Gravity is NOT a force.” And I suppose that to a degree I am succeeding if I think of spacetime as having an elastic and sponge-like quality. Mass, in this simile, is a gathering-point for spacetime.

The “straight-line,” seems to be an human abstraction, metaphor, and an artificial human construct. I do not see this playing out in Nature. I do not see the straight line in Nature whatsoever.

Spacetime is in motion. It is flowing and spinning as well as all objects suspended in its embrace.

In your comments about Ravi’s question above regarding the inverse relationship of gravity and inertia, possibly as gravity weakens with distance, possibly

friction(as you associated to inertia) increases. Possibly there isleverageoccurring between celestial bodies.LikeLike

You are right. Earth and moon are revolving around the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system.

LikeLike