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 December 8th, 2016, 1:20 pm 

Andrex » December 8th, 2016, 11:35 am wrote:
Kinetic energy is related to mass in the equation E=MV/2. How can you figure out that it is not?


That's just it; I don't figure it out. For exemple; the more you add speed to a particle the more that particle gains mass. But the reality shows that a massless particle has "light speed", and neutrinos with almost no mass have almost "light speed".
How do you figure that out?
Relativistic mass has no realistic mechanism, it pops out of an equation. My small steps suggest one: the more the speed increases, the more the steps get long, so there is a limit to the length of the steps due to the limited speed of the information that induces them. The steps cannot change their frequency, so the longer they get, the faster they have to go. A step starts at zero speed and ends at zero speed, so its top speed in the middle has to be more important than its mean one, namely the speed of the molecule it is part of. When a molecule is accelerated at close to the speed of light, the middle speed of the steps between its atoms gets so fast that light can hardly reach them, so they resist more to their acceleration than at low speed.

I agree with "on Earth"; but the experience has to give the same result in "flat space-time"; which I'm not sure of.
Assuming that in "flat space-time" there's no gravitation, there should not be any resistance even if the particle has mass. This is what I'm nor sure of. If you are, tell me.
You are mixing inertial mass and gravitational mass. Einstein said they were equivalent, but again, he did not suggest any mechanism to support his proposition. Since, with the small steps, any motion must be executed by steps, gravitational motion and inertial motion are more than equivalent, they simply depend on the same mechanism. I associate the information that would induce the gravitational steps to gravitational redshif: if doppler effect was inducing the inertial steps of my animation, it is the redshift from the steps of the right atom that would induce the steps of the left one. Blueshift induces a step away from the source, and redshift induces a step towards the source. If the steps could account for gravitational redshift, then they could account for gravitational force, but it means that this redshift would not be due to an expansion motion. It could be due to a slow increase in the frequency of the inertial steps with time for instance. Looking at atoms from other galaxies, we would see slower frequencies than those of atoms near by. The farther the galaxy, the slower its frequencies.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada
Scruffy Nerf Herder liked this post


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 8th, 2016, 2:11 pm 

inertial mass and gravitational mass


This is a subject by itself (that we can discuss if you want); and since Einstein say they're equivalent, why not say they're "the same thing"? Then "mixing inertial mass and gravitational mass" would be irrelevant.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on December 8th, 2016, 3:23 pm 

I guess Einstein used the word equivalent because he couldn't provide a mechanism to justify that equivalence. My small steps are a possibility, but it is not evident to discover how they could get more frequent with time. If we consider that light has always traveled at c, then more frequent steps would mean closer particles, precisely the inverse of expansion. Which brings us to another possibility: part expansion and part contraction. Still, it doesn't tell us how the steps would contract. I have an hypothesis, but it is hard to imagine. It could be due to the fact that the smaller steps between the components necessarily have to justify the longer ones between the atoms, what could induce an inter-scale precession motion for instance, a precession at smaller scales that would transfer at larger ones.
Last edited by Inchworm on December 8th, 2016, 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada
Scruffy Nerf Herder liked this post


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 8th, 2016, 3:30 pm 

And what if space-time had a basic lenght; let's say 10^-33 m (Planck lenght). I mean that everything in our universe (physical) is composed of that specific lenght (even space-time). Your "small steps" would present much more "smoothness" in their deplacement; wouldn't they? (relatively).
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on December 8th, 2016, 3:50 pm 

I upgraded my former message a bit at the end.

And what if space-time had a basic lenght; let's say 10^-33 m (Planck lenght). I mean that everything in our universe (physical) is composed of that specific lenght (even space-time). Your "small steps" would present much more "smoothness" in their deplacement; wouldn't they? (relatively).
If particles wouldn't carry any components somehow, nothing could execute their inertial steps, so they could not move at all. Incidentally, I have this problem with the electron: it doesn't carry components, so I cannot explain its motion and its mass. I have to find out more about the steps to explain it. One thing I can rely on is that it is supposed to produce the atoms' bonding, so I can imagine that free electrons represent bonding at a distance, thus small steps at a distance.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 8th, 2016, 4:36 pm 

You're at the point of asking yourself questions about the existance of fondamental forces. You won't like it; I can tell you. :-)
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on December 8th, 2016, 5:20 pm 

I got my small steps to back me up. They mean that if you push long enough in the right direction, you got good chances that the body is going to move in that direction after a while. :0)

Incidentally, it's also valid for particles, but at that scale, chance is not so stable. It can take more or less time for the same particles to accelerate, so if we measure them separately, they will not show the same mass. How about using that possibility to explain the hazard at quantum scale?

.....................

Andrex, alias André Lefebvre, about the development of science:

"Souvent, je m’interroge à savoir si nous ne « parlons » pas pour absolument rien?"

Of course we talk for nothing, but as you say next, "it is so interesting to be different, apart from the fact that it spends time."

You're much more prolific than I am Andrex, congratulation for your books and papers. I read the one about the Higgs. Now I know what you just said about the fundamental forces. :0)
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 8th, 2016, 11:38 pm 

Glad you appreciated it Inchworm. :-)
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on December 9th, 2016, 10:21 am 

Do you know Miles Mathis? He's prolific too! A bit more furious than you, but I also appreciate his papers.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 9th, 2016, 12:02 pm 

No I don't know him; but I will soon since you gave me the link. Thank you.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 10th, 2016, 11:52 am 

I'm glad you gave me that link Inchworm; thank you.

I went through some Mattis papers. He's "fun" to read, but he misses his goal at least in one place.

On the other hand, I'm glad I read him because he confirms that nobody, but nobody, can rely on "maths logic" to prove anything. Gödel's theorem is true. Maths logic can prove one thing and its contrary.

When Mattis says that he proves Einstein math being wrong and that acceleration makes distances contract and time elongates (slows down), he's wrong himself. And I don't need any maths to prove it.

Let's say that you have a very long straight road in front of you, with 30 feet long lamp posts installed every 300 feet on the right side of that road.
Then you put on your "superman outfit" and start flying toward the other end of the road at 10 feet from the ground. Now GO! And start accelerating.

While accelerating, look to your right. You see the distances between the lamp posts start to contract. The faster you fly, the shortest the distances. So much, that at a certain speed, you will see only one lamp post to your right. Distances have contracted to "nil". Check your cape on your back. It's flapping like crazy; so you know you're still moving; right?

But, what about the time it takes to get from one post to the other?
That time has contracted just the same as the distances, since it takes "no time at all" to, now, cover that distance. Furthermore, the time to get from one end of the road to the other will be shorter, the faster you make the trip. So time contracts in acceleration just as distances do (in fact, time and distance, are the "same thing" and you shouldn't have both in the same math formula).

Which doesn't mean that Einstein maths are right.
For example. Einstein maths states that acceleration augments the mass of the object accelerating. The more it nears light speed, the more it gains mass. That is not logic and "facts" says it's false.

Only particles that are "massless" can go to light speed (like photons). And the neutrino which has a "little bit" of mass (so they say) can move only at a speed very near to light speed, but never light speed itself. Which means that the more an object has mass, the less it can attain great speed. Which is exactly contrary to the result given by Einstein maths. In "fact", to accelerate to light speed, mass has to diminish.

So, let's use our good old "brain logic" after whatever results "math logic" gives us.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on December 10th, 2016, 12:41 pm 

Andrex wrote:While accelerating, look to your right. You see the distances between the lamp posts start to contract. The faster you fly, the shortest the distances.
The distances do not really contract, it is the time it takes to travel between the lamps that contracts. That's precisely what Mathis points out. Einstein transforms an apparent contraction into a real one, and he does the same thing with time dilation. He did that after the null result of Michelson-Morley, but Paul Marmet showed that they neglected two important things: reflection of light on moving mirrors, and direction of light in the transverse arm of the interferometer. Here is a french translation I made of his paper:

Paul Marmet on M-M traduit.odt
(46.55 KiB) Downloaded 29 times
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 10th, 2016, 2:58 pm 

I agree with him on that point; the "fact" distance between the posts doesn't really change. The change is an illusion (in our living referential). But time doesn't "elongate" either.

But if you're a photon, you're living in a "reality" surounding you, very different than mine. A reality that has no distances and no "flowing" time. So the question becomes: "where is the "illusion"?

But, on another level, in fact, science does worse with expansion. It makes it a "fact" that it accelerates, when it's only an illusion created by "Hubble constant". Just think.The two feet that surrounds the volume of one megaparsec expands at 67 km/2 from the center of that volume which as diameter of one megaparsec. That two feet doesn't "accelerate". Only the "rate" in the whole volume seems to accelerate. (these days, science lives in a "Harry Potter" universe. It believes in "non observable" objects).

Unless that accelerated expansion is very badly explained, it's an illusion.

Thank you for the translated paper. I'll go trough it right away.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on December 10th, 2016, 3:27 pm 

Here is the original paper in case you would like to compare:

http://newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/index.html

Andrex wrote:But if you're a photon, you're living in a "reality" surrounding you, very different than mine. A reality that has no distances and no "flowing" time.
I don't buy that idea either. To me, the problem with light is the same that we would face if we would replace it with sound waves. Looking at a plane, we would see it where it was when it emitted the sound that we see. We would also see a plane where it is actually if it was traveling side by side with us, even if we would know that we are traveling with regard to air, thus that the sound was sent towards the future position of the plane. Why? Because no doppler effect and no aberration would be perceptible even if they really happen. This contradicts the inertial reference frame principle of relativity. If light is independent from the motion of bodies, then if two bodies travel side by side, it cannot travel perpendicularly to their motion, it has to travel at an angle, and suffer aberration when detected. We know it works like that for sound, a wave that is also independent from the motion of bodies, and we also know that sound doesn't produce real contraction or dilation.
Last edited by Inchworm on December 10th, 2016, 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 10th, 2016, 3:58 pm 

Why would I do that?
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on December 10th, 2016, 4:02 pm 

In case you would suspect that I made a mistake or a bad translation of some words.

I edited my former message.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 10th, 2016, 4:07 pm 

OK. Thank you.

We know it works like that for sound, a wave that is also independent from the motion of bodies, and we also know that sound doesn't produce real contraction or dilation.


I was talking of, if you lived in an universe with always your "superman outfit" on, and always going to the speed that makes you see only one post. Your "reality" in that universe, would be that there exists only one post. The same as if letting pass the ambulance siren blowing, you start following it always at the same distance, you would hear a "constant" noise of a "constant" wavelenght.

In other word, the "speed" of your environment (in fact your own speed) is responsible of your "reality". So if "superman" lives in a one lampost universe, I can't see why the "reality" of a photon wouldn't be a no-distance-ever-at-the-present universe.

Stating the conclusion in the paper you just gave me:

We have shown here that, in the Michelson-Morley experiment, using classical physics, the time for light to travel between any pair of mirrors, in any direction, is always the same, independently of the direction of the moving frame and also independently of having light moving either parallel or transverse to the frame velocity.


So lightspeed is effectively and "absolute" speed and it doesn't relates to distances nor time (since time = distance as proved in previous papers).
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 10th, 2016, 4:45 pm 

Hi Guys,

I have been making a point for years now that all things move through Time at the same speed.

Suppose we set a speed limit. I go in a straight line at 50 MPH North for 1 hour. You go North/West at 50 MPH for just 1/2 hour and then cut North/East, still at 50 MPH for 1/2 hour. Will you be be crossing my road yet? Assuming you know you Pythagorean Math.. even though we both traveled 50 miles, you took a side path and thus are short of reaching my road. You have to go still further to reach my road. Will I be there at the point you arrive at my road? Of course not! I will be well ahead of you. At our constant speeds.. you will never catch me and we will never see each other again, as we are separated by a distance.

If we treat Time like Distance and you take a longer path through Time, will we still meet at the same location or will I be in your future and invisible to you forever? Since we haven't move through Space, then of course I will still be there. But here is the interesting aspect:
Since I would be ahead of you in time.. then I must have a memory of being alone until you rejoined me in my past, then my recent memory must be replaced with a memory of being with you as we now occupy the same location both in Space and Time.

To make this easier to visualize: Instead of moving ahead in time.. we don't move but rather a copy or clone is made once per second at a constant distance in front of us. Yes, think distance with me going North and you taking the longer path out and back. You should be able to see that when we cross paths again.. my last clone would be well ahead of your last clone. My last clone has a memory of being alone for all the distance I have ahead of you. But as soon as your path reaches my path, My last clone's memory must be false and thus all of the clones between my last and our intersection have to be rewritten to include your company. And somehow, your clones need to be replicated real fast for you to be with me at my last clone for my memory to be valid.

See how messy all this is?

Now if we all move through Time at the same Speed.. No Issues.. except one. Our clocks won't agree if you took a longer path.. distance wise. Your clock will actually be behind mine and you have aged slower of course. So to avoid the messy aspect from above and.. grant that we all move through Time at the same rate and.. to reconcile the difference in our clocks.. the only choice left is to realize that Motion slows down clocks (including biological clocks).

To see why one must visualize the orbital mechanics of a rotating 3D Object. It has a Geometry. But if that Geometry is maintained by an exchange of information and the speed of light is a limit on the speed of exchange, then the Geometry gets screwed up. To prevent this we need to introduce wait states (or looping states) on the side going opposite the direction of motion of the whole. The faster the whole moves, the more wait states (or extra short loops) need to be added to maintain Geometry. Now, if we add many other "Wholes" in a dance of Geometry, with each having to sync with each other, the added wait states become cumulative and the total cycles of the New multi-whole must reduce in total cyclic intervals per specific time interval.

Atoms tick slower when moving and the faster they move, the slower they tick. (Tick means complete a full cycle) That is Clock Dilation and has nothing to do with Speed through Time.

Of course the Atomic Geometry can't change instantly. This is Inertia. Resistance (delay) in changing Geometry due to Acceleration. If you try to force the change faster than it can accommodate, Matter will shatter. Once one stops applying acceleration force to Matter, the Geometry becomes stable and its internal Ticks become Relative to its Speed. Space doesn't get shorter with speed. Matter does. Its Geometry gets bunched up length-wise along the axis of Motion.

All because of that (pesky) Speed of Light limitation.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 10th, 2016, 4:56 pm 

Hi again,

Quick Idea related to Inchworm's Ideas. What keys the aspect of introducing sub-atomic wait states? Could it be keyed from Doppler Shifts? What else does it have to work with?

Regards again,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on December 10th, 2016, 6:23 pm 

Exact! The time light takes to travel between two bodies cannot be measured if we have nothing faster than light to help us out, so only its frequency can help, and there is no frequency shift between two bodies traveling side by side, so there is now way for us to measure if these bodies are traveling or not, and there is no way for atoms either. The only measure they can make is while comparing their own frequency to the incoming one, and the only way it can differ is with doppler effect.

There is in fact one way to measure the time light takes between two bodies, but it has to make a roundtrip between them while they rotate: the Sagnac interferometer.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 10th, 2016, 7:30 pm 

This is all very "messy". Let's clean up a bit with a few acceptable assumptions regarded as "facts".

1)The universe is "flat space-time".
2)The universe has some "places" where certain of its volumes has their geometry "deformed" (not meaning "curved", mind you).
3)The deformation of geometry of "flat space-time" cannot be other than a change in its "metric"(which provokes "curved" trajectories), since flat space-time is nothing else than "expanding metric".
4) We observe that the change in the metric is a gradual collapse of that metric (maximum is a black hole).
5) Distances and "time" are simply two aspects of the same thing (namely, movement).

With these "facts" accepted,

No 5 gives the opportunity to work with "space" only, since time is the same thing as distance. (or vice versa).
No 4 tells us that each collapsed metric, corresponds to a definite speed (only its speed decides of the orbit of an object inside deformed space-time).

Consequently, we, humans, are living in the metric related to a definite "speed" that is the speed of the Earth which decided its orbit.
A satellite over the Earth doesn't "live" at the same "speed" we do (we have to correct GPS), because it is farther than us from the center of gravity of the Earth (so it lives in a different "metric" related to a different speed, and as we know: a different "time"); but even if we managed to place that satellite in orbit in order to keep it, always at the same distance from the center of gravity of the sun, it would still live in a different "speed", "metric", "time" than us.

In view of this, "time" and "distance" are related directly to the metric of the environment.
So wherever one of us goes here on Earth, there's no changes in our "time" and our "distances". A foot has always 12 inches, which is not the case if I move to another "metric" (in space or even on Jupiter) and mesure one of the foot over there with a ruler I brought from here. Closer to the sun, the foot will mesure 11 inches (or less) and farther out, it will mesure 13 inches (or more).

Now; if I bought my ruler in "flat space-time", all the measurements of feet done with it in deformed space-time, will be shorter than the foot inscribed on the ruler.

I think that all this simplifies everything, not just for us, but up to the whole universe.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 11th, 2016, 11:00 am 

I agree Andrex,

I said exactly the same thing about an Exotic Ruler, one that can't change its size. If you take such near a Black Hole, it will appear to get larger and near a deep void.. it will appear to get smaller. Because the Planck Length is Indivisible but has a variable size to match locality (neighbors).

In QM I see Reality as being 4D and Time is simply bi-directional Sequences. No Arrow of Time. Very fast too.. like trillions of times (per interval) faster than the Planck Interval. To me, the Planck Interval is a True Distance. It is the Growth of New Space/Time on the Surface of Reality and we exist (NOW) on that 3D surface of a Hyper-Geometry. Therefore.. Time is a Constant and has an Arrow because it's directly related to Growth on the Surface of Reality. This Macro Time has Real Thickness as a true distance in Units of Planck (Interval) Lengths.

The Growth speed of the Universe is the Speed of Light and the speed of Macro Time. This is the reason Matter can't go faster than the Speed of Growth. New Blank Space/Time must be applied to the surface of Reality for Matter to Progress without interfering with its current self. This also allows us to replace Macro Momentum with History as the source of information regarding Speed and Trajectory for sub-sub-Particles. Having thickness of History is why we have so much freedom and resolution in Speeds and Trajectories.

QM is fun because a single particle can have reflections, appear in multiple places and have multiple trajectories simultaneously. Until one copy interacts with something causing a collapse of all its clones and their trajectories. This is extremely convenient.. or we would be up to our butts in extra particles in a flash or perhaps a Big Bang..lol.

The collapse of paths/clones is also part of the mechanism that gives us Entanglement between clones regarding spin (geometry) dynamics.

Anyway, that's my Personal Model and no one is forcing anyone to accept or agree with it. I am also open to the idea that Doppler shifts might convey information between Sub-Sub-Particles that need the additional information in regards to relative speeds of conjoined Particle Geometries because the Quantum is way too fast for such to be of much value.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on December 11th, 2016, 11:57 am 

All you say guys is related to relativity, and Marmet showed that the Michelson-Morley experiment was badly interpreted. If light doesn't travel the way Micholson and Morley thought it did, then the whole thing has to be re-analyzed from scratch. Did you go through Marmet's paper Andrex?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 11th, 2016, 12:39 pm 

I'm beginning to understand your way of seeing this Dave; which means that it seems that we agree :-)

Yes I did go through Marmet's paper. That's why I could mention it's conclusion before (somewhere else I guess) It's fun for me to read but I hardly "learn" anything when maths are involved. :-)

QM is fun because a single particle can have reflections, appear in multiple places and have multiple trajectories simultaneously.


Can I make the remark that QM adresses a specific epoch of the history of the universe?
That epoch was the "probalities epoch" (virtuality epoch) that came before our actual "possibilities epoch". At that "probalities epoch" things was including all "probalities" which is why you get "reflections, appear in multiple places and have multiple trajectories simultaneously".
When the universe entered the "possibilities epoch"; a lot of those "probabilities" had been eliminated. This is the normal (and only possible) "evolution process"; and it's based on "adaptation to environment for survival". Particles had to "adapt" to the decreasing density of energy produced by expansion of the universe. It's finally quite simple on the "overall".

What is something of "marvelous", is that we can still "work" in that far away epoch in electronic. That "fact" would prove that "time" is "space" since we can "act" in time just as we can "act" in space. The term "far away epoch" induces exactly that.

It wouls also mean that the universe as a "unit" stands in an "ever present time" state.
Last edited by Andrex on December 11th, 2016, 1:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on December 11th, 2016, 1:20 pm 

I don't use maths because they are too far away in my mind, but I can understand them when they are not too complicated, and I can assure you that Marmet's maths are very easy to follow. Did you understand his drawings? The way the wave would change its reflexion angle when the mirror is moving with regard to it? Do you know how the Huygens-Fresnel principle works? It works for refraction, where the wave changes its speed while entering a different milieu, but it also works for reflexion, and in the case where the mirror is moving, we can follow the wave point by point and see that the resulting interference pattern would change the expected direction of the reflected wave. No need for maths to understand the principle, only geometry. Marmet chooses four different times where the wave hits the mirror, and his drawings show that these places are no more in line with the original angle of the mirror. Then he develops the equation that permits to calculate this angle. I never saw any experiment about that, but I think it could be done, for instance while moving a reflector made of thin blades in the water. (the distance between the blades only need to be less than the length of the water waves for them to be reflected instead of going through). It should show that the incident angle would not be equal to the reflected one.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 11th, 2016, 1:32 pm 

When I read a "paper" I try to concetrate on the maths I find; and it's not because I don't (or can't) understand it; but because I "hate" it. I cannot explain why. It's a kind of "instinctive" reaction that I try to control (but have much problem to do).

Maybe it's because when being younger I loved geometry (I still do) but when my teacher began to put in "algebra" I was kind of "offended" and rejected to consider it seriuosly. I'm still marqued by it. But life is wonderfull anyway; so... :-)
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on December 11th, 2016, 2:47 pm 

Geometry is enough to understand Marmet. If light goes the way he shows, then relativity is wrong, because it has precisely been developed to explain the null result of Michelson-Morley.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Andrex on December 11th, 2016, 6:51 pm 

The reason why it's wrong is a good argument; but explaining where it's conclusion is wrong would be better.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 12th, 2016, 12:06 am 

Hi all,

Being an Uber-Determinist, I will always debate the concept of Randomness. Imagine a spinning roulette wheel. If it is spinning slow enough, you could snatch each specific value as it passed a point and see a repeating pattern for each rotation. But if it is spinning at near infinite speed, we simply don't have any way to sync our snatch with the wheel, therefore what is snatched will appear random. Thus we have to use probability Math. But it is an error to assume that just because we must use such Math, that the Universe/Quantum is truly Random in any way.

I'm hoping that we will someday be able to make a quantum sampler that's as fast as the Quantum. If it can snatch values in sequence fast enough and store them in an Einstein Condensate, then we might be able to read them out, at our slower rate of time, as a sequence in order and thus see the sequence has actual repeating order.

That would put a final nail in the coffin for those that believe the Quantum has a true random element to it.

Also Andrex, what is your take on an Event Horizon around a Black Hole? If Metric Scale is reduced on approach to a Black Hole, then we don't have issues with such things as distance between a Proton and its Electron. It will always be the same number of Planck Lengths and normal Physics can be continued down to any Metric Scale.

It seems this would avoid a singularity in the Math, that Black Holes are not Black but deep deep red (thus invisible) due to gravitational red shift. They are just very large Plasma Stars operating with normal Physics at a very reduced Metric Scale. This makes a Gravity Well into a Distance Well. Thus Radial Light, while being dimmer due to the radial expansion of light, still should have no problem escaping a Distance Well.

If I am right, this would also put nails in the coffin of an Event Horizon.

What's your thoughts?

I'm sorry if I have detoured your thread Inchworm. So..

Specifically.. yes.. Momentum relies on the complex structure of complex Matter to literally Claw/Step its way through the Quantum Continuum. On the sub-sub-components of Matter, when that supporting complexity is gone, Momentum is replaced with History to maintain a consistent speed and trajectory of Particles (IMHO).

Such Sub-Sub-Particles have no Momentum. If their history has a Geometry of the right sort, a Particle may follow a curved path.. Indicating it has no true Momentum/Inertia anymore. Its history can describe an arc at those scales and that becomes its current Trajectory.. an Arc.

Without Gravity, one never sees Complex Matter follow a Curved Trajectory. In Particle Accelerator Collisions, we do see Arc Paths of some particles.. if I'm not mistaken. Wouldn't that be obvious that such no longer have Momentum/Inertia? Some other particles may also not have Momentum/Inertia.. but their History describes a straight Line Trajectory (and speed). Is it a mistake to assume a straight line trajectory indicates Momentum/Inertia?

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Postby Inchworm on December 12th, 2016, 10:55 am 

Andrex » December 11th, 2016, 6:51 pm wrote:The reason why it's wrong is a good argument; but explaining where it's conclusion is wrong would be better.
What conclusion? Time dilation and length contraction?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


PreviousNext

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 7 guests