[Physics] Is Gravitational Mass Really Same as Inertial Mass

[Tufail Abbas]

Thanks Ruud for inviting me to this forum.

I read the abstract of Oliver's paper and had a glance over other parts. It
makes lot of sense.

I think, following three ways of explaining gravity can be combined using
the geometries of BB Model.

1. Gravitational mass not equals to inertial mass.
2. Gravitation equals expansion.
3. Quantum gravity.

Will share my inputs in due course of time.


On 14 Dec 2016 13:02, "Ruud Loeffen" <rmmloeffen at gmail.com> wrote:

Welcome to this forum, Tufail.

I met you on Quora and pointed you to this forum because we discuss here
this topic i.a.
Please have a look at the archive list for contributions of Olivier Serret.
I wrote about it in this message:

[Physics] mass increase and Lorentz Transformation
*Ruud Loeffen* rmmloeffen at gmail.com
<physics%40tuks.nl?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BPhysics%5D%20mass%20increase%20and%20Lorentz%20Transformation&In-Reply-To=%3CCABzP7uBXQg%2B0mVZyVfFRgnWS1MVtSwydiL2c28WF2QVinKfoTg%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
*Fri Nov 25 06:44:13 CET 2016*

So have a look in the archive of november. From there you can follow the
discussion. Olivier Serret also states a difference between gravitational
mass and inertial mass.
We want to start this topic in January.

Best regards.

Ruud Loeffen.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Gents,
>
> As per equivalence principle, and we have measured too,  that
> gravitational mass and inertial mass are same. Do we really have any proof
> these two masses are also same in essence, or they are just observed impact
> of some two co-existing properties(of same value) of space which can be
> separated in principle as gravitational and inertial mass.
>
> *My arguments are as follows:*
>
> We have measured gravitational mass  and inertial mass in case of object
> made of matter, or to be more precise the objects made of *whole atom*.
> Then we found that gravitational mass and inertial mass are same for all
> atoms. Then we generalized this outcome to make the same conclusion with
> particles of light called photons. For me this logic is like comparing
> apple to oranges.
>
> Any object that has a gravitational mass or in other words it produces
> gravitational attraction, are invariably made of charges, so far as  I am
> aware. In case of neutron also,  we know that it is only the net charge
> on it that is zero. Otherwise they are made of quarks which has charge. In
> addition to charge, neutron and proton also have charge-less particles like
> gluons and z-boson.
>
> One the other hand we are aware that charge-less particles, like photon do
> get attracted to gravitational attraction, hence no gravitational mass.
> Yeah have find an alternate explanation of this attraction as space-time
> warping. But why we are sure that photon do not have inertial mass.
>
> *My proposal/hypothesis*:
>
> Gravitational and Inertial Mass are caused by two distinct and separate
> co-moving properties of space called *charge* and *energy. Charge *is responsible
> for gravitational mass and *charge-less energy*  is responsible for
> inertial mass.
>
>    1.
>
>    All forces of the universe are caused by an specific geometry and
>    orientation of charges, and gravity is also not an exception. It is just
>    cause due to a special geometry of charges. In other words property of atom
>    that is producing gravitational attraction is charge. We are also aware
>    that in case of atom total charge(not net charge) is proportional total
>    mass. Hence any impact caused due to charge can always be expressed as
>    impact due to mass by including a proportionality factor.
>    2.
>
>    If charge is producing the attractive force, then what is that which
>    is getting attracted.  That property of atom is energy without charge
>    or the inertial mass. And photon as an energy is no exception that it is
>    getting attracting to gravitational charge. Oops! It’s generally called
>    gravitational mass.
>
> Are there any  methods/arguments/experimental data which can falsify
> above arguments and hypothesis. Alternatively, what are the stuffs
> supporting the above  hypothesis.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Tufail Abbas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>


-- 
*Ruud Loeffen*
Paardestraat32
6131HC Sittard
http://www.human-DNA.org

_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161214/f6f4f68b/attachment.html>