|
|
 Originally Posted by OngBonga
This kinda makes some sense. Where spacetime is curved, an object travelling in a straight line will resist such curvature. An object's mass is still its resistance to a change of state of motion, it emerges as it encounters curvature. The more resistance it has, the more it distorts spacetime to maintain its straight path, and the more it influences other bodies. Rather than change course, a body curves spacetime by a sufficient amount to maintain equlibirium between its intertia and motion. This creates an emergent force as other bodies resist a change in motion that the curvature is demanding.
So gravitational mass and inertial mass, it makes sense for them to be syonymous. Gravity is merely curved spacetime, inertia is why spacetime is curved, and mass is either a measure of resistance (intertia) or curvature (gravity), which both amount to the same thing because the curvature emerges as a result of the resistance.
Depends who you're listening to!
This is a surprisingly cogent thought process.
I've not heard that about Einstein's GR before. I'm not sure if it's accurate, or if it's one of those things like...
Maxwell wrote over 20 equations to unify Electromagnetic theory. Today, we call a set of 4 equations which capture all of those ideas, Maxwell's Equations.
So Maxwell didn't write Maxwell's equations, but he wrote a more complicated presentation of equivalent statements.
Maybe it's the same with Einstein. He didn't start with gravitational mass being equal to inertial mass, as such, but it was in there, and was sufficient.
IDK.
|
Reply With Quote