Is inertia correlated to mass?

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on August 8th, 2017, 11:48 am 

Hi Again!

For those who did not see that info on the physics forum yet, I'm actually discussing a way to simulate my model with David Cooper on NSF (with Java), so I might have a more precise answer to my questions soon. Here is the link for those who would like to help build the simulation, or simply to learn how to build one for their own model:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/foru ... #msg520175
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on August 12th, 2017, 10:18 am 

I shall report the progress of the simulation here from now on. For the moment, David thinks it will be impossible to use light as a carrier of information because it is too fast to simulate slow speeds, so I suggested that we use sound as in my example with cars, and I suddenly realized that at close to the speed of the wave, his simulation of MMx shows that light would take more and more time between the mirrors, what means that the cars would take more and more time to accelerate, which is equivalent to mass increase in the case of particles. I knew mass increase would happen because of the limited speed of the waves between my two particles, but I didn't realize that they would take more time to accelerate since I didn't believe in time dilation at that moment.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on January 20th, 2018, 1:56 pm 

Hi everybody, I have good news!

With the help of David, I succeeded to make my own simulations, and I got surprising results. I started with a twins paradox simulation where light has to be detected by the particles to know when to turn around or to have any action on the particles, which is a bit different from David's simulations that use calculations to tell light what to do, then I began simulating acceleration. (For a fast display of the simulations, Edge or Chrome are a lot better than Firefox.)

Twins paradox
Acceleration on two bonded particles
Opposite accelerations on two bonded particles
Acceleration on four bonded particles

If you have any idea on the next simulation I should try, tell me and I might try it.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Inching along

Postby Faradave on January 20th, 2018, 4:12 pm 

Congratulations! That looks like fun. What a great way to learn!
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1633
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on January 20th, 2018, 6:35 pm 

Bravo!

Quite interesting.

I'll have another look at the whole proposition. Thanks.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 509
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on January 20th, 2018, 6:58 pm 

Thanks Dave!

I agree with you, I think that simulations are a great tool to learn relativity. David's simulation of MMx immediately changed my mind about relativity, what ten years on the forums didn't do. I'm actually trying to convince specialists on scientific forums that this kind of simulation is a good tool to teach relativity, with no success until now. The screen is like a medium for light, and I think that specialists can't accept a medium because it contradicts the relativity principle. If there is a medium, then light is not going at c all the time, only when we measure it on a roundtrip. It is impossible to measure the one way speed of light anyway, but specialists consider that it would always be c if we could. If it was so, the simulations where no acceleration is involved couldn't give the same numbers than relativity, and they do. I'm still wondering what that contraction stuff means when acceleration is involved though, so if you have any idea, don't hesitate to tell me.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on January 22nd, 2018, 12:00 pm 

Thanks Andrex!

I saw you were moving on too, but unfortunately, we took two different roads, and they don't cross very often. :0)
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby mitchellmckain on January 22nd, 2018, 8:22 pm 

The concept of inertia (that which resists a change of motion) has been pretty much replaced in modern physics by the more precise definitions of mass, momentum, and force: mass being the constant property of the object, momentum be the conserved quantity, and force being what changes the motion. Thus the first of Newton's three laws captures the idea of motion in two mathematical relationships: 1) momentum = mass times velocity, and it is conserved, 2) Force = the change of momentum with respect to time.

The word "inertia" is still used in rotational motion in the phrase "moment of inertia" which is the rotational analogue to mass (calculated from the arrangement of mass in an object by summing up the mass times the perpendicular distance to the axis of rotation squared). Then the two mathematical relationships become 1) angular momentum = moment of inertia times angular velocity, and it is conserved, 2) Torque = the change in angular momentum with respect to time.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 814
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby ralfcis on January 23rd, 2018, 8:20 am 

I too would like to showcase my science knowledge on this subject. Science prides itself on precision yet it still allows the word "mass", a word rendered completely imprecise by relativity. to confuse the masses. It used to be a measure of matter which under the force of gravity expressed itself as weight. But since Einstein proved that gravity and acceleration produced the same force, that meant inertia and weight became the same,.

But then Einstein further muddied the waters with his formula E=mc2.. Now mass became a property of both matter and energy. Confusing because energy had mass and comprised of massless particles. When people say massless they really mean restmassless (which should be written as one word so people no longer forget to mention it and confuse it with the word "mass". Restmass is now what used to be called matter which is also mass. The mess gets even worse.

When Einstein came up with E=mc2m there was no concept that energy and mass can be converted into each other in a nuclear or quantum physics way. His derivation was based on kinetic energy imparted to restmass (which he called mass) converted into momentum which is mv, Velocity was now in the domain of relativity and was subject to Y. But he grouped gamma with m instead of leaving it with v where it belonged and now mass was subject to Y. When you integrate the new formula for momentum, it becomes E=mc2 but leaves one with the impression that the "mass" increases with velocity. The restmass (matter) does not increase but the more energy (also defined as mass) you put into it, the more massive (not to be confused with matter) it becomes. So you add mass and shockingly there's more mass but none of that mass you're talking about is matter.

When Eisntein came up with his formula, he asked what would happen if you imparted kinetic energy into matter and instead of motion, the matter would just sit there. The kinetic energy would then be converted into mass but not the form of mass we call matter. Later on quantum physics changed the formula and added hf which is a true conversion of energy into matter not just energy into mass which is no conversion at all. Einstein's mass was analogue while energy to matter conversion was digital and only came in discrete packets.

Nuclear conversion of matter into energy was also quite different. The matter that was converted was more like energy gelled by the nuclear force. It was not like free matter at all where in quantum physics free particles arose from energy and vice versa. The nuclear conversion was more like gelled energy un-gelling. None of this seems really related to Einstein's original derivation of his formula so it really seems like a fluke that his formula did pertain somewhat to unenvisioned phenomena. I guess my point in all this is the word mass is too confusing to use without constantly defining what you mean by it.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 785
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby ralfcis on January 23rd, 2018, 8:38 am 

" It is impossible to measure the one way speed of light anyway, but specialists consider that it would always be c if we could."

As Don Lincoln said it's very easy to measure the one way speed of light. Sync 2 co-located atomic clocks and separate then a few yards very slowly to minimize the relativistic affects of imparting one with half-twin age difference. Then shine a laser from one to the other and measure how long that laser takes to get there. No incredible mystery appears like the 1 way speed of light is really infinite like some here keep insisting may be masked by the 2 way speed of light using only 1 clock.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 785
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Previous

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests