But all you read are crappy pop science books by quacks. Why don't you try reading actual textbooks? You claim you're working on stuff like curvature in GR, so you must be reading proper textbooks. Which ones?
Does This Sound Unreasonable?
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
So instead of explaining why you think that inertia is poorly defined, you post links to a bunch of science areticles of dubious composure?
Why not try thinking for yourself?
I'm not in the mood for this. I've had a long day, and your attitude is double-tiresome.
I've had to make an exception. The force spoken about, depends greately on the additional mass, given after M.
From your logic, there is no force of inertia in matter? How then can an equation benefit explaining it?
Let me go about this another way, the only way i can explain this. I am assuming you mean, M is simply mass, therego, take the F=Ma equation. It cannot be used, because both M and F are constants. I know this, but i had to make an exception for the force of resistance, to explain the force of inertia.
Inertia is a force inherent in matter, and rest matter. The only way i could see it working, was if i said, the added mass (from a relativistic $$M=\gamma M$$), where the added mass can subtably describe the increase of a relativistic mass by adding it to an initial state of mass, i simply gave as M, could be related to the force of resistance, if this force was the same as saying the force of inertia.
Ok, i can't see how i can relate the two, in any other way. The force of resistance can be said to be the same as inertial effects, as much as i had been seeking to explain the force of resistance as being the resistance to a gain of energy.
Unless you can express this in a better way, i can only settle with treating the force of resistance as unique, to a change in relativistic mass, and being equivalant to inertia itself.
But i already knew that Einstein did not answer for inertia, because it was an equivalance, not a reason why inertia happened.
That is why i looked quickly for an article that showed what i was saying was right.
And i have been thinking for myself. I have come to the conclusion that inertia is really the resistance to a change in energy. Isn't this enough?
I don't know much, but I do know that F = M, where F is a force and M is a mass is a meaningless statement mathematically. This is like trying to add meters to seconds.
If you don't clarify this point in your next post, the thread is going to Pseudoscience.
I now see what you mean. The force of resistance is a weird one, because i don't see it in light of the normal force mass equivalance. Essentially, inertia is a force which resists acceleration of an object. It's not the same as the force it takes to acceerate an object.
Instead, it's how an object moving at a constant speed, tends to stay in a speed, and opposes any further change in velocity. Perhaps if i try to defend my corner a bit, and say that $$\gamma M+\gamma M_{added}$$ is also just a shorthand for how to get an object to a certain velocity since it described an increase of relativistic mass, so the F=Ma equation does play a part from a relativistic sense;
$$F= \gamma Ma+ \gamma^{3} M v.a/c^{2} v$$
But $$F_{r}$$ isn't really a force, it's the effects of inertia. Einstein did once equivalate $$inertia=mass$$, and if i state the $$resistance force=inertia$$, then there must be a relation.
Surely you understand what i am saying here.
I was shattered earlier Ben, and i needed sleep, this is why it took me so long to answer.
Instead, it's how an object moving at a constant speed, tends to stay in a speed, and opposes any further change in velocity. Perhaps if i try to defend my corner a bit, and say that $$\gamma M+\gamma M_{added}$$ is also just a shorthand for how to get an object to a certain velocity since it described an increase of relativistic mass, so the F=Ma equation does play a part from a relativistic sense;
$$F= \gamma Ma+ \gamma^{3} M v.a/c^{2} v$$
But $$F_{r}$$ isn't really a force, it's the effects of inertia. Einstein did once equivalate $$inertia=mass$$, and if i state the $$resistance force=inertia$$, then there must be a relation.
Surely you understand what i am saying here.
I was shattered earlier Ben, and i needed sleep, this is why it took me so long to answer.
Last edited:
In fact, let me rephrase this in a completely new way.
The force of resistance is inertia, which is an inherent property of all rest mass. The force of resistance, is something innate within the property of charged v<c matter, and there is no real force of inertia, but only a fundamental property of resistance, which is like a force. But as i said before, the force of resistance, is something i class as being different to the force constant spoken about in F=Ma.
But, would you feel happier if i just stated...
$$F_{r}=\gamma Ma + \gamma^{3} M_{added}v(a/c)^{2} v$$
?
Because then, $$F_{r}$$ is being mistaken for $$F$$, an no longer can i say $$F_{r}=Inertia$$ because $$M$$ cannot abide by $$Inertia=M$$.
And that kinda fucks it up. You know?
The force of resistance is inertia, which is an inherent property of all rest mass. The force of resistance, is something innate within the property of charged v<c matter, and there is no real force of inertia, but only a fundamental property of resistance, which is like a force. But as i said before, the force of resistance, is something i class as being different to the force constant spoken about in F=Ma.
But, would you feel happier if i just stated...
$$F_{r}=\gamma Ma + \gamma^{3} M_{added}v(a/c)^{2} v$$
?
Because then, $$F_{r}$$ is being mistaken for $$F$$, an no longer can i say $$F_{r}=Inertia$$ because $$M$$ cannot abide by $$Inertia=M$$.
And that kinda fucks it up. You know?
Some equations can help us understand inertia, a fundamental property of matter, and a principle of equivalence found in relativity that relates inertia with gravity as both as the same thing. Even though it is one of Einstein’s most controversial principles under scrutiny of validity, we should still remain loyal it is correct.
$$P=Mv$$
Mom entum is equal to mass times velocity
$$F=Ma$$
Force equals mass times acceleration
1) That mass equals an inertial system.
2) The greater the mass the less a body accelerates under force.
So the equation $$P=Mv$$ is related to $$F=Ma$$ when describing inertia, because the tendency to keep momentum is drastically resistant with the mass of the body, but how to give a equation that explains also a mechanism behind these variables, is uncertain.
My force of resistance, which is just a set of fancier words that described the properties of inertia, must be related to mass as $$F_{r}=M$$ if $$F_{r}=Inertia$$, because Einstein made it clear that inertia was the same thing as mass $$Inertia=M$$.
$$P=Mv$$
Mom entum is equal to mass times velocity
$$F=Ma$$
Force equals mass times acceleration
1) That mass equals an inertial system.
2) The greater the mass the less a body accelerates under force.
So the equation $$P=Mv$$ is related to $$F=Ma$$ when describing inertia, because the tendency to keep momentum is drastically resistant with the mass of the body, but how to give a equation that explains also a mechanism behind these variables, is uncertain.
My force of resistance, which is just a set of fancier words that described the properties of inertia, must be related to mass as $$F_{r}=M$$ if $$F_{r}=Inertia$$, because Einstein made it clear that inertia was the same thing as mass $$Inertia=M$$.
Yes, it would make him happier because you just guarenteed this is going to pseudo.
Which ones?
This one:
$$F=\gamma Ma+ \gamma^{3} Mv.a/c^{2} v$$
or
$$F_{r}=\gamma Ma+ \gamma^{3} M_{added}v.a/c^{2} v$$
?
You'd be wrong about the first equation. It's mainstream relativity. And the second equation was obviously something of sarcasm, because you kept relating $$F_{r}$$ to $$F$$, and i told you they weren't the same. I thought the sarcasm would have came through when i said:
''But, would you feel happier if i just stated...''
I'll bring this to your attention back in the physics forum, so you can explain why you moved it.
Derive it? Show me a reference?
The first term is obviously just a Lorentz shifted mass, but I've never seen the second term.
This isn't to say that it's not a valid term (I would expect subleading relativistic effects to go like $$\gamma^2$$, but I have no clue why it's there, or why you think it's right. It looks like you just added factors of a and v to make the units work out with absolutely no justification.
Where did you derive it? Where's the source Ben asked for?