posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:11 AM
Gravitational mass and inertial mass are equal, correct?
OK consider this... When one travel's into space and achieves orbit around the Earth, they "feel" weightless. Has the effect of Gravity been
overcome? No of course not, it is a surrender to gravity. You are falling towards the Earth but moving at such speed that you will fall towards the
Earth at the same rate the ground gives way underneath you because of the curvature of the Earth. I know this is elementary to most of you but you
would be surprised. A co-worker asked me after Felix Baumgardner's space jump in all seriousness if Gravity goes up that high. And it's kind of easy
to see how people ignorant of science could mistake weightlessness for "lack-of-gravity" Even the ones of us who know this still tend to thing of
gravity as a "pulling" force.
But what we really want to examine is motion. Or rather, the "notion" of motion.
In our example of the astronaut in orbit, the astronaut is undoubtedly in motion. He is orbiting the Earth, so relative to the planet, he is in
motion. And as such, since the planet orbits the sun and the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way and by most accounts the Milky Way is zooming away
from the center of the Universe, well you may as well say he is moving relative to the universe as a whole.
Now let's assume that there is a wall. A simple wall like one inside your house, but this particular wall is "not" in motion relative to the orbit
of the Solar System. For argument's sake let's say this "Wall" is independent of or outside of the gravity well of our solar system. Let's put it
into the path of the orbiting astronaut and see what happens.
What happens is he is crushed beyond recognition because he hits the wall at the speed with which he orbits the Earth plus the speed with which the
Earth revolves around the Sun plus the speed with which the Solar System moves through the universe.
Force = Mass X Acceleration. The acceleration on the astronaut as he goes from his "weightless" orbit into contact with the "wall" is
astronomical, and the force exerted likewise. The mass in the equation is his inertial mass, and it is a function of the overall gravitational frame
of reference it is calculated in.
By this example we could make an assumption that when the "wall" is at a certain "degree removed from the gravity well of space-time around us"
the astronaut would impact the wall at sufficient speed to completely change from matter into pure energy.
Which brings to mind the law that equates mass with energy, E=mc(squared) . Could the squaring of c because the sufficient speed at which we would
have to hit the wall IS C? and the "motion" of the "wall" relative to the moving universe would ALSO equal c? c times c. c squared.
So maybe as one approaches the speed of light, it isn't that mass increases until it reaches infinity at c, maybe it just means that as you approach
c, your "inertial" mass approaches infinity, as a function in reference to "what would happen if you hit an immobile wall that is outside of
space-time". Maybe the math messed it all up. Haha.
Just food for thought. I am by no means a physicist, but the Universe is damn fun to think about..
I posted this in a reply on another thread but I think it would promote good discussion so I gave it its own...
What say you ATS?