Any SPACE where a particle is, is NOT empty.!!

$$ Any SPACE where a particle is, is NOT empty.
You're so anti-Brian, jOE.!!
What is æther? ```Brian.

Joe Fischer wrote: On Tue, RP wrote:
Joe Fischer wrote:
I can't quote the exact words by Einstein,
but I think by 1930 at least, he had discarded Mach.

I don't recall issuing support for Mach, at least not for his ideas in
general--that was you putting words into my mouth.

Who else would try to connect distant matter
with local matter? Or distant matter with local
Euclidean space, with "space" being the controlling
"force" of inertia?

It was Weinberg's
fallacious argument that I was dismissing, not his objections to Mach
per se. IOW, his conclusion doesn't follow from his premises -- it wasa
bad argument.

He covered a lot of ground in the address,
he mayy be able to do better in a presentation paper.

Neither Weinberg nor Mach are correct in this article. Mach assumed that
inertia depended upon the fixed stars, in the sense that not only the
effect of inertia itself, but also the magnitude of that inertia, would
depend upon the mass and density of the universe in general. But the
negation of Mach's argument doesn't automatically equate to the motions
of particles being independent of the fixed stars.

So you want to cling to the idea that the fixed stars
are hooked to computers that some how calculate just
when and how much to resist acceleration, as that is
what inertia is, and it is inertia that establishes the mass
of an object by "weighing".

It isn't the
particular magnitude of the inertia of a given mass that is determined
by the fixed stars, it is rather the very existence of that inertia
itself that depends upon them, and is provided by them.

Yet you offer no description of the mechanism process,
"it just does"?

Since it is this point, and this point alone that
Weiberg protested, then he was wrong.

Frankly I find any action at a distance as silly,
not just plain wrong.

Though it may have been a premise of Mach's, it was not the entirety of
Mach's theory, and it was also a premise of Einstein's that endured post
GR.

I read a lot of Einstein's papers, and it it hard
to tell when he supported a certain premise.
Early on, he naturally used the then-current
accepted though on a subject, but how could he
possible support the concept of the fixed stars
controlling inertia, when freefall is inertial motion.
Forget old beliefs, and think of what is possible.

IOW, that premise can be correct and Mach incorrect.

A lot of the concept of Euclidean space is
somewhat like Mach's inertia, and it cannot be
supported in the presence of gravity.
While the fixed stars seem to be establish
a visual/optical reference frame, it takes more than
believing in magic to think they have any influence
on local matter.
How could a lower object "fall" faster than
a higher object in freefall if the distant stars had
any control over freefalling or orbiting objects?

General Relativity does a better job of sorting
out free motion based on motion history than Newtonian
gravitation. And I think it becomes obvious that the
fixed stars are just so far away that they appear to be
stationary with respect to local matter, but so far away
that there is no possible mechanism for them to have
any effect on local motion, and definitely no possible
mechanism to control the mass of an object, which is
what inertia does (resistance to acceleration).

This may seem
like a subtle difference in interpretations, but it is however quite
different than what Mach envisioned, and it is likewise quite different
than what Weinberg suggests in the article.

I have seen Weinberg talk a couple of times, and
I think he s confident in what he says, and not hesitant
to admit when he is wrong.

Now let's look at what Weinberg says:

[...] Einstein was also at first confused by an idea he had taken from
the philosopher Ernst Mach: that the phenomenon of inertia is caused by
distant masses. To keep inertia finite, Einstein in 1917 supposed that
the universe must be finite, and so he assumed that its spatial geometry
is that of a three-dimensional spherical surface. It was therefore a
surprise to him that when test particles are introduced into the empty
universe of de Sitter's model, they exhibit all the usual properties of
inertia. In general relativity the masses of distant bodies are not the
cause of inertia, though they do affect the choice of inertial frames.
[...]"

Note how the last sentence doesn't logically follow, as the premise
speaks of the magnitude of inertia, whereas the latter speaks only of
the existence of inertia itself. The syllogism is broken.
Richard Perry

"The choice of inertial frames" is something
man does, not nature.
I don't see how anybody can reconcile geodesic
deviation with inertia determined by fixed stars.
I can't even imagine why anybody would assume,
let alone postulate that matter a Billion light years can
affect motion here.
This would be bad enough if there were no gravity,
but in the presence of gravity, it becomes bizarre.

The concept requires at least _two_ un-needed
forces acting, inertia to make the moon want to follow
a straight path, and gravity, to exert the forces to make
the moon orbit.
And all this with no visible means of accomplishing
it. It is all built on 16th century thinking.

Unless some detectable, yet unknown as of now,
real physical "field" exists, action at a distance is not
possible. And I think the idea of another "field" that
can only be determined by the motion it produces, is
identical in silliness to the aether.

Joe Fischer
Einstein's Mistakes.
Any SPACE where a particle is, is NOT empty.!!