One thing I learned as an elementary and middle school teacher is science is the art of asking good questions.
Tho I have a Goethean Science blog http://blog.goetheanscience.net I’m not a scientist by profession. My profession is closer to “mystic.”
I’ve made some effort to stay abreast of topics in New Physics, Etheric Physics and the Electric Universe. I notice a language (rhetorical) pattern that always makes me curious. On the primary questions of mass and movement, which interested Galileo, Newton and I’n sure many readers, I notice writers coming to conclusions before all observations are accounted for; and, a tendency to give up before questions about unaccounted-for observations are resolved. Giving up is not the same as answering a question; clinging to Newtonian principles is not the same as asking and answering questions.
I notice a tendency to close off discussion prematurely and stand on the authority of Newton and Einstein instead of proposing more useful questions. I notice these rhetorical gaps especially in middle and high school science teaching texts and online articles and videos for science teachers.
No such thing as “rest” in our solar system
Mr. Google tells me in Physics, inertia is defined as “the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.”
However on Earth, anywhere in our solar system, there is no such thing as rest. The solar system is moving. So rest is only relative, one object to another.
What we mean by “rest” is two or more objects traveling at the same speed at the same time. Our perception of “rest” is highly conditioned by “proximity.” The common example is highway driving where a car in front of you or to the left or right of you appears not to move because you and it are traveling at the same speed and direction.
When we expand our perception of mass, we remember there is no “rest.” Every mass on Earth is already in motion. Since everything is already moving, each object has inertia just as much as it has mass.
Mr. Newton, I think, tells us gravity is a universal force; he tells us objects have inertia in proportion to their mass. HOWEVER I can find no observation helping me connect inertia with gravity.
My Goethean observation suggests the phenomena of inertia is very poorly described as a gravity phenomena.
My Goethean observation suggests inertia describes a mass phenomena.
Here, abstract mathematical thinking often intrudes on observation. It intrudes this way: “force X is a factor of force Y.” This is math lingo intruding on naked observation, sometimes distorting our thinking.
If correct, my observations suggest mass is independent of inertia. Whatever inertia is, Mr. Newton tell us it conditions mass to certain behavior: we must do work to move a mass from one location to another, or to change its speed or direction of movement. I observe this too.
What I am not able to observe is this common line of science teaching:
“Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”
The above quote clearly connects inertia to objects; it connects mass and inertia, makes mass a pre-condition for inertia. So far I’m unable to observe this.
The newer idea which fits observations more clearly is inertia, whatever it is, is indepdent of mass.
The idea is not unique to me. I forget the obscure references. Anybody know the references?
What I find more in line with my observations is “inertia” exists prior to mass, prior to objects.
What Newton called “inertia” can exist within mass AND exists everywhere in 3D time and space, independent and outside of mass.
When we start talking about observable something existing independent of and outside of physical mass, we are very, very close to talking about a medium within which all mass is situated and within which all mass is conditioned by.
If you like this, we are now miles away from “Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”
Once we consider inertia existing independent of mass, we are most of the way towards acknowledging a medium, invisible to merely animal eyes, surrounding and conditioning physical objects in one or more ways.
This is the of my proposal. To take it forward into discussing “ether” isn’t necessary because Rudolf Steiner, Gunther Wachsmuth, JJ Thomson and Gustave LeBon have done the work of documenting ether’s properties. Ernst Lehrs in his Man or Matter 3rd edition 1985 has done the work of connecting all of this with Goethean observation. No need to repeat their work.
I propose this thinking is 100% consistent with the thinking of JJ Thomson, Gustave LeBon, Rudolf Steiner and Ernst Lehrs.
– ‘inertia exists independent of objects’ and
– ‘resistance to a change of location or a change in speed or a change in direction, tells us of a medium thru which all 3D physical objects are already traveling,’
…are consistent with observation. Comments and corrections invited.
If these propositions find agreement elsewhere, they can do away with confused science teaching in the vein of, “Mass is that quantity that is solely dependent upon the inertia of an object. The more inertia that an object has, the more mass that it has.” http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass
To Do possibilities