A crazy idea about inertial motion

Le Repteux said:
The small steps explain the most common phenomenon that we can observe: inertial motion. Until now, the only explanation of inertial motion was: inertial motion is due to mass. Massive bodies go straight line and do not change speed because they resist an acceleration when we try to accelerate them. Thats all there is, and its not a physical explanation, its only a deduction from a principle. We are not accelerating them when they are on inertial motion, and they are not resisting to any force, so why are they going on moving?

We cannot detect either what causes gravitation, but we are looking for it because we can observe gravitation at work. Meanwhile, we develop theories that help us understand gravitation. Why not develop theories that can help us understand inertial motion? After all, we can also observe it at work, no? SR was about inertial motion, and it was also about light, why not try to improve it?
Click to expand...

But it IS a physical explanation, and one that is intuitive. A "heavy" object requires a bigger force to change its direction of motion. Why would that need further explanation? It is almost a definition of mass.
 
Inertial motion is not about differences in mass, it is about conservation of speed and direction. For instance, two bodies with different mass will conserve the same speed once accelerated to that speed. The admitted theory about inertial motion is more habbit than intuition. Nobody has questioned it yet, but resistance to motion does not explain inertial motion. In fact, it is counterintuitive. If something resists to move, it should not move in the first place. If it does and if it keeps moving after it has succeeded to do so, there must be a physical mechanism to explain the phenomenon.
 
Le Repteux said:
Inertial motion is not about differences in mass, it is about conservation of speed and direction. For instance, two bodies with different mass will conserve the same speed once accelerated to that speed. The admitted theory about inertial motion is more habbit than intuition. Nobody has questioned it yet, but resistance to motion does not explain inertial motion. In fact, it is counterintuitive. If something resists to move, it should not move in the first place. If it does and if it keeps moving after it has succeeded to do so, there must be a physical mechanism to explain the phenomenon.
Click to expand...

You are on your own with this imagined problem. To everyone else, "resistance" to acceleration (inertia) applies equally to increasing velocity or to decreasing it. What could be more obvious and satisfying than this symmetry? Especially when it is realised that velocity itself is relative.
 
Curiously, inertia has two opposite meanings: one is about motion, as in the expression "inertial motion", an the other is about rest, as in the expression "resistance to change". In usual language, this kind of opposition is called a contradiction. We have a problem with inertial motion, a problem that still causes paradoxes in SR. The viewpoint that Einstein had on motion was from the outside: he did not explain the physical mechanism that was supposed to produces the time gap inside the atoms. His theory was based on light, and mine also, but my viewpoint is from the inside, it is a mechanism, and it should thus be able to explain why the atoms form the GPS' clocks run faster than the ground ones, or why the muons live longer in the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
Le Repteux said:
Curiously, inertia has two opposite meanings: one is about motion, as in the expression "inertial motion", an the other is about rest, as in the expression "resistance to change". In usual language, this kind of opposition is called a contradiction. We have a problem with inertial motion, a problem that still causes paradoxes in SR. The viewpoint that Einstein had on motion was from the outside: he did not explain the physical mechanism that was supposed to produces the time gap inside the atoms. His theory was based on light, and mine also, but my viewpoint is from the inside, it is a mechanism, and it should thus be able to explain why the atoms form the GPS' clocks run faster than the ground ones, or why the muons live longer in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

But there is no opposition between "resistance to change" and "rest". "Rest" is merely one state of motion, as seen from one frame of reference among any number of possible ones. So it is the idea of "rest" that is arbitrary. Inertia is far more fundamental than "rest". You have got things arse about face here. We don't have a problem with inertial motion. And, thanks to Albert, we know why muons live longer when they travel fast relative to us, and why GPS clocks run faster.

So what are you achieving?
 
Yes, we have a problem with inertial motion, and this is precisely what Albert was working on. But he did not solve the problem, because we still have paradoxes emerging from SR. Some of us think that the Twins paradox has been solved, but it has not. Nothing can tell us which one of the twins is moving, nothing, and no logic or maths can solve that question. I don't know yet if the small steps are able to, but at least, up to date, nobody said that there was a contradiction in that idea.

Inertia is about a massive body accelerating or not: it has inertia if resist an acceleration, and it still has inertia if it does not, because it is its inertia that maintain its "inertial" motion. With the small steps, there is no inertia during inertial motion, there is no resistance to motion since there is no change in speed or direction of the steps, there is only constant small steps, and the steps are constant because light is constant once emitted. With the small steps as an explanation of motion, without light, there wouldn't be any motion.
 
Hey, ET, I always thought that your kind was going to be kind with us when they would land. Are you the exception?
 
kindness does not come from me when an individual persistently runs their mouth with complete ignorance.
at least take and understand a physics 101 and chem 101 coarse before spewing how theories are flawed.
 
Le Repteux said:
Yes, we have a problem with inertial motion, and this is precisely what Albert was working on. But he did not solve the problem, because we still have paradoxes emerging from SR. Some of us think that the Twins paradox has been solved, but it has not. Nothing can tell us which one of the twins is moving, nothing, and no logic or maths can solve that question.
Click to expand...
Of course it is not a paradox. The one that ages less is the one that accelerates to a different reference frame than the first twin and then decelerates to the same reference frame as the first twin.

By the way I agree with your title, you do have a crazy idea. You should try really hard to just let it go.
 
Howdy Origin! You mean I should try to get back to my origins? Like the twin that did not age? This story is good for youngsters, and I'm too old for that. If it keeps you running, why not! But I bet it will be forgotten in a few generations.
 
Le Repteux said:
Yes, we have a problem with inertial motion, and this is precisely what Albert was working on. But he did not solve the problem, because we still have paradoxes emerging from SR. Some of us think that the Twins paradox has been solved, but it has not. Nothing can tell us which one of the twins is moving, nothing, and no logic or maths can solve that question. I don't know yet if the small steps are able to, but at least, up to date, nobody said that there was a contradiction in that idea.

Inertia is about a massive body accelerating or not: it has inertia if resist an acceleration, and it still has inertia if it does not, because it is its inertia that maintain its "inertial" motion. With the small steps, there is no inertia during inertial motion, there is no resistance to motion since there is no change in speed or direction of the steps, there is only constant small steps, and the steps are constant because light is constant once emitted. With the small steps as an explanation of motion, without light, there wouldn't be any motion.
Click to expand...

I think I've done as much as I can with you on this now. My main concern was to disabuse you of any incorrect notions about emission and absorption of photons and about the electronic ground state in molecules. We've now covered this and you are moving onto some sort of challenge to relativity, which is firstly nuts and secondly not my speciality. So I think I'll take a back seat from now on.

But thanks for the challenge on what happens during an intermolecular collision. You'll this has caused me to spark a new thread on the other site. So far the only reply I've had is from the Sage of Caltech, predictably saying that my question makes no sense - helpful to a fault, that guy. But maybe someone normal will reply in due course.
 
If you never tried to ask difficult questions, prepare to the ride. People are not trying to understand when you seem to be out of the box, and some are really weird at it. By the way, I'm not challenging the data from Relativity, I am only addressing the SR paradoxes. Our discussion was very helpful to me, so thanks for the challenge too! I'll take a look at what you posted next door, it might help me again.
 
rpenner said:
No. That does not follow, since the signal between cars is delayed. Further, because of geometrical effects, it does not immediately follow that the cars have simple impulse responses.

Your model is:
$$y'(t) = \int_{-\infty}^{t} z'(u) \left( ( c - z'(u)) \delta(y(t)-z(u) + c(u-t)) + ( c + z'(u)) \delta(y(t)-z(u) - c(u-t)) \right) du \\ z'(t) = \int_{-\infty}^{t} y'(u) \left( ( c - y'(u)) \delta(z(t)-y(u) + c(u-t)) + ( c + y'(u)) \delta(z(t)-y(u) - c(u-t)) \right) du $$
where y is the position of the first car, z is the position of the second and c is the propagation speed of the signal and $$\delta()$$ is the Dirac delta function.

Assuming y(t) > x(t) we get:
$$y'(t) = \int_{-\infty}^{t} z'(u) ( c - z'(u)) \delta(y(t) + c t -z(u) + c u) du \\ z'(t) = \int_{-\infty}^{t} y'(u) ( c + y'(u)) \delta(z(t) - c t -y(u) - cu) du $$

Certainly $$y(t) = 1 + v t, z(t) = v t, y'(t) = v, z'(t) = v$$ is a solution for $$-c \lt v \lt c$$, but one that does not match your initial conditions.
Click to expand...
Hi RP, can you define the term "u" in your equations please?
 
Last edited:
Le Repteux said:
By the way, I'm not challenging the data from Relativity, I am only addressing the SR paradoxes.
Click to expand...
You really seem to be having a difficult time with this. Time dilation has been demonstrated with atomic clocks. Time dilation will result in the paradox that twins can be different ages. The paradox is explained by Special Relativity. The paradox is not created by Special Relativity. That is like saying that a theory of gavity causes things to fall to earth.
 
Relativity is about my inertial motion being measurable only with regard to others, thus about you and me not being able to tell which one is moving while observing the light that we emit. If no logic can tell, then no experiment and no math either. The GPS is an experiment about GR, not about SR. If the small steps are real, since they also depend on the constancy of light pulses, their study might help us to understand why a muon lasts longer when it decelerates in the atmosphere, and why atomic clocks run faster on satellites than on earth.
 
Le Repteux said:
Relativity is about my inertial motion being measurable only with regard to others, thus about you and me not being able to tell which one is moving while observing the light that we emit. If no logic can tell, then no experiment and no math either.
Click to expand...
True, but if you have 2 objects in a reference frame and one of them accelerates to a new reference frame you CAN tell which one has accelerated. That is the point you continue to ignore.

The GPS is an experiment about GR, not about SR.
Click to expand...
That is simply wrong. Both the affects of GR and SR must be taken into account.

If the small steps are real, since they also depend on the constancy of light pulses, their study might help us to understand why a muon lasts longer when it decelerates in the atmosphere, and why atomic clocks run faster on satellites than on earth.
Click to expand...
Your 'small steps' have nothing to do with anything. SR does a swell job of explaining muons and GR does a swell job of explaining why atomic clocls run faster on satellites than on earth
 
SR is illogical, so it can't explain muons. The small steps are about inertial motion and the information we get from it, the same problem SR is about, but from atoms' viewpoint. When an atom makes a step, it accelerates and decelerates to rest. The stronger or longer the acceleration, the longer the steps, because their frequency stays the same. Being longer in the same time, the peak speed of the steps is increased, until it reaches the speed of the information it uses to speed up, which is the speed of light. If you try to accelerate the steps in the same direction, their length is limited by the speed of light, which should cause relativity effects. SR does not provide an internal mechanism to explain why the atoms should be affected by inertial motion, the small steps are a possible answer.
 
Le Repteux said:
Hi RP, can you define the term "u" in your equations please?
Click to expand...
If you have to ask that, then you lack the mathematical prerequisites to do even Newtonian physics, let alone optics, Maxwell's Electrodynamics or 20th century physics.
u is a dummy variable in integration, in standard notation, common to all physics and calculus textbooks. It is not part of the idea itself, but encapsulates that you have to hunt over all past times, u, to find object at position z(u) so that it is the right distance away to send a signal (at speed "c" which is not necessarily the speed of light in this context) to object at position y(t) "now". (And vice-versa)
So u is the time "then", t is the time "now" and the Dirac delta function stands in for solving for the proper "then" for any particular now, with a normalization factor so that the velocity is "transmitted" undistorted by geometrical effects like the Doppler effect.
Le Repteux said:
SR is illogical, so it can't explain muons.
Click to expand...
You have claimed this more than once, but you have not demonstrated either part of this claim. If anything, you haven't shown that you understand what SR says about muon decay rates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top