However, if a physicist disagrees with him, the historian's opinion is pretty much garbage. He simply doesn't have the required credentials to rebut a physicist, no matter how many times anyone calls him an 'expert'.
Now, when you have a qualified source for us on this, do let us know.
Physicists don’t disagree with him, not even the ones you quote. Is another one of your own sources qualified enough for you?
The guy who said “There is no a-priori reason why the quantity that determines the magnitude of the gravitational force on the particle should equal the quantity that determines the particle’s resistance to an an applied force in general”, also said,
in the very same book you quote“These observations led Einstein to make a profound proposal that simultaneously provides for a relativistic description of gravity and incorporates in a natural way the equivalence principle
and consequently the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. Einstein’s proposal was that gravity should no longer be regarded as a force in the conventional sense but rather as a manifestation of the curvature of the spacetime”
Do you need to discredit him also now?
The book you quote by Ryan Martin is about Classical Physics so it is no surprise that he would describe the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass as a coincidence. In classical physics, it is.
If you read Einstein’s quote that Nigel Calder references, you’ll find that Einstein goes on to explain the “astonishing fact” of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational force.
You obviously didn’t even read the whole context of anything you quoted. Just cherry picked quotes you thought would support your point and not a single one of them does. If John Norton is so unreliable why did you quote him? You obviously had no idea who he is or what his credentials are, but he sounded good and that’s good enough for you.
You now have to resort to discrediting one of your own sources because you either can’t be bothered to actually read them or are incapable of understanding that he was contradicting the very point you were trying to make. It doesn’t matter if Norton is right or wrong, the smartest person in the world or a lunatic. You quoted him without the slightest idea of what he was talking about and completely missed the larger point I was making, which is your “wiki”, at least on this point, is the poorest excuse for “research” or “scholarship” I have ever seen.
Since you can’t be bothered with actually doing your own research, I’ll explain to you exactly why GR solves the great mystery. In GR, gravity is not a force, if gravity is not a force, then it can’t effect mass. A non-force can’t act on mass and mass can’t resist a non-force. The distinction between gravitational and inertial mass is a false one. They are the same thing...just “mass” whose behavior that we perceive as gravitational effects is determined by the spacetime curvature.
When you see the term gravitational mass in the context of GR, it is referring to
active gravitational mass, which is mass that gives rise to the gravitational field...which according to FE doesn't exist.
In General Relativity and in other geometric theories of gravity, the gravitational mass must always be taken to be the active gravitational mass, because in such theories there is no passive gravitational mass. A body in a gravitational field moves in response to the curved spacetime geometry, not in response to an impressed gravitational force; thus, the mass of the body is not a receptor of gravitational force, and passive mass is a meaningless concept—it is merely an artifact of the Newtonian approximation
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1010/1010.5557.pdfHans Ohanian studied physics at Berkeley and at Princeton, where he worked on relativity with John A. Wheeler. He taught at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Union College, the University of Rome, and the University of Vermont. He's written several physics textbooks and dozens of articles dealing with relativity, gravitation, and quantum theory, including numerous articles on fundamental physics published in the American Journal of Physics, where he served as associate editor for several years
Is he enough of a physicist for you?