## 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?

Inchworm » November 14th, 2016, 3:58 pm wrote: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?

I already agree there was a problem that Marmet seems to notice. I intepret Relativity in err based on asserting it doesn't use a background (aether) when it must (or be contradictory). Thus, like Marmet, I believe there is a problem about interpretations, something to the other intro of his works clearly said too.

What they should have done was to GO BACK for each new idea they think is unique and in contrast, not BUILD on those regardless of errors. It puts the onus on us to 'read into' what others are thinking.

I definitely agree that the Michelson Morley experiment is invalid as to prove that a background DOES or DOESN'T exist. And it makes Einstein's interpretation also merely an explanation given that what is implicit in Newton only adds how a fixed speed works into the theory.

If the whole universe was in a box? Light speed is FIXED to such a reality. But the 'frame' idea is also valid. It is just based on the THINGS MEASURING light IN THAT FRAME. Because the things measuring light IN that box also slow down when moving, the APPEARANCE of the phenomena they measure as light still will read the same as to the universe as a whole. This is because time AND distance measures are FIXED, and why the "no aether" assumption is false. Just because you can't measure changes does NOT mean the LOGIC doesn't still prove it. They are just preferring to describe reality 'subjective' to the measurer.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

I'll use the diagram examples I used in the thread about contact to illustrate the reality of RELATIVITY but USING a fixed background.

Assume a frame is defined by "[]". We can then have one frame inside a greater one as the red in the black, as some locally greater part.

[xxx[xxx]xxx]

IF we say that inner 'frame' is IN the "same inertial frame", then given that each line below represents some constant time, we have:

[xxx[xxx]xxx]
[xxx[xxx]xxx]
[xxx[xxx]xxx]
[xxx[xxx]xxx]

where the 'inertia' of the internal frame is zero with the background. In this way, we could technically move the braces we use arbitrarily if they only refer to an ideal frame and not an actual container.

If we want to show that the internal frame is moving with respect to the background, we can do this, using each line as equal measures of time:

[xxx[xxx]xxx]
[xxxx[xxx]xx]
[xxxxx[xxx]x]
[xxxxxx[xxx]]

Let us extend this to another frame inside that moving frame as:

[xxx[xxxx]xxx]
[xxxx[xxxx]xx]
[xxxxx[xxxx]x]
[xxxxxx[xxxx]]

Ignore that I'm adding 'x's. These 'x's will represent space relative to the background. As you can so far see, we have the "Galilean" Relativity so far. The internal [x] is actually moving twice the 'speed' of the background x's.

"Special Relativity" can also begin to be seen in the above. If we pretend that the INNER [x], being twice the speed of the background, can represent a maximum speed, then the moving inner [x] is moving AT that speed.

From the background frame, the speed is 2x per time. To the INNER frame, you might think it is only 1x, right?

But if ALL things, included in the frame is limited to the background, then the PERSPECTIVE of the observer IN the frame would require to be slowed down to 1/2 (as the 'speed' of the frame shows moving one frame to the right per time. So each 'x' in the internal frame acts as TWO x's by the perspective of that inner observer.

That is, pretending that the background 'x' is the same 'size' as an observing 'x' in the second frame, requires that x to shrink by half, OR the person would be spread between two units of space.

So let's 1/2 the inner framed x's.

[xxx[xxxx]xxx]
[xxxx[xxxx]xx]
[xxxxx[xxxx]x]
[xxxxxx[xxxx]]

This is why relativity also must 'shrink' some factor. Here though, this shrinks the whole size, not just the part in the direction of the movement. But this gives you the idea.

NOW, because we lost the complete length of the background, obviously something is incomplete. This is the reason we need general relativity. The size of a moving object must accelerate and so would actually make the left side of the inner frame 'squish' before the right side. So the inner frame's left side would compress first as it begins to move right while the actual background stays the same. The 'inner frame' x's would be 'squished' and the '[x]' would go FASTER to the right to from the outside and SLOWER to the left if it reflected back. The actual reality INSIDE would have the opposite case. The object going to the right is 'slower' and would come back 'fast'.

But this is how ALL the physics in that frame still function without knowing the difference. But it requires the vertical parts to be LONGER. So the 'x's In the moving frame are squashed in the direction of movement and stretched in the perpendicular direction [by Einstein's GR]

Remember though that the bias of it accelerating by being started from the left should make these inner 'x's more squashed on the left than to the right. I can't draw all of this using these characters here though. If you follow this much, let me know. I can use some other means to draw and upload with more accuracy.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

P.S. the same diagram I used on the "Can two objects touch..." shows how the information compresses then bounces back that can add value to the above.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Hi Scott,

I used a similar explanation to show how Gravity works, using Non-Linear spacing of Particles.
http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=31329#p304333

Basically, Gravity is not a pulling force. A Gravitational Field creates the same Geometry as Matter has when Accelerating. When Matter has this internal non-linear Geometry, it must Accelerate towards the Denser Field. That's Gravity in a simplified nutshell.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Dave_Oblad
Resident Member

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

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Dave_Oblad » November 14th, 2016, 6:20 pm wrote:Hi Scott,

I used a similar explanation to show how Gravity works, using Non-Linear spacing of Particles.
http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=31329#p304333

Basically, Gravity is not a pulling force. A Gravitational Field creates the same Geometry as Matter has when Accelerating. When Matter has this internal non-linear Geometry, it must Accelerate towards the Denser Field. That's Gravity in a simplified nutshell.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Similarly, I like how Relativity at least assumed space as 'warping' as this works by perspective. But I DO interpret gravity as a 'push' as I believe to properly interpret GR in a similar way. But his 'cause' is that space itself is warped. It can also be from external 'pushes' from all different directions. I definitely do not agree with the 'pull' interpretations. I'm also disappointed in the use of 'gravitons' as a means to explain. It does so with too much complexity. I'll look at your link now.

Scott.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inch, you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems to me that you are a lone voice around here.

And the burden to prove your point is on you, not on others to disprove it. We are way past the phase where SR needs any prove. It just needs some understanding - like what exactly is an inertial reference frame. And that in an inertial frame (or box), a ball and a photon move identically, just at different speeds. Photons at c and balls at any speed less than c.

If you emit a photon in a box, you can measure its speed in the box and it will be c, irrespective of direction. If you emit a massive particle at 0.999999c, it will be moving at a constant 0.999999c, irrespective of direction. If such a photon escapes from your box and enters another box that is moving relative to the first, an observer there will also measure that photon as moving at c in his box. Why? Because he has set up his box's coordinates and clocks using light generated in his box. But the sync between his clocks differs from the clocks syncs in box 1 (following the inertial frame principle).

If the $v=$0.999999c ball escapes from box 1 and enters box 2, the observer will now find a particle with a slightly different speed in his box, given by SR's addition of speed rule: $(v+v_r)/(1+v v_r/c^2)$, where $v_r$ is the relative speed between the boxes. For a positive relative speed of 0.2c, his observation would be 0.999999333c, as you can check. Naturally, for a photon, his answer would be c, as we can also check, using the same formula. So, light is not treated differently.

Experiments equivalent to this (in the sense of testing this principle) have been been done many times in accelerators around the world. In fact if this principle was wrong, the accelerators would not work as they do. And neither would your GPS.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2589
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

The decisive experiment for accepting the premises of SR was Michelson-Morley's. If that demonstration was over simplified, then the inertial frame principle might not apply to light. Marmet has shown that if light does not travel like a ball in an interferometer, then the M-M experiment doesn't need relativity to explain the null result. To me, this exercise means that any experiment with light traveling in closed circuit on earth do not need relativity to be explained. Of course, the idea that light is not reflected at 90 degree when the mirror is moving needs to be proven experimentally. We could prove it for water waves because we can see the light they emit, but if we were restricted to the perception of water waves to prove it, we would be in the same situation as in the M-M experiment, we would always get a null result. Meanwhile, if the Huygens-Fresnel principle explains reflection, I don't see why it would suddenly be forbidden to use it when the mirror is moving.

To me, my small steps and the M-M experiment simply mean that it is wrt light that things are moving, not wrt the other things. Unfortunately, they also mean that it is wrt light that things are resisting to move, and that they cannot move without having previously resisted to do so. Our ideas may be only opinions, but still, they resist to change the same way things do. Is it wrt to people or wrt to their ideas that we resit to change our own ideas?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Following my analysis of the light clock mind experiment, here is my analysis of Einstein's space elevator.

Thanks to those who mix SR and GR while answering me, I had a new idea about the way light moves in an accelerated reference frame. In Einstein's elevator, we see light following a curved trajectory, but to show that the motion of light is independent from the motion of bodies, let's only follow a one photon trajectory. Once the photon would be emitted perpendicularly to the acceleration, it would go on straight line towards the other side of the elevator, while the source would accelerate away from that line. To intercept that photon, the detector should thus have been put lower than the source, but the photon would this time be traveling perpendicularly to the direction of the detector at the moment of detection, thus causing aberration. Then as with my inertial frame analysis, if the acceleration was constant, the photon would appear as if it would come from the actual position of the source. This way, we could not imagine that it has followed a curved path or that it has been influenced by the elevator's acceleration, what invalidates Einstein's hypothesis from which gravitational acceleration and inertial acceleration are considered equivalent.

This time, and contrary to the light clock mind experiment, Einstein accounts for the direction of light, but not for the aberration phenomenon, and it seems that nobody questioned him about that. Marmet just moved in his grave, he probably did not think about that either, but wait..., he just put his thumb up. :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

If you don't mind, I would suggest to restart at the beginning which would be considering the initial problem:

Is inertia correlated to mass?
Maybe it will give you additional ideas.

1)Inertia is the resistance of an object to change its motion (speed, direction or state of rest).

a)"state of rest" never apply to a particle because it cannot exist absolutely; it's always an interpretation related to another particle that as more speed or different direction. So a particle described "at rest", as always "speed" anyway. Absolute "rest" is not possible.
b)"resisting direction" is irrelevant; because photon changes direction when going through a space-time deformation without being "applied" anything, but only by being given "distorted" informations regarding the direction to take. Photon do not "resist" to change direction in deformed space-time; they travel "straight ahead" as given by surrounding informations.

So, finally, the only "resistance" we can talk about is the resistance to change speed.

2)A particle without mass never changes its speed. Which suggest that inertia is probably related to mass.

The next consideration, regarding "speed", is to compare mass particles with "non-massive" particles. The difference is found only in the fact that mass particles always have less speed than "non-mass" particles.

We said earlier, that "absolute rest" is impossible in the universe. So everything in the universe has "speed". And, normally, the importance (quantity) of (rest) mass is what would decide how much speed a fundamental particle has (but a particle can gain or loose speed by "brushing" near other particles; so impossible to verify this assumption).

3)"Speed" is attributed to a "movement"; nothing else.

Mass has been part of the universe since (almost) its beginning; but "movement" as been present in the universe since its very beginning; this initial movement was and still is: "expansion". For exemple, the "expansion" of a light wave is a "movement" intrinsic to that light wave. Expansion is a movement intrinsic to the universe.

We know that you can never add enough energy to a massive particle in order to give it "light speed". In fact, the only way to succeed bringing a particle to "light speed" is not to give it energy, but "simply" (sic) eliminate its mass. Which confirms that mass is an active opposition to "speed".

"Opposing" speed is to partially, completely block a "movement" or even push back (give negative speed). So the "mass" of a particle is what, at least, partially blocks its "movement".

If we take, for example, a proton which is "massive". 99% of its mass is composed of its "inner movement" and 1% is the mass of its three quarks. We can guess that this last 1% "mass" is composed by the "inner movement" (energy/fluctuation) of quarks. So, as we can see, mass is "movement" just as "expansion" is movement. The next question is: What could be the difference between those two "movements" that gives the result of one "opposing" the other?

The only possible answer is: They "move" in opposite "directions". And we observe it easily: Expansion's direction is toward "everywhere" (all directions) and mass direction is toward "one single point" (one single direction).

Now, if the expansion of our Euclidian universe (made of unidimensional points, says Euclid) is toward all directions, and mass direction is toward one single point (which gets its "movement" slowed down or even blocked, depending of the mass-energy involved), the portion of the universe (space-time) will be "deformed" around the point "center of gravity" that is "delayed" in his "expansion".

As a metter of fact, we observe that, the more you add "mass-energy" to a center of gravity, the more space-time his deformed. Adding enough "mass energy" (counter-expansion energy) can even push a point, back in space and time, enough to creates a "black hole". Which means to push back, in space-time, the point "center of gravity" to its original "singularity" .

So; yes inertia is correlated to mass, is my opinion.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 587
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Welcome aboard Andrex. Let's test how strong is your belief that inertia is correlated to mass. :0)

Here is a small animation I made of how I think inertia's mechanism works:

It shows two atoms working in common to execute the speed and the direction an acceleration has given to them. They are part of the same molecule, but since the energy of their bonding cannot change, and since the information from a change in energy cannot travel instantly between them, they move by steps to stay at the same apparent energy level. Now, suppose they are at rest because they did not suffer any acceleration yet, if we tried to accelerate one of them, it would automatically resist to move because such a move would automatically change its energy level. Nevertheless, if we push hard enough to move it, his move would automatically produce the steps that you see, because it would take time for the information to reach the other atom and vice-versa.

A resistance to an acceleration is what we call mass, and in this case, it would correspond to the loss of mass due to the bonding, but if we consider that the atoms are made of smaller particles that execute the same steps to stay at the right energy level, and that energy increases while distance reduces, then with smaller and smaller particles that execute the same kind of steps, we get the total mass of an atom. Two principles in one mechanism, motion and mass reunited.

You like? :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

I'll have to re-read it a few times :-) But yes I like.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 587
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Like I said I like but it's because of of the funny way the second particle tries to reach the first one.

I wondered which information could bring this kind of "event". And it finally came to me.

You say:
but since the energy of their bonding cannot change, and since the information from a change in energy cannot travel instantly between them,

The two underlined parts comes from the idea that the bonding is a "force". If there was no bonding involved but simply "direction informations" for self-propelled atoms, both atoms, at the same energy level, would move at the same speed; just like a star follow another star when at the same distance of the center of a galaxy (they have to have the same speed to be where they are).

So the question is: Are atoms, inside a molecule, moving the way you describe it? If not, change your idea on the "bond" involved.

if we tried to accelerate one of them, it would automatically resist to move because such a move would automatically change its energy level.

Funny! To accelerate one of them, you have to add energy; so you automatically change its energy level and it will not "resist" at all; it will simply change "place". Further more the other atom won't say a word about it. It might not be the case of the molecule though.

A resistance to an acceleration is what we call mass, and in this case, it would correspond to the loss of mass due to the bonding,

Diminishing mass has the same result as adding energy; but is not the same "event". I agree on the result though.

motion and mass reunited.

If by mass you mean "mas-energy" and not "quantity of matter", I agree since mass-energy is "motion" just as kenetic energy is "motion". Like Einstein said: There's only two kinds of energy in the universe: kinetic energy and mass-energy.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 587
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Hi Andrex,

The small steps between the atoms produce and maintain the inertial motion of the molecule, and they resist to change their length and their frequency when hitting another molecule, so that single mechanism accounts for both kinetic and mass energy.

Diminishing mass has the same result as adding energy; but is not the same "event". I agree on the result though.
In the case of the steps, the energy of a bonding between two particles comes from the energy that has escaped from the bonding between their respective components. Such a bonding produces a total loss of mass because, for the same energy, the distance between the particles is a lot more important than the distance between the components, so that the same energy produces less total resistance when we accelerate a molecule that when we accelerate two atoms separately.

Funny! To accelerate one of them, you have to add energy; so you automatically change its energy level and it will not "resist" at all; it will simply change "place". Further more the other atom won't say a word about it. It might not be the case of the molecule though.
To accelerate a step means to increase the distance it already travels, because its frequency cannot change. When you do that, it is no more synchronized with the incoming energy from the other atom, so it tries to get back where it was each time it sees the energy change. I prefer to use light to describe that part of the mechanism. With light, the steps can be synchronized with waves, and when we try to move an atom, it immediately produces doppler effect, so the atom tries to get back where it was, or refuses to move, as you wish. One way or another, that resistance represents mass, and if we imagine that every bonded components resist a lot more because light is a lot more intense between them, then we can understand that in the end, the total mass of the atom will be accounted for. With the steps, motion is executed by the steps from the tiniest components first, which lose a bit of light to the profit of the bonding between the larger particles they are part of, and so on. Each step that you see on my animation is thus constantly justified by the billions of steps between the atoms' components, and so on too.

If there was no bonding involved but simply "direction informations" for self-propelled atoms, both atoms, at the same energy level, would move at the same speed; just like a star follow another star when at the same distance of the center of a galaxy (they have to have the same speed to be where they are).
This way, we need the Higgs to explain the resistance, and the Higgs cannot explain motion. I prefer a theory that explains both at a time, don't you? With the steps, inertia is finally explained.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

This way, we need the Higgs to explain the resistance, and the Higgs cannot explain motion.

Why do you need the Higgs?

All you need is "counter motion" to "motion"; and that's exactly what the universe supplies: Expansion "motion" toward everywhere and "gravitational motion" toward one single "spot": the center of gravity.

You don't need anything else to explain everything. Get rid of all those ideas of "forces" that bonds; they don't exist.

Gravitation is a result of deformation of space-time; nothing else.

There's something that we have to appreciate: Things don't change for the fun of it. Decaying is not "destruction" of a particle. Changes are made to equalize oneself with the environment, Decaying into other particles is a solution to equalize the energy of the particle with its environment. While the energy density of the universe was diluting, massive particles where transforming in less massive particles equalizing themselves with the gradual diluting density. That's why you get six quarks that have different densities. The same applies to other particles.

Note that the space deformation around a Top quark is practically the same as around an Up quark; because the density of each environment is different and related to each particle. The same goes for gravity; it's not less or more "effective" at the start of the universe. It's the same has today because it's always related to the environments density. So there goes all your "forces" down the drain. "There's only two kinds of energy: kinetic and mass energy" Einstein said; and he was absolutely right; nothing else exists.
Last edited by Andrex on December 6th, 2016, 1:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 587
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Can your idea explain inertia?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Sure. Why not.

If I make a motion towards you and your make a counter-motion toward me, we both will experience "inertia" (resistance). That's only a consequence of expansion versus gravitation, two "contrary " motions.

As a matter of fact, we live in a galaxy; and in a galaxy, expansion is (mostly) "annulated" by gravitation. So a galaxy has "inertia". The interesting point in a galaxy is that, near the center gravitation prevails. while outside, expansion does. We're, luckily. stuck in the middle.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 587
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Andrex » December 6th, 2016, 1:13 pm wrote:Sure. Why not.

If I make a motion towards you and your make a counter-motion toward me, we both will experience "inertia" (resistance). That's only a consequence of expansion versus gravitation, two "contrary " motions.
Inertia is not only about experiencing resistance, it is also about constant motion happening when no resistance is observed. This is what my small steps are all about.

As a matter of fact, we live in a galaxy; and in a galaxy, expansion is (mostly) "annulated" by gravitation. So a galaxy has "inertia". The interesting point in a galaxy is that, near the center gravitation prevails. while outside, expansion does. We're, luckily. stuck in the middle.
I see. Did you check if the data show less redshift for the outside stars than for the inside ones?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inertia is not only about experiencing resistance, it is also about constant motion happening when no resistance is observed.

So it's related to mass; right?

I see. Did you check if the data show less redshift for the outside stars than for the inside ones?

Outside stars are not outside of the galaxy; if I get your meaning. Mesurements indicate that "outside stars" (that is, stars the farthest from the center of the galaxy) move on their orbit at practically the same speed as very nearer ones.

I don't see what the "redshift" means in this situation. Maybe the Doppler effect, then again...
Andrex
Member

Posts: 587
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Andrex » December 6th, 2016, 4:18 pm wrote:
Inertia is not only about experiencing resistance, it is also about constant motion happening when no resistance is observed.
So it's related to mass; right?
Yes, but it's actually inertia that is related to motion, not mass.

I see. Did you check if the data show less redshift for the outside stars than for the inside ones?
Outside stars are not outside of the galaxy; if I get your meaning. Mesurements indicate that "outside stars" (that is, stars the farthest from the center of the galaxy) move on their orbit at practically the same speed as very nearer ones.

I don't see what the "redshift" means in this situation. Maybe the Doppler effect, then again...
I figured that an expansion of the outside stars would produce some blueshift that would nullify some redshift from the center of the galaxy.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

[quoteI figured that an expansion of the outside stars would produce some blueshift that would nullify some redshift from the center of the galaxy.][/quote]

Inside a galaxy redshift of stars indicates "recession" (moving farther away from us); blueshift says the contrary. Stars inside a galaxy are not subjected to expansion; they orbit around a center of gravity. So a star orbiting near the center can show redshift and blueshift alternately because it recesses from us and then go around the center and comes back toward us.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 587
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Hi Andrex,

Just a minor point: We've never seen a full (or partial) rotation of any Galaxy. They spin too slowly. We have to use comparisons between Stars on edges where the plane of their ecliptic points at us. Then we must limit ourselves to using Standard Candle Stars to get a comparative spectrum for red/blue shift.

This may not be completely correct, but it is logical that the spectral chemistry of the stars under comparison be reasonably similar. In other words, one must know all the spectral bands in order to determine if they are shifted more red/or blue.

Regards,
Dave :^)
Last edited by Dave_Oblad on December 6th, 2016, 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dave_Oblad
Resident Member

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

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Very good point Dave.

But in fact, a galaxy doesn't rotate; only the stars within move, individually, in orbit around the center of the deformed volume of space-time. The whole picture seems to rotate but it's only its components that move in circle around a center point.

For exemple our solar system makes one turn around that center point, in about 240 millions years.

The same goes for our solar system; it doesn't rotate. it's only the planets that are turning around the sun. The space around the sun doesn't rotate.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 587
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Agreed.

But who would think the space around the stars can rotate too? At best, such space can only be slightly twisted.. as in Gravity Probe-B. But not sure if such a twist even exists for a Galaxy sized object.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)

Dave_Oblad
Resident Member

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

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Dave_Oblad » 07 Dec 2016, 00:45 wrote:But who would think the space around the stars can rotate too? At best, such space can only be slightly twisted.. as in Gravity Probe-B. But not sure if such a twist even exists for a Galaxy sized object.

Hi Dave

According to GR the spacetime in and around a galaxy do rotate, but just so slowly that it is dwarfed by the orbital movements of the stars.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2589
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

According to GR the spacetime in and around a galaxy do rotate, but just so slowly that it is dwarfed by the orbital movements of the stars.

What makes it rotate, if I may ask?
Andrex
Member

Posts: 587
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Hi Jorrie,

Ouch! I can see in your Cosmic Lattice how the linearity may be stretched, compressed or twisted. But to take a chunk of the lattice and sever the bonds between points and reattach them to new points on a non-linear scale (around a gravity well) would seem to be rather disruptive to anything depending on their placement, distance wise.

How does distance know when to make a snap jump?

Regards,
Dave :^)

Dave_Oblad
Resident Member

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

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Andrex » December 6th, 2016, 6:07 pm wrote:
I figured that an expansion of the outside stars would produce some blueshift that would nullify some redshift from the center of the galaxy.]
Inside a galaxy redshift of stars indicates "recession" (moving farther away from us); blueshift says the contrary. Stars inside a galaxy are not subjected to expansion; they orbit around a center of gravity. So a star orbiting near the center can show redshift and blueshift alternately because it recesses from us and then go around the center and comes back toward us.
I think I misunderstood your message. I thought you mean that the outside stars were suffering expansion whereas the inside ones were not.

Back to inertia! Apart from meaning that massive bodies resist an acceleration, that principle means that they move, but it doesn't show how their motion is executed, on the contrary, they are even considered at rest if nothing disturbs their motion. My small steps show the mechanism, they show the motion, they show its direction and its speed, and they show that the constancy of those parameters is due to the constancy of light. That alone would already be a lot, but they also show how they can resist an acceleration, so they fully explain both aspects of inertia, what relativity is far from being able to do.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Apart from meaning that massive bodies resist an acceleration,

Have you ever though of transferring the experience in "flat space-time" where there's no gravitation involved?

For exemple; an astronaut could accelerate its speed by only spitting in the opposite of his direction and the new speed, he would have, would stay stable.

The next question would be: Is the acceleration of our astronaut equals the kinetic energy he gave to what he spat? The answer has to be yess if inertia is not related to mass; but I don't know that answer.

For myself, I'm almost certain that while accelerating a massive object, it would oppose no resistance. But I'm not sure completely. So, I've got to review my opinion. I don't know if inertia is correlated to mass.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 587
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Andrex » December 7th, 2016, 6:45 pm wrote:
Apart from meaning that massive bodies resist an acceleration,
Have you ever though of transferring the experience in "flat space-time" where there's no gravitation involved?

For exemple; an astronaut could accelerate its speed by only spitting in the opposite of his direction and the new speed, he would have, would stay stable.

The next question would be: Is the acceleration of our astronaut equals the kinetic energy he gave to what he spat? The answer has to be yes if inertia is not related to mass; but I don't know that answer.
Kinetic energy is related to mass in the equation E=MV/2. How can you figure out that it is not?

For myself, I'm almost certain that while accelerating a massive object, it would oppose no resistance. But I'm not sure completely. So, I've got to review my opinion.
Since resistance to acceleration is to me the most common phenomenon on earth, I can't see what you mean.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

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?

Since resistance to acceleration is to me the most common phenomenon on earth, I can't see what you mean.

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.

On the other hand, the fact that neutrinos "might" have a bit of mass and that, would be why it doesn't have light speed, could be an indication that the resistance we talk about is universal; so, then, we would be sure that inertia correlated to mass. But is it the "suggested" mass of the neutrinos that slows them down or is it their left helicity?
I don't think we have the answer yet; but I could be wrong.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 587
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

PreviousNext

Return to Personal Theories

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 14 guests