Mass: Inertial and Gravitational

Bob de Hilster asks:

So, what is the difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass?

Newton's first principle is the definition of inertia.

An object in uniform motion will remain in uniform motion until acted upon by an external force.

But most scientists relate the inertial mass with, F= ma; and gravitational mass, with F=GMm/R².

So how can inertial mass be related to Newton's second principle? It is a statement of an object in acceleration. Inertia is about objects at rest or at constant velocity.

By the way I do not agree with you that inertial motion continues until....

Because gravity is always acting on you and me. We don't have to wait.

Thanks for the interesting question Bob.

First, some review from Nagel (1961, p. 252-4):

Newton’s First Law of Motion

Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line,

unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

Newton’s Second Law of Motion

The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and

is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

I like your substitution of the “until” for “unless.” Unlike, Newton, that means you are assuming that the universe is infinite. Also, as you know, there really are no forces, only other microcosms in motion. Thus, I would rewrite the First and Second Laws as:

Neomechanical Version of Newton’s First Law of Motion

Every microcosm perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, until it is compelled to change that state by collisions with other microcosms.

Neomechanical Version of Newton’s Second Law of Motion

The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the mass and velocity of the microcosm impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that microcosm is impressed.

Now to relate the two laws. Actually, I believe that most of us would consider the First Law to be a description of momentum, P = mv, not force, F = ma. Once in motion, Newton’s body just keeps travelling through perfectly empty space. The First Law is not a causal law. It is only an observation (albeit the most important one ever made).

The Second Law describes what a cause is. For there to be a cause, at least two microcosms must collide. This is the guts of classical mechanics and, now, neomechanics. It is this belief, for instance, that makes us reject all claims of ESP (extrasensory perception). It is also why Steve and I rejected Einstein’s immaterial force fields in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe." Fields devoid of matter can do nothing (i.e., if m = 0, then F = 0), although that is what you get when you deny aether.

The mass in the P = mv equation, of course, is defined as inertial mass. Unfortunately, we cannot know what it is without interacting with it.

We usually do this by measuring gravitational mass via the equation you mentioned:

F=GMm/R²

Mass is defined here as the resistance of a microcosm to acceleration (i.e., a change in its inertial velocity). In other words, for gravitation to occur, a microcosm must be impacted by other microcosms (i.e., F = ma). This is why we say that the cause of gravitation must be a push, not a pull. There are no pulls in Newton’s laws.

Let me clarify Newton’s First Law so we won’t have to disagree, as you indicated in your last sentence:

By the way I do not agree with you that inertial motion continues until....

Because gravity is always acting on you and me. We don't have to wait.

Remember that the First Law is an idealization about a body travelling through perfectly empty space. There can be no gravitation in perfectly empty space. Gravitation only occurs when there is a “gravitational pressure gradient” (Borchardt and Puetz, 2012). According to our Neomechanical Gravitation Theory (NGT), aether_-1 particles form baryonic (ordinary) matter via complexification. Aether_-1 particles in and about these complexes are less active than free aether_-1 particles. This means that there will be a gravitational pressure gradient surrounding every bit of baryonic matter in the universe. The farther one is from a massive microcosm, the more active and more “free” that the aether_-1 will be. This produces a pressure gradient near every microcosm akin to the pressure gradient seen in Earth’s atmosphere—only in reverse. Thus, any baryonic microcosm that gets close enough to Earth to be within its “gravitational field” will be impacted by more active aether_-1 particles on the side away from Earth than on the side facing Earth.

Bob, you are correct in surmising that there are no true inertial motions. One would have to be an aether denier to believe that. The perfectly empty space required by Newton’s First Law is impossible. It is only an idealization, even though it is the best one ever devised. Even the aether_-1 particles moving under their own inertia must be impacted by other aether_-1 particles as well as by the aether_-2 particles of which they must be comprised. All this differs so much from mainstream theory because we use the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Not only are aether particles infinitely subdividable, but inertial motions are dependent on infinity as well. Each inertial microcosm must have gotten its motion from some other microcosm ad infinitum. This is yet another of the infinite number of reasons that the universe is infinite and could have no beginning.

References

Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, S.J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf), in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58.

Nagel, Ernest, 1961, The structure of science: New York, Harcourt Brace and World, 618 p.

Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press (www.universalcycletheory.com), 626 p.