## 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?

There were some weird efforts to explain the null result, but it was all elegantly solved by Einstein in 2005.

Those experiments conducted on his brain clearly paid off!

Braininvat

Posts: 6799
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

BurtJordaan » November 7th, 2016, 11:00 am wrote:Let me just say what I picked up immediately. He wrote in the first para after the abstract:
Paul Marmet wrote:The aim of the Michelson-Morley experiment (1-10) is to verify “experimentally” whether the time taken by light to travel a distance in a direction parallel to the velocity of a moving frame, is the same as the time to travel the same distance in a perpendicular direction. The experiment is based on the assumption that the velocity of light is constant in an absolute frame considered at rest.
Now this is utter nonsense. Michelson & Morley did not know anything about the constancy of light in inertial frames; they thought that light propagates at a constant 'c' relative to the ether and expected to find an ether drift, i.e. a non-null result. They were surprised when they found a null result.
To me, measuring the aether drift is the same as measuring the time it takes for light to travel parallel or perpendicular to the motion. Marmet is talking to us, not to Michelson-Morley, so he uses terms that he knows we understand. What do you think of his analysis of reflection on moving mirrors? Do you think that the Huygens-Frenel principle is applicable to this case?

There are no moving mirror in the experiment!
If we consider that the motion of light is independent from the motion of bodies, and this is what relativity is about, then every part of the interferometer must be considered moving independently wrt light: the source, the splitter, the mirrors. While the beam is traveling from one part to the other, these parts are moving independently wrt light. Many things have been tried to explain the null result, but afaik, none of them considered reflection on moving mirrors. Marmet's explanations are easy to understand, and his calculations too. They show clearly that, if reflexion happens that way on moving mirrors, then there is no need for relativity to explain the result.

All these calculations that he refers to are totally superfluous, based on a wrong understanding of reality, so I do not plan to waste any time on examining such - for what benefit?
What a disaster if SR was wrong. Worse than Daesh, even worse than Trump as president! The end of humanity for sure! :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Restart

Inchworm wrote:what relativity is about, then every part of the interferometer must be considered moving independently wrt light

Time to reboot, inchworm. An initial postulate of SR is that all motion is relative EXCEPT light (i.e. speed limit c of massless particles). Speed of light in a vacuum is absolute in SR, not relative.

Active Member

Posts: 1755
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Hi FD,

My small steps show a way for atoms to move wrt light, not wrt the other atom as with the relativity principle. You admitted it could work for cars, and I'm pretty sure it works also like that for societies: once an information that tells you how to move wrt to something else takes time to travel, or once it takes time to produce a motion, you cannot know whether that thing is still doing the same thing or not, so you cannot know for sure how to move. Considering that my two atoms are in the same inertial frame doesn't alow us to imagine their steps because, with Relativity, going at the same speed and in the same direction do not produce doppler effect. If it works this way for cars, why couldn't it work this way for anything else?

Poor, humanity! Trump is right and Relativity is wrong, two disasters for the price of one! :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Trumping SR?

inchworm wrote:what relativity is about, ...moving independently wrt light

My point is that, you either agree that c is a finite, invariant limit or you're not really talking about SR.

Active Member

Posts: 1755
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

My small steps need that c is constant in direction and in speed, and I did not change my mind to analyze the inertial frame principle and the M-M experiment. What do you think of the analysis made by Paul Marmet about reflexion on moving mirrors? Do you think that the Huygens-Fresnel principle can be applied to that kind of reflexion?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

I'm late to this discussion but just mentioned in another thread that an example of contention I had was to how the Michelson-Morley experiment was an inappropriate experiment because it assumed that light originating in the same frame of the observer should ALWAYS appear to be the same regardless of whether there is or is not an aether.

I originally relaid out the geometry of the experiment and determined the same formulation as is accepted by Lorentz and Einstein but it doesn't matter because the source of the light being created in the frame of the experiment must map to a fixed background regardless because even as the speed of light is concerned, it cannot itself mean anything without being fixed to a relative frame that is fixed with respect to itself.

Logically, FOR anything to HAVE a fixed speed requires there to be a fixed background (aether) or we'd see random differences of speed for everything everywhere. In fact, in such a universe, nothing would likely be able to have even things in common sizes. For instance, we'd have electrons of any size without a 'quantum' relationship exist everywhere because a speed constant like the speed of light relates a fixed comparison of one component to another (distance/time). Since these two are in sync regardless of frame, only in some universe where time and distance are not correlated in a fixed way could this relationship stay constant.

But we are also biased to interpret time BASED on distances in some way that is fixed. A distance can be equally described as a time, as time to distance. We'd not be even able to make what sense we do of time if this reality did not coexist. So by mere logic alone, both a fixed time AND a fixed background MUST exist. The 'time' is just a relative 'distance' from different DIMENSIONS. For instance, one unit in the x-axis direction compared to one unit in the y-axis lies at two points that are the square root of two apart compared to their simultaneous transit from a common origin to those 'unit' distances.

This might be confusing if you are not already familiar but I'm guessing you can follow from the context of what I see in some of the posts above.

To the OP, Newton's first law, "inertia" is just ANY change if interpreted in logical terms in kind to different directions. So at least from that OP, time is obviously a function. But it is the CHANGE of any relationship apparent of any two comparative 'units' in different dimensions/directions that distinguish inertia and help define mass. Mass then, is just WHAT we can notice of anything that "matters" (thus 'matter' as mass) which changes in some behavior.

It also assumes that to whatever initially 'occurs' at some undetermined or unspecified point, whatever it is, stays whatever it is unless something CONFLICTS with its capacity to remain as it is by interfering in that state or action.

[I have a theory that originates in logic that explains this. But the essence of it agrees with what I gather is meant by the OP thus far. But this doesn't mean I necessarily agree with him throughout. I can't judge without getting to properly read all the content.]
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Hi Scott, what about joining our efforts to convince that miscreant humanity? :0)

We seem to both agree on the notion that light must be independent from the motion of bodies even in the same reference frame, which is a lot different than what relativists believe. Paul Marmet thinks that way incidentally, he is event using your background term to describe motion. The small steps in my OP wouldn't work without that background. Relativists believe that doppler effect is relative, so they cannot even start to imagine that it could belong to a possible background. My small steps show how two atoms moving in the same reference frame could be moving independently from one another. They show how doppler effect produced at the source could be independent from the one produced at the observer. Only Faradave succeeded to overcome his attachment to Relativity to analyze those steps. We behave all the same when facing change: we resist. Using my small steps, I can compare the way atoms resist to change direction or speed to the way we resist to change ideas, something relativity is unable to do. If I am right about my small steps, your philosophical quest might make a giant leap.

Cheers again!

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Hi all,

The war over a Fundamental discrete Foundation (Aether) was over with the success of Ligo. GR is an Aether Theory, despite the holdout Relativists that still cling to some older notions that are Anti-Aether.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Scott Mayers » November 10th, 2016, 3:56 am wrote:Logically, FOR anything to HAVE a fixed speed requires there to be a fixed background (aether) or we'd see random differences of speed for everything everywhere.

But we are also biased to interpret time BASED on distances in some way that is fixed. A distance can be equally described as a time, as time to distance. We'd not be even able to make what sense we do of time if this reality did not coexist. So by mere logic alone, both a fixed time AND a fixed background MUST exist.

I agree that 'logic' (i.e. a priori reasoning) requires there to be a background, but I don't think it requires it to be 'fixed', or indeed singular. The background(s) need not be "the aether"; it/they can be "all observers' reference frames".
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1093
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Dave_Oblad » 10 Nov 2016, 23:17 wrote:The war over a Fundamental discrete Foundation (Aether) was over with the success of Ligo. GR is an Aether Theory, despite the holdout Relativists that still cling to some older notions that are Anti-Aether.

Hi Dave, I really think more of your GR knowledge - you must surely be joking ... :^)

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2590
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Hi Jorrie,

Not sure what you meant. Do you or don't you subscribe to an Aether, which by definition is a connected Quantum Foundation upon which our Reality is built? I always assumed you did, as you never challenge many of my statements, such as: Clocks dilate by their relative velocity ratio of Light Speed. How can Matter know how fast it is going in order to dilate the correct amount? Matter doesn't care how fast other objects are moving in order for it to Dilate.

Ligo cinched it because gravity waves are a compression wave of the underlying foundation. I make a negative remark about holdouts due to the number of debates I've faced against (so-called) Relativists who still refuse to accept a bottom foundation for Reality. They get real angry when I talk about an Aether. Why?

SR is fun stuff but essentially useless without a foundation. Einstein realized this and came up with GR using an Aether he called Space-Time for a foundation. GR is an Aether Theory. It actually works up to a limit. I believe the limitations can be resolved if Science were to recognize that the fundamental Planck Length is variable in Scale. If Space-Time can be compressed under Gravity, then Scale is reduced and the spatial volume inside a Black Hole is much greater than the apparent volume as seen from a distance. If true, then normal Matter Physics can be applied without trying to squash a Star Mass into a Marble sized object.

I told Don Lincoln on my first post here: You would see the Star inside a Black Hole as you approached it. It would get bigger and bigger on approach. Not just because you are getting closer.. but because you are becoming smaller and smaller as the Planck Scale reduces in local size.

He called me a wacko (more or less) lol. But Non-Euclidean Space-Time Geometry seems to support this concept. Space-Time Scale has no restriction except it be a local gradient.. no sharp edges...lol.

Best regards,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

I'm not sure how some have interpreted my take on this precisely. "Relativity" is true with a fixed background. It appears that Einstein was influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiment to evade an explanation that used any aether as at all. Perhaps he was just trying to think of an alternative way to explain his idea without having to use it by a different perspective.

What I am certain is in error though is that it treats the explanation biased to the perspective of the individual with the assumption that there is a fixed speed when in order for it to be 'fixed', even in relative frames, some "universal" rule about reality must impose itself to each frame. But, and I believe this may be what some here are trying to point out in their own way, that if true, some 'godlike' essence would have to individually "know" where your frame is and impose that 'fixed' relative rate to remain constant. That would be much more effort than if time and space were founded on some relatively COMMON root.

That 'root' would be a fixed background, even if we may not be able to directly measure what that is. I believe that even Einstein, if he were alive today, would likely agree. The novelty of his time may have prevented him the ideal environment to find a better means to find a language that might communicate this as we do today being used to his thinking more normally throughout the population.

In a way, Einstein's relativity is more comparable to a Zeno formulation of the paradox of walking towards a wall. In that, Zeno asks that given some distance to a wall, if one should consider getting halfway, of the remaining distance to the wall, there is another point halfway that one must get to before getting to the wall. Because reaching each point always assures that there is another halfway point infinitely smaller to cross, one must require an infinite points to cross to get to the wall.

To Zeno, while it is understood that one would get to some real point like the wall in a given time, the reality that we are able to meet that wall is simply due to the fact that there still IS space beyond that point. But IF that point that point IS a real limit (like a fixed background), then we'd actually only approach it infinitely because there is no actual common place where the dimensions of time and space share IN the exact SAME dimension.

I may be placing ideas in Zeno that may not be accurate in interpretation. But my own interpretation of what I assume is his with charity stands to reason: If time and space are in 'parallel', when walking toward a wall, crashing INTO the wall means that space has become zero but time continues, and why you'd feel the rapid deceleration when you hit the wall at some constant speed.

The same goes with the Big Bang but reverses the role of space and time. If you treat the time at the singularity as a 'wall' in time, going backwards to 'hit' that point in time, parallel to space, makes time end but space instantly require deceleration as it tries to 'remain' while time stops.

While many understand or treat time as a perpendicular dimension when they think of it, they actually still treat it as though it were parallel because 'speed' is considered to be a space (distance) that is directly proportional to the time. Since both scenarios are equally problematic, if you treat time as relative permanently with space such that there is NO original 'background' wall or limit, then how can you simultaneously use this to support the idea that time acts as a wall with regards to a singularity with space having a bang in acceleration?

That is, either BOTH time AND space 'accelerate' from such a wall, forward or backwards in time, OR they are BOTH permanently 'relative' without a wall, like Zeno's paradox. Thus relativity cannot logically justify both a fixed speed where space AND time are in sync to their proportionality in the case of an UNFIXED background in space making it 'infinite' to hit some aether wall but contradictory wise hit a wall based on time alone!

Both can have a 'wall' or limit if BOTH the distance AND time move proportionately as an acceleration of BOTH in sync only. Their 'wall' would be relatively REAL but never met as they APPROACH to it where both time AND space accelerate OR decelerate in sync.

Thus a singularity cannot actually be a 'real' point that one could meet any more than a fixed background, even though they both 'appear' equally rational.

This happens to be one of my logical arguments against the Big Bang. The point can appear 'real' because both time AND space expand or shrink together. For our local background, this is true too. A 'wall' can be real but just may only be something we can 'approach' but never meet in time nor space.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Scott Mayers » November 11th, 2016, 8:05 am wrote:I'm not sure how some have interpreted my take on this precisely. "Relativity" is true with a fixed background. It appears that Einstein was influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiment to evade an explanation that used any aether as at all. Perhaps he was just trying to think of an alternative way to explain his idea without having to use it by a different perspective.
Einstein took for granted that the inertial frame principle was right, and he was wrong. Light cannot move like massive bodies because it has no mass, so if an inertial frame moves, light doesn't follow the path a ball does. So if you mean that the inertial frame principle is right, I'm afraid we won't stay friends for long! :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » November 11th, 2016, 10:27 am wrote:
Scott Mayers » November 11th, 2016, 8:05 am wrote:I'm not sure how some have interpreted my take on this precisely. "Relativity" is true with a fixed background. It appears that Einstein was influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiment to evade an explanation that used any aether as at all. Perhaps he was just trying to think of an alternative way to explain his idea without having to use it by a different perspective.
Einstein took for granted that the inertial frame principle was right, and he was wrong. Light cannot move like massive bodies because it has no mass, so if an inertial frame moves, light doesn't follow the path a ball does. So if you mean that the inertial frame principle is right, I'm afraid we won't stay friends for long! :0)

What do you think IS an inertial frame?
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Hi Dave, you must have misinterpreted my statements before. I have surely challenged your "relative to light's frame" concept.

Dave_Oblad » 11 Nov 2016, 12:50 wrote:Hi Jorrie,

Not sure what you meant. Do you or don't you subscribe to an Aether, which by definition is a connected Quantum Foundation upon which our Reality is built? I always assumed you did, as you never challenge many of my statements, such as: Clocks dilate by their relative velocity ratio of Light Speed. How can Matter know how fast it is going in order to dilate the correct amount? Matter doesn't care how fast other objects are moving in order for it to Dilate.

The closest that I ever came to "subscribing" to an "aether" was my metaphorical use of the words "new or private ether" in my one and only post under Metaphysics & Epistemology, titled The 'Metaphysics' of Relativistic Doppler Shift.

Please check and comment there (if you want), becasue I do not want to be dragged into this mess of 3 or 4 private theories discussed in one thread. It will however be interesting to see which one, if any, emerges as the winner out of the debate.

Regards, Jorrie

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2590
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Scott Mayers » November 11th, 2016, 5:08 pm wrote:What do you think IS an inertial frame?
Here is the definition from wiki:
"In classical physics and special relativity, an inertial frame of reference (also inertial reference frame or inertial frame, Galilean reference frame or inertial space) is a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner."

The problem with that principle is that light is considered to follow the same path as a ball in a moving vehicle for example. Einstein took it for granted when he imagined SR. It is simply not true that light travels directly between the two mirrors of the light clock mind experiment. A ball would do so but not light. Light cannot travel sideways to its motion otherwise it would not travel the way Einstein thought it did, namely independently from its source or to its observer. I had a problem to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment until I imagined lately that reflexion on moving mirrors might change the direction of the reflected beam, and then I discovered that Paul Marmet had already made the calculations. If you already suspect that SR is wrong, then have a look at his explanations and push the "LIKE" button! :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

An "inertial frame", even by that definition, is a way to say that IN the special case of being in some frame which moves in some fixed constant rate with respect to all others external to that frame.

If one assigns Earth as a local 'zero' where an object sitting on the ground appears not to move, we pretend that it does not move and then any relative frame FROM that zero is one which has a constant 'speed' relative to that zero.

So if you are moving in a car a 50 km/h, it ignores accelerating up to that point OR to it decelerating back to zero. It only treats the time when the car is exactly moving AT one fixed speed relative to 0 km/h. THAT is an "inertial frame". The "inertial" was a word derived to mean anything that RESISTS CHANGE. ("In-" = without, "-ert(ness)" = change) [I'm guessing our word "Earth" is from the same source as "ert" in the English roots]

I agree with Relativity. I think the explanation needs tweaking though.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

You and Burt are afraid to loose your soul if you take a too long glance at Paul Marmet's paper on Michelson-Morley. The reference frame principle contradicts the way light is supposed to travel wrt massive bodies in SR. No surprise you get paradoxes in your theory if the two main premises are contradictory. Light can't keep its direction in a moving car as if it was a ball, and loose its direction as if it had no mass once it hops outside of the car. If reflexion on moving mirrors works the way Marmet and me think it works, it's going to be the end of the world with no redemption for these religious relativists. :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » November 13th, 2016, 9:31 am wrote:You and Burt are afraid to loose your soul if you take a too long glance at Paul Marmet's paper on Michelson-Morley. The reference frame principle contradicts the way light is supposed to travel wrt massive bodies in SR. No surprise you get paradoxes in your theory if the two main premises are contradictory. Light can't keep its direction in a moving car as if it was a ball, and loose its direction as if it had no mass once it hops outside of the car. If reflexion on moving mirrors works the way Marmet and me think it works, it's going to be the end of the world with no redemption for these religious relativists. :0)

I don't even know what you are saying. But look at this post of mine on "Can two objects touch.." to see an example of HOW in a frame, things change: http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=31793&p=308817#p308817

It shows a reference inertial "closed" frame that shows how information transfers at point of contact between two 'masses'. At the last part, the object is accelerated with a "+1" force of the left particle to the right. Light needs to be redressed to its actual nature though. But relativity is still true. The explanation given for Einstein's relativity though is incomplete. I 'complete' it by treating EACH point in space as having identical ENERGY. The difference between mass and space is to 'direction' only.

Matter is cyclic information, energy is measured as the exchange of mass and space to mass again. But the information exchange is technically 'not' energy, just the exchange of the data by direction. Inertia is then just still the means of something to persist in whatever state or state of action unless something external causes it to change.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

http://www.imabox.fr/a1/1330012244GUqjJs19.swf (The animation is no more available at that address, so I'll find a new one.... Oups, I can't find the original, so I have to make a new one. Meanwhile, try to imagine two atoms making steps one behind the other, but not at the same time.)

The former animation "showed" two atoms following each other while executing identical but time shifted steps. Actually, what we see is a molecule on inertial motion. It is the bonding energy that induces the steps: as soon as one of the two atoms starts to move, for example during a collision, the energy that it emits towards the other atom changes and that change transmits later to the other atom. For example, if we consider that it is light that makes the bonding, the one which is emitted during the atom moves suffers doppler effect, and this variation transmits to the other atom later on. But since the energy perceived by this other atom changes, it moves so that it doesn't change: if it begins to perceive redshift, thus if the incoming energy gets less important, it moves towards the other atom, and if it begins to perceive blueshift, thus if the incoming energy gets more important, it moves away from the other atom, what induces the steps of my animation as soon as one of them moves. This way, the bonding energy stays the same despite their motions, motions which I repeat justify the inertial motion of their molecule. The frequency of the steps do not change since the energy mut not change, but their length can: the longer they get, the faster the molecule moves, and vice-versa. If we try to move one of them, it will immediately resist to do so because its bonding energy will immediately increase, thus justifying its mass.

That mechanism explains both facets of inertia: speed and resisting to change speed. It also explains the elasticity you are proposing in the thread about the touching objects. Unfortunately though, the way the steps are executed contradicts the relativeness of doppler effect. Join the anti-relativist club Scott! Want a member card?
Last edited by Inchworm on November 13th, 2016, 1:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

I can't get to that link. Can you copy and then upload as an attachment inline? (And I'm IN Canada too!)

I don't understand how though you even relate light by the latter quantum mechanics to relativity. Bonding is NOT what special nor general relativity discusses. That is, it doesn't attempt to explain HOW the transfers occur, only that they do. So I'll wait to see if you at least can insert your file. (the .swf is Adobe and needs Shockplayer which is being replaced by the HTML5 to prevent viruses that some exploit on distinct software. I can run it if you attach it for download.)
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

I edited my former post. I too realized that the animation was no more available, so I have to make a new one because I can't find it on my computer. While reading the explanations, try to imagine two atoms making steps one behind the other, but not at the same time, exactly like the two ends of an inchworm.

Of course it is not the way quantum mechanics works, so what, mainstream is already loosing the SR game anyway.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » November 13th, 2016, 12:31 pm wrote:I edited my former post. I too realized that the animation was no more available, so I have to make a new one because I can't find it on my computer. While reading the explanations, try to imagine two atoms making steps one behind the other, but not at the same time, exactly like the two ends of an inchworm.

Of course it is not the way quantum mechanics works, so what, mainstream is already loosing the SR game anyway.

You might be intuiting it similar but with a different route of explanation. However, Einstein began his SR by trying to assume no aether. It only works by making 'time' as a flexible concept instead, relative to externally different places that move in some constant way relative to that place. In his general theory, he had to extend this to acceleration. But then he had to treat the time as a function of the curvature of space and made SPACE be the factor that 'alters' WITH time being treated AS an extended dimension.

Where I think it is 'incomplete' is that the assumption that you couldn't measure the difference between acceleration in a line and one to the center of gravity. He still treated all space as independent from a background though.

What I think you COULD do to determine this is to find a way to measure the 'destruction' rate of matter in these different frames. The 'twin example' says that if one sped away at the speed of light for a billion years and came back, the twin moving would not AGE and the one at home would be long dead. I think what would happen is that the twin sped up to even just under the speed of light would die FAST by cosmic radiation or the translation of the information of his matter's composition being translated in the direction of motion. As such, the two cancel each other out.

One experiment they did, for instance, was to measure two clocks, one on top of a tower and one at the bottom. The clock at the bottom ran slower. It thus treated the clock at the top as aging 'faster'. The CANCELLATION though that wasn't measured is that because the top of the tower moves through a larger ARC than the bottom, the rate of the clock up high ages 'slower' in the direction of the larger arc it is sweeping through. To measure this would require the clock's atomic structures to be measured to determine 'deterioration'. The clock on the top will 'age' by destruction through MORE radiation given that it travels faster in the higher atmosphere. The lower clock lacks as much deterioration because the extra 'gravity' is due to a larger barrier of matter that prevents its deterioration in the same way.

Either way, the general theory of relativity is 'true' but not complete without reverting back to an aetherial background.

[If you want to follow my argument from scratch, I'm beginning in the logic section with, "How many 'truths are there?..." To follow my theory requires beginning with the logic first.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Here is the animation.

Scott wrote:Einstein began his SR by trying to assume no aether. It only works by making 'time' as a flexible concept instead, relative to externally different places that move in some constant way relative to that place.
Einstein's SR is based on two contradictory premises: the inertial frame principle and the speed of light. It is to those two things that we must apply our logic first. Light cannot change its properties whether it is exchanged between two bodies that are in the same inertial frame or whether these two bodies are in two different inertial frames, and that is precisely what those two premises mean. Have a look at my animation and try to imagine the doppler effect produced by the two atoms: blueshift by the left one and redshift by the right one. Now try to imagine that there would be no doppler effect for the atoms because they would precisely be making their steps to avoid it. Do you think Einstein could have imagined that using his relative doppler effect? Impossible, because with the relativity principle, he couldn't tell which atom was moving. He was looking at atoms from his own viewpoint, I'm using the atoms' one.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » 13 Nov 2016, 23:21 wrote:Einstein's SR is based on two contradictory premises: the inertial frame principle and the speed of light. It is to those two things that we must apply our logic first.

It does not help if you apply flawed logic, or good logic based on misunderstanding of any one of the principles.
What you seem to miss is that every inertial frame is defined so that light is observed in that frame to propagate at the same speed in all directions. So how can there be a contradiction?

I'm sure that this underlies most of your issues with the real physics of SR. Maybe your issue is really just philosophical, but in that case you should stay away from the physics of it.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2590
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

One of the premise is about the speed of light in a vacuum being the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source, and the other one is about the laws of physics being invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial systems (wiki). One of these laws stipulates that light has no mass, so that it cannot add or subtract the speed of the bodies to its own speed like a ball does when thrown inside a train in motion. Unfortunately, that second premise also means that inertial motion is like nothing, so that contrary to the former law, light can be considered to move like a ball in a moving train. I prefer to consider that the inertial frame principle is wrong than to consider that light has mass. Who decided that the inertial frame principle was right? Einstein? Did he make a thorough analysis of that principle before developing SR?

The closer wiki gets to explain the way light travels inside an inertial frame is this: "In practical terms, the equivalence of inertial reference frames means that scientists within a box moving uniformly cannot determine their absolute velocity by any experiment (otherwise the differences would set up an absolute standard reference frame)". This is precisely Galileo's definition applied to light without batting an eyelid. I read that Einstein said he did not know about the Michelson-Morley experiment before elaborating SR. If it is true, he simply took a conscious risk, and once he knew, he probably did not take the time to analyze the experiment because he already thought that way, so this time, he wasn't careful enough, which is the only way to be if you like to take risks.

It is easy for me to see that the reference frame principle is wrong, but I know it was not easy for him: contrary to what people think, you can't defend and attack your theory in the same time, you have to switch ideas in between, and it takes time. If you don't have time or if your theory is admitted before you have time, then you might never think to attack it. This is what happened to SR, GR was accepted before SR was attacked. I know that light cannot travel like a ball in any circumstances because I had time to think of it, and now I think I discovered why the analysis of the only experiment that proved it could was oversimplified: it did not account for the reflexion of waves on moving reflectors. You may think I'm illogical, but unless you find a way to prove that reflexion on a moving beam splitter does not change the reflexion angle of the reflected beam, to me, it's your logic that is based on misunderstanding of the principles.

You say you do not want to lose your time to examine Marmet's calculations, but contrary to Einstein, you do have time to do so. Can you feel how hard it is to attack our own ideas even if we have time?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

I don't know the paper you are talking about Paul Marmet, for one. But this is still irrelevant. I think you share actually a concern that is about INTERPRETATION, NOT the actual means of which "relativity" works.

The first error seems possibly just about HOW some explained it in books, the media, and even possibly by Einstein himself , given the fact that these involve words which when NOVEL, are harder to initially explain when vocabulary doesn't exist for it yet.

First, I think you are interpreting the problem about "light sources". This is what frustrated me when I see even qualified scientists explain this in various media (whether popular television, books, or even textbooks that we expect to be better at explaining with depth.)

So if you first come across how some explain it, the explanation may be what is wrong.

A "reference frame" is like being in some container of which we cannot actually concern ourselves with the outside. But this is not made clear or is actually falsely assumed by even those explaining. So, first, think of us being in some container with NO windows. Then the "SOURCE" of light we are measuring MUST be IN that box with us!

Because the way we create light for an experiment is as much RELATIVE to us in that frame, any physics creating that light operate at the same 'rate' as we do. This is at least the Galilean relativity part. The extension to light is just about asserting that it has a fixed speed AND that no thing can exceed that speed.

It could be an 'error' that light itself is the representative speed. But then just think of 'c' as that fixed speed to which light may be possibly just UNDER that speed.

The "frame" is 'inertial' is you ignore GRAVITY or ACCELERATION. So if you want to be more accurate to understanding the theory, pretend we are out in space and so would float in this box as an astronaut might. It may be impossible to actually GET to such a perfect state so it is IDEAL, not necessarily real.

If the box is moving at some constant rate in ONE direction, we'd still float. If it goes OFF that one direction, we consider that an acceleration because it is a change of direction and would make us 'slow' down in the linear direction we were already going.

Do you so far understand this set-up? The frame is our container such that we are going in one 'velocity' (directed linear travel at least from some imaginary fixed background. That background exists because if the container we were in were to hit something from outside, we'd 'feel' the change by accelerating toward the side of contact.

That is ANOTHER conflict in explanation that I am troubled with. If there is no actual background, we would not be able to even notice acceleration in such a case.

So IGNORE that reasoning in its explanation because it conflicts with the concept that some interpret the background to mean "the aether", as I personally have.

Then the theory of SR is asserting that if one turns on a devise that creates light in that box, it would go at one FIXED speed. This makes sense because the phenomena of light is actually something we understand BY its movement in a constant pattern (waves). The 'relativity' part is that if we imagine another box outside of us traveling parallel but at some different constant rate to us, they too would measure things the same BY EXPERIMENT in their own box.

BUT, those frames that are moving 'slower' with respect to the background as we are, if we compared each of ourselves from some 'godlike' perspective, they'd notice that we would appear to be moving in slow(er) motion compared to the other one and vice versa. This you can think of as the way the slower moving container is going through less space in time as we are. As such we 'slow' down only because we are also adding on the velocity to that background. All our atoms in a faster frame have electrons that cycle around slower but ONLY relative to itself. To the background of space, the electrons are still cycling at the same rate as those in the slower frame. But because we are also going FASTER, comparing the two of those frames, even each atom including what it could 'create', like light, is 'subtracted' by the information of us going through that background.

I completely agree that this is NOT the way most scientists actually interpret this and WHY I think those EXPLANATIONS are in error. For instance, most falsely think that the atoms in each different frame are fixed without some background. But this would mean that to those moving faster, their electrons would be cycling faster, not slower.

Do you follow and agree? Do you agree that it may be merely about the error in explanation that leaves certain things out? Perhaps because the explanation is wrong, you might treat this changed explanation a novel theory and I also understand this too. That is why I don't think a novel experiment is often necessary but a reinvestigation into interpretation only.

What IS wrong about Einstein's SR is the assumption that it doesn't USE the aether it claims it is not. But this may be about their confusion of WHAT different people interpreted of that word.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm,

I found a book I'm reading on Paul Marmet about absurdities in modern physics. It looks promising and seems to share some similar ideas. I'll have to get back to you on him after I read.

Scott.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Here is Marmet's paper about Michelson-Morley.

SM wrote:A "reference frame" is like being in some container of which we cannot actually concern ourselves with the outside. But this is not made clear or is actually falsely assumed by even those explaining. So, first, think of us being in some container with NO windows. Then the "SOURCE" of light we are measuring MUST be IN that box with us!
What if the whole universe was in a box? Would it change anything to the idea that light doesn't move like a ball in that box? If you walk side by side with a friend in that box while exchanging a ball, will it follow the path a photon would follow?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016