WAYS OF LOOKING AT THE DISTINCTION OF GRAVITY AND INERTIA EINSTEIN DIDN'T CONSIDER/ What's The Speed of Gravity?

  When I was 18 what I read fascinated me in a college textbook about physics. Einstein had predicted spacelike and timelike intervals (faster and slower than light) and indeed virtual spacelike and timelike light essentially had been found experimentally. Even so, there was something Einstein hadn't guessed.. The spacelike photons have mass but no inertia, and the timelike photons have inertia  but no mass.. This seemed so interesting, and for most of the time and spacetime since, I had wondered if Einstein's ideas about inertia being the same as mass or gravity, which spins mass around if mass is spinning energy as I believe..

 That mass and inertia are completely separate in the two types of virtual photons seems to be much evidence against Einstein's idea of the complete equivalence of gravity or mass and inertia. I've much later had an idea called Field Line Removal, or FLR. In this idea the compression of the gravity waves in super massive fields of gravity is where all the quanta around us come from, not just other quanta, which seems just a loop without as much science, like Aristotle's idea that smoke rises because that's what's most natural. While up to these times there is lots of evidence for energy conservation, I believe there may be two types of fields, weight fields and mass fields. By FLR the weight fields or external and move in the spaces between the quanta, while the mass fields are internal and obey energy conservation. The weight fields may not obey energy conservation since in falling they are reduced to 0 and then resurface at the surface of the Earth at rest. Another way of saying this is if the cosmos is always winding down by entropy, something must be winding it up, or gravity or the weight fields,. They might do this by being nonquantum and semiquantum like a superfluuid, so gravity flows from  thermodynamically cold to hot.

If you think of inertia as internal and quanta, and gravity and weight as an external add on, you can see the distinction of inertia and mass.

Even so all the fields are generally in connection, and no doubt, Einstein wasn't completely wrong here.  Yet the idea of the spacelike and timelike photons seems to say in some since sense he was also not complete in his formulation of the Equivalence Principle. To me at any rate, it seems like the photons themselves would need some way superficially to save Einstein's idea. So here I invoke my idea that there is indeed a connection to unify the photons. This would be that  they are connected and unified by the faster than light waves of gravity, gravity being much lighter than light might move faster indeed.

Consider this;

  A ballistic arc has inertia and gravity. The motion forward of the mass has it's displacement of light, as in Special Relativity, SR. Moving at near the speed of light, the observer can more and more only see ahead by this. So I equate the x component to be by essentially the displacement of light. The y radial component of gravity is completely independent however. Yet if gravity is at the speed of light and like inertia would be displaced the same amount by SR, the two components are yet completely independent. By FLR this is simple since the weight field like gravity is external to the quanta of all the mass while the gravity is external in the spaces between them. This relates to how Coloumb's law has the identical formula of inverse second power with distance. The weight field is the gravity field inside out. And this would be why a number of masses with a given density is increased in gravity if the spaces between them are reduced.

 In Special Relativity at first I wondered how low energy gravity was able to go right through the observer's frame and yet strong SR effects are seen. I wondered if something like another wavelength of resonance would work. By my mechanism of gravity I later found FLR may cause the gravity to bend around each quanta, always a source of gravity, and unify on the other side with a change in speed of the external field according to the mass and it's change in frequency on both side of the quanta by it's spin. I always believed mass is spinning energy, something not explained in SR the source of mass.




  Hold on you may chuckle, our team is ahead right now, and it's August! the LIGO experiment has already disproved this about gravity being faster than light..

 As I say on my post two blocks down the superhighway of science here, Einstein like Mach, believed gravity and inertia were the same thing. If inertia is like the quanta, it moves at only the speed of light. But if gravity and inertia aren't the same, the gravity waves could move much faster.

Another possibility is, the LIGO is just wrong, allowing gravity to be faster than light, and also inertia. I've tended to believe this is possible also for inertia since like gravity centrifugal force doesn't shield metal plates, and because the EPR at near its energy also seems to be much faster than light. Since the constant for centrifugal force is much stronger than the gravitation equation constant, the main thing would seem to be that gravity is faster than centrifugal force whatever its speed is.

 I'm reading sites that say there was no one in the room when the gravity waves were seen, and it's not good science to have such hype with just one event seen, and another machine like LIGO will be funded based on this result so there would be a financial motive for some  to spoof the machine for the money. In essence like OPERA and other machines like BICEP, to me this isn't yet good science. If they land on the moon with Apollo 11, where's my Soap Operas and Wheel, if it's Apollo 17, then we say it's of worth to science, and a licensed cosmetologist has a beautious celebration!


 Here I want to describe a more viable way of looking at gravity and inertia than Einstein believed in. The elevator thought experiment seems to be comparing likes to unlikes. As I say elsewhere here, there are a good number of things you would find in the inertial elevator not found in the gravity machine. as in, the light in the inertial elevator might go through zones of something like diffraction. If these were the same for the gravity of a massive body, there would be zones of these diffraction observers above and this would make the orbit of a body unstable orbiting around the massive field. Yet masses in orbit don't destabilize. Einstein believed in complete continuity for gravity.

As another distinction, if a mass is dropped in the inertial elevator and another one second later, some observers moving with the masses will say they're acceleration apart, and others will say they are in uniform motion depending on the motion of the observer, while all observers on the gravity observation elevator will agree. The gravity elevator has an acceleration of the field and the inertial flow is uniform, so choosing the right frame cancels the acceleration.

 And there seem to be several of these distinctions; why aren't observers allowed to look out to see if the elevator is in the stars or near the earth with light, the all important way of relativity?

And so on. I think these distinctions may be highlighted with what I call the Relativistic Wind Tunnel. This involves putting our elevators in the lab to see if Einstein or I am right. Either the mass or the field moving past at near the speed of light may give us a way to find out more about this. See my link at bottom of this post or click here for more about this machine!


 Here I want to replace the elevator idea with what I consider a more advanced way of looking at gravity and inertia.

  Instead of using elevators to the stars think of a centrifuge with millions of g's (which Einstein's idea gives us no clue how inertia being the exact same can have 5 million g's while the earth with it's huge mass has just a g.)

Looking at the centrifugal gyroscope, (so often they are!) and a massive star of 5 million g's of acceleration; the main difference is about induction. The centrifuge has no induction, while the massive star has huge mass dragged as it spins by. And from this you may see why the speed of gravity by LIGO if it's not a "spoof" or defect of the machine, may only be the speed of light and inertia, and not of gravity. Because inertia is like light that is a quanta, obeying energy conservation. But gravity, speeding up the massive bodies by something like MOND, may be with "Massive disproofs of Relativity" as some have said.

If inertia is a quanta, like in special Relativity, it has sides and this may allow no mass induction! Einstein believed in Special Relativity that light is a particle unchanged from emission to absorption, so that it's speed is unchanged. If you believe inertia is the same as gravity, and inertia is a quanta, you would say gravity is at the speed of light also. However it may be much faster if something is needed to connect gravity and inertia like the spacelike and timelike photons to save Einstein's idea at least to some degree. Note that centrifugal force like thermodynamic entropy radiates out while conserving energy, just as we might expect it to do if inertia might move at the speed of light. The moon is half a light second away by the "slow" speed of light or inertia, yet it would sail away by this disconnection if gravity wasn't much faster to overpower this radiance.


  The simple experiment I offer a few posts down is to use sensors like the Torsion Machine, or arrays of atomic clocks say a half a light hour from the sun. We might expect to see the gravity wave change from a CME ("solar flare") almost instantly moving the machine in, then a half a light hour later, the light and inertial waves in radiance, and what Einstein believed was gravity to indeed arrive at the speed of light a half hour later.

See my Youtube site (Encyclopedia Comp Video) and or see my  post below for evidence in favor of my ideas about waves and wave speeds being a general defining way of both gravity and other forces by my generalization of Maxwell's method I've named GWD, General Wave Dynamics, also please Click Here for my Synopsis of this idea.

Relativitistic Wind Tunnel Possible Distinctions between gravity and inertia