Re: inertial and gravitational

[James N Rose <***>]

Tim,


Your quote of RR indicates he was aware of this
critical issue, which the reductionist approach 
circumvents rather than addresses head on: the
dichotomy between particle and force.

The best that approach accomplishes is to parse
down to smaller and smaller units of 'matter',
with some 'associated' (presumed/assigned)
defined 'force' ... but never an -explained-
action ... that directly stems from the structure
of the entity.

Mass and gravity are 'associated' together, but
the 'how' of that association is never dealt with.

The nature of structure, such that it has or generates
a qualia of function, and how the two aspects logically
correspond, is never analyzed.  The 'solution' has always
and only been to look for smaller/primordial 
particle-field combinants, with the closest achievement 
being Feynmann's self-referenceing particles; but even
with Feynmann, no explanation for the relationship(s)
is offered, only cited and made a smaller puzzle piece.

It's a crucially tough problem. Identifying it is an 
achievement on its own.  RR did it.  Rendering a resolution
is another 'matter'.   "-)

Jamie