Does This Sound Unreasonable?
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
Here, this is what i said.
''But when i said that, it's really not the point.
If velocity was enough to account for inertia, inertia would have been explained a long time ago. But it is universally accepted that niether Einstein or Newton gave appropriate reasons why a rest mass can experience inertia.''
''But when i said that, it's really not the point.
If velocity was enough to account for inertia, inertia would have been explained a long time ago. But it is universally accepted that niether Einstein or Newton gave appropriate reasons why a rest mass can experience inertia.''
Yup, so your comment about photons was wrong.
Now explain WHY velocity doesn't account for now that your "photons speed up" clause is invalidated...
AS for "first class cheek" commenting in the other thread: it's one more question that could have been googled.
The guy says he's doing research... His idea of research is to get some one else to do all his work for him?
Sheer laziness.
Now explain WHY velocity doesn't account for now that your "photons speed up" clause is invalidated...
AS for "first class cheek" commenting in the other thread: it's one more question that could have been googled.
The guy says he's doing research... His idea of research is to get some one else to do all his work for him?
Sheer laziness.
Velocity isn't enough to explain inertia. If it was, Einsteins explanation of relating acceleration and mass as two of the same thing would have been valid as an explanation in textbooks.
There is a reason why a mass does not accelerate when not orientated, other than saying it simply will not, or tend not too. This is why Einsteins explanation (who's idea's had overthrown the normal idea's of Newtonian gravity), that inertia was caused by carefully placed masses was not enough.
Now, since Einstein, many scientists have tried to tackle the question of inertia, to the point a physicist, called Andrei D. Sakharov suggested as much in 1968, an idea which was addressed 20 years later by Puthoff, that the electromagnetic fluctuation of the zero-point field could act on the charge of the particle as an innate property. But this is accepted by only a small amount of physicists.
Another answer is begged for.
There is a reason why a mass does not accelerate when not orientated, other than saying it simply will not, or tend not too. This is why Einsteins explanation (who's idea's had overthrown the normal idea's of Newtonian gravity), that inertia was caused by carefully placed masses was not enough.
Now, since Einstein, many scientists have tried to tackle the question of inertia, to the point a physicist, called Andrei D. Sakharov suggested as much in 1968, an idea which was addressed 20 years later by Puthoff, that the electromagnetic fluctuation of the zero-point field could act on the charge of the particle as an innate property. But this is accepted by only a small amount of physicists.
Another answer is begged for.
As you can see from this link, it is said that Einstein relativity gave inertia an equivalance, but no real explanation:
Gravity and Inertia Redefined | by Raymond Graudis... inertia has never been fundamentally explained before. Einstein's equivalence principle is a statement about equivalence, but not a real explanation. ...
Gravity and Inertia Redefined | by Raymond Graudis... inertia has never been fundamentally explained before. Einstein's equivalence principle is a statement about equivalence, but not a real explanation. ...
Wiki explains:
''Since Einstein used inertial mass to describe Special Relativity, inertial mass is closely related to relativistic mass and is therefore different from rest mass.''
In this case, i have attempted to talk about a rest mass, and how an accelerating rest mass increasing it's relativistic mass, which is a change in energy.
Since a photon can contribute to the mass of a system, it stands to reason that a rest mass that gains a change in energy, will also contribute to the mass of that system, as found by accelerating a thing close to the speed of light.
But the resistance itself, is caused (i think), by the continuation of an increasing mass. Now since photons do not experience inertia, it must have something to do with systems having a mass. This is why i can discredit photons, other than being a rightly explanation to why a mass must experience an inertial effect.
''Since Einstein used inertial mass to describe Special Relativity, inertial mass is closely related to relativistic mass and is therefore different from rest mass.''
In this case, i have attempted to talk about a rest mass, and how an accelerating rest mass increasing it's relativistic mass, which is a change in energy.
Since a photon can contribute to the mass of a system, it stands to reason that a rest mass that gains a change in energy, will also contribute to the mass of that system, as found by accelerating a thing close to the speed of light.
But the resistance itself, is caused (i think), by the continuation of an increasing mass. Now since photons do not experience inertia, it must have something to do with systems having a mass. This is why i can discredit photons, other than being a rightly explanation to why a mass must experience an inertial effect.
The Higgs is merely an explanation for how a thing gets a mass. I suppose in the end, if the Higgs does exist, we now have an explanation for matter, but not again, what causes the inertia. Mass and inertia are only equivalant, not an explanation as such.
And the ''just is'' scenario, has been tolerated for too long. An explanation is certainly needed.
(for the record, i don't believe in the Higgs. Good for Peter though if it does exist, but not every scientist does believe mass needs a mechanism. I beleive a particle is a self-generating mass entity). But that's not the topic.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Hello Reiku,
I think that is a pretty reasonable way to look at it. I placed the last clause in curly brackets because I am not sure if that part is necessary or not.
I was thinking along similar lines when I replied in a different thread that an object in relative motion does not really have increased mass but it has increased inertia. The post I was replying to was asking how mass could increase without violating coservation-of-mass principles. Of course mass and inertia are nearly identical concepts, but I thought it made more sense to say "inertia increases" rather than "mass increases".
For example, an object in relative motion would still have a gravity field based on its rest mass. But it's inertia would be based on its relativistic mass, or "relativistic inertia" if you will. I do not know if this is a new concept or not. I am not even sure if it is correct. Hopefully someone will elaborate for us.
I'd like to propose a refined version of your statement:
"Inertia is the resistance of a system to a change of energy."
Is this still descriptive of your proposal?
To ponder inertia further... What hints does this "resistance to change" give?
Does inertia, then, relate somehow to equalization of energies? Balance?
Or does it relate to time?
Time is elusive also but in my not so humble opinion equivalent to relativistic change. If every particle, wave and whatever in the universe completely ceased to move- time would stop. If just one electron anywhere wiggled- time would resume.
So could we say (within the framework of this hypothetical) that:
"Inertia is the resistance of a system to time."
Sounds nonsensical to me but hey, C'est la Physique.
How could mass resist time?
I think it's very difficult to talk about an increase of inertia, but i guess it can be done. What get's me, is that there are no symbols in math, or atleast, none i have come across that describes Inertia.
This i guess is because no real math has ever been done on inertia, and Einstein almost certainly neglected it, in nothin but a set of equivalances.
I considered some math that could use a concept of inertia and the force of resistance to that of mass.
The force of resistance can easily be applied to rest mass in my speculations, since I claim only rest mass ever experiences inertia:
$$F_{r}=\gamma M=Inertia$$
The force of resistance in my speculations is naturally the effect of inertia itself. And inertia is related to rest mass as:
$$\gamma M=Inertia+p$$
Then the force of resistance is related as;
$$F_{r}+M_{added}=Inertia+p$$
If we solve the right hand side for the relativistic expression, then mass is related to the force of resistance as:
$$F_{r}=M+M_{added}(v+1)$$
The force of resistance can easily be applied to rest mass in my speculations, since I claim only rest mass ever experiences inertia:
$$F_{r}=\gamma M=Inertia$$
The force of resistance in my speculations is naturally the effect of inertia itself. And inertia is related to rest mass as:
$$\gamma M=Inertia+p$$
Then the force of resistance is related as;
$$F_{r}+M_{added}=Inertia+p$$
If we solve the right hand side for the relativistic expression, then mass is related to the force of resistance as:
$$F_{r}=M+M_{added}(v+1)$$