## 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?

I didn't use maths to design my twins paradox simulation, just logic. Light is moving at c on the screen, and the mirrors are moving at .866c on the same screen. If I had not put the moving mirrors at half the distance of the mirrors at rest, light would have taken more time to make the roundtrip, and in 32 ticks of the clock at rest, it would have displayed less than 16 ticks. Do you get that kind of result with your maths?

While playing with simulations of the contraction produced by acceleration, I discovered that there was always a relative speed and a contraction ratio where the two clocks display the same time, and I designed a twins' simulation where it is the case for .7027c and .5d. What do you think of that.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Sorry You're using words which is not the same as logic. If you can't draw it on an STD, I can't possibly know what you mean exactly.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 947
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

My standard twins' simulation has the same STD drawing than SR, because it is exactly the same logic. But in the same simulation, while keeping the distance between the mirrors at .5d, I took the .866c speed down until the two clocks display the same time, and I got .7027c. For any distance between the mirrors, there is always a speed where the two clocks display the same reading, and we can find it by changing the speed a bit and running the simulation until the moving clock stops right where it started when the simulation stops, which is when the clock at rest displays 32 ticks.

I made a graph with four of those coincidences in my first simulation on acceleration here, and I got what looks like a sinusoidal curve.

If we look at the right end of the curve, we have the case where there is no contraction, which is where the speed is zero, and at the other end, where the speed is c, the contraction is zero. Those simulations represent what is really going on with time if the speed of light is independent from the speed of bodies, so if your idea works for real, it should be simulatable.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Mitch said:
Heavy ions that are spherical when at rest should assume the form of "pancakes" or flat disks when traveling nearly at the speed of light. And in fact, the results obtained from particle collisions can only be explained when the increased nucleon density due to length contraction is considered.

This is similar to what Feynman once said about quarks being easier to hit because the atom would flatten out, the quarks would stick out like blueberries in a pancake and had less freedom to move inside the pancake because they'd be restricted by the other blueberries. If you just suspend your belief that the science greats are infallible and apply reason to this thinking, you'd realize the quarks would flatten out as well. The movement within the atom is not dependent on relative velocity because within that frame the proper distance is undisturbed.

I've never been able to have a discussion with a book or a wiki article. I guess that's why forums were invented. Not these forums though. Questions aren't answered here using reason, the end of a discussion is when you can refer someone to a book or quote a wiki article. Heaven forbid someone who quotes the wiki article knows enough to be able to form an argument on its behalf. So let's do that Mitch, let's argue the validity of your wiki article.

First off, any article that states, " can only be explained when" is automatically non-scientific. But let's assume it was written by some journalism or creative writing student and what they really meant was they wanted to explore this one possible explanation. Let's use tha analogy of permanent age difference arising from time dilation to see if their length contraction explanation holds any water.

As we know, Alice and Bob do not exhibit any age difference as they travel in relative motion. Let's say Alice crashes into a planet at so near the speed of light that the amount of time dilation she's accumulated relative to Bob gets instantaneously converted into a visible age difference age difference such as her hair bleaching and her bones turning to dust. Let's only consider thr relativistic physics and not that she'd be instantly vaporised by the collision. Strictly speaking, time dilation does not get converted into age difference but the numbers are the same. No matter how many times I've asked the same question, relativity can't provide the answer of how that age difference manifests itself. Does Alice's hair turn white on impact or does her body decay at some relativistically indeterminable rate relative to Bob over time. It doesn't matter, I have my own answer but what's important here is there was no age difference before the impact and there was after it. The impact made the age difference permanently real.

I would assume the same reasoning could be applied to length contraction. Both the nucleon and the nucleon it was crashing into were reciprocally length contracted but that length contraction could only have been permanent after the collision. By then it's too late to have influenced the results of the collision. Is this where you pull out your wiki article on Many Worlds Theory and claim "this is the only way this can be explained"? I guess you're not expecting any questions from your students in your introduction to relativity course unless it's all just slides of wiki articles.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 947
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Ralf wrote:you'd realize the quarks would flatten out as well. The movement within the atom is not dependent on relative velocity because within that frame the proper distance is undisturbed.
You're right, if ever there is a contraction, it should happen to all the particles involved, but if that contraction happens at acceleration like my simulations show, it wouldn't be an ad hoc assumption anymore.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016