Gravity and Centrifugal Force In Higher Resolution

Gravity and inertia are much alike (Einstein)

Even so gravity takes a huge mass to cause the same force as in a centrifuge and there are other problems like how inertia in the frame of motion can be cancelled by linear motion while radial acceleration inward cancels gravity, so they aren't the same since an acceleration is not linear motion. Another reason to believe gravity and inertia are not equivalent is because mass causes gravity while inertia causes linear motion, so the more inertia, the emptier the space and this is not the same as a plenum. And this wouldn't be just be an exact cancellation, the opposition is nonlinear because if mass is like a solid and inertia being lightweight is more like a fluid, solids are more complex and fluids are more simple. Thus it seems Einstein's way of physics here is incomplete.

Two components of the field would explain both Einstein's Equivalence Causeology and distinction between both types of force; A higher energy low speed component common to both gravity and inertia may unify them. This component would not be attractive and would operate by inert impact of it's constuituents on masses since gravity if as strong as the force in a centrifuge with the same mass of the spinning wheel would be much stronger and

A second lower energy high speed component would just be in fields with mass and gravity and not much in power via centrifugal force.

To explain Einstein's Equivalence of Mass and Inertia (like that in a centrifuge) the higher powered near electromagnetic component would be used with both, and the distinction of the two would be caused by the lower energy field, this is not how Einstein conceived General Relativity with just empty space and time, and with no use of the flow of the field like this that would cause both what's common and uncommon about gravitation and inertia.

How these components act may explain the motifs of spacelike and timelike virtual photons. (Einstein's idea of the intervals was that they were faster and slower than light.)

J P I U T R

The high energy field when being accelerated by the lower power component would add force to mass by pressure causing the force of gravity. This low energy component is lightweight, so it may both move much faster than light and not shield by lightening up to travel light (see my Physics Synopses link for evidence for Faster Than Light and experiments). The higher speed low density component is absent mostly in a centrifuge, and since inertia is much like gravity, both inertia and gravity would share the second, higher density, lower speed, component, this would explain Einstein's belief about how gravity and inertia are alike.

...Centrifugal force can't act by attraction like gravity because no attraction of a centrifuge is found and as is well known, inertia has no source so the pressure of the outward flow of a more dense field would explain a spinning bucket of water like a trampoline when stretched has an outward or downward arched surface, this would be caused by an outward flow of a nonadhesive dense field. Even so the low energy component would interact by adhesion with the motive high speed low energy component of the field. The dense component (by this adhesion with gravity) would cause gravity and both inertia and gravity would operate by way of the pressure of the dense component of the field. So inertia like centrifugal force would be like a sort of gravity without motive power. Both gravity and centrifugal force would have generally equivalent pressure being exerted by the more dense but more inert component of the field. (If gravity operates like inertia essentially by the pressure of this higher power component of the field, this predicts that heavy atoms with another ratio of surface area to mass than lighter atoms may have small changes in wavelength and mass not otherwise seen. And there would be changes in the centrifugal force on masses in a centrifuge by way of how changes in the speed of the outward flow of the field would change with the speed of the field and it's presumed somewhat more complex interaction with the surfaces of the masses, with changes in both pressure, speed and area via centrifugal force. Centrifugal force would be pressure of the higher energy particles, being more dense and grainy so they might be somewhat more complex in flow than the field of gravity which would be more smoothed out by the continual overlapping waves of the higher speed lower energy component of the field.) While inertia and gravity would be the same because of the result of the force, the higher speed flexing component would explain the cause (why gravity has a source and inertia doesn't and so on like with the force of uniform motion). Thus Einstein's vision of gravity as having no source or cause is merely of kinematics (motion without cause) and my causology of GWD is more general and about dynamics (motion and cause both). If gravity had no source, and the earth were moved, the moon held in orbit by no source of gravity would go on spinning merrily in orbit around the space where the Earth was if both General AND Special Relativity were valid. Only if the "inertial low energy electromagnetic" field common to both gravity and inertia is just made of low energy particles that would replace the high energy Higgs now being sought with the high energy physics "atom smashing" machines would gravity be explained by way of the pressure of a moderately dense field. For more evidence in support of my belief in a moderate lower energy field Click Here. If it were of high density like the Higgs it would be made of so much density gravity would shield, even (or especially) if the huge mass of each particle were "renormalized". If the wall formed by the balance of two huge mass densities, the inward and outward flow, were balanced so no gravity goes out, none would go in so all fields made of a high energy Higgs would shield or have huge density. A lower energy field would be more flexible because it would have to be able to change rapidly from a particle to a wave if it were the foundation field all the mass and energy were made of. For the light's wavelength to change with changes in the high speed observer's speed in special relativity, I use the assumption of the field that is lower in energy than the light but not so much lower it can't shape and mold what Einstein called "spacetime" well. And a lighter field could travel faster than light to shape the field in Special Relativity because it's somewhat lighter than light, and as I say in my synopses page you lighten up to travel faster with most common mass around us in the world, only a faster than light signal from the high speed starship could change the wavelength of the light before it reaches the ship since by special relativity, no signal can reach between the high speed ship and the light to change it.

...

You may say, how can we find proof of these two field components with real machines?

...

Einstein himself believed in what he called the spacelike and timelike intervals, of faster and slower than light, these intervals were proven with the discovery of spacelike and timelike virtual photons in the 1970's. The photons are found to have mass and no inertia, or inertia but no mass respectively. These two components of the gravitational field seem to explain how this is so. The low energy component of the field has mass since it's attractive and mass always attracts. The high energy field would exert pressure to cause inertia and has no mass because inertia would be caused by the viscosity of the more massive field. So unlike with Einstein's causology, there is a definite distinction between inertia and gravity in my physics of GWD. General Wave Dynamics. If there is a flow of the field and not just empty space time, a spinning bucket of water or other fluid if in smooth motion away from gravity would have changes in the rate of flow of the dense component of the field outward, so it would not have a completely smooth surface of the water or other fluid in the bucket. There could be concentric bands in the surface of the water where this component of the field would change speed a bit, and Einstein's physics wouldn't have a reason why this would be so.

.......

So by way of the virtual photons we are measuring the higher density component of the field, and the low energy field has already been measured just by way of the Torsion Balance lab machine in use for about 200 years to prove Sir Issac's gravity. An important part of GWD is that this is faster than light, so by use of the Balance Machine say 5 minutes from a solar event, the speed compared to light may be measured, CLICK HERE For My (High Speed, faster and sight site!) Physics Synopses.

...

One use of this idea might be about inertia. Why does the low density field component adhere to the high density component and attract just somewhat? If it adheres somewhat, it seems fair to ask, why not more or with reduced force? If we find the answers it may be of real worth to reduce or increase centrifugal force or even gravity by way of these considerations. Only if Einstein was in error about gravity as in my causeology of GWD (not the well proven Special Relativity) would this be possible.

...

Copyright 2008 by Charles Frederick Lawson

.....

-......