Page 9 of 10

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 12th, 2016, 11:57 am
by Andrex
What conclusion? Time dilation and length contraction?


Both conclusions. If a "proof" is wrong, the conclusions must be different than if a "proof" is right. I'm questioning if it is the case here.

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


I agree. In fact we can consider in the same way, the difference seeming existing between the "strength" of gravity in our actual universe and its strength in the initial universe. Reality could simply be depending on the different "density" of the energy in both cases. So gravity would have the same "effect" then, than now. The consequence would be the irrelevance of the four fondamental "forces". And explaining the evolution of the universe would become a lot simpler.

It will always be the same number of Planck Lengths and normal Physics can be continued down to any Metric Scale.


In my mind, Plancks length is a "physical" metric; which doesn't mean that there is not previous lengths; it only means that there not tridimensional. A volume of space measuring 10^-33 meter in diameter is bigger than a volume of zero diameter. Since Plancks diameter is the shortest possible in three dimensions, shorter lengths have to be in two dimensions. Furthermore, shorter than 2 has to be one". The Event horizon has to be at the frontier between three and two dimensions I think. That is also where the BB singularity would be. And two dimensional geometry is as "normal" geometry as three dimensional, but laws of physics are more restricted. I can't see what other law that could apply to two dimensions, beside centripetal and centrifugal "effects" provoked by a rotation movement.

The whole "picture" of redshift and "depth" etc. are only "effects" of gradual collapsed metric. But a collapsing of three dimensional volume is not exactly the same as collapsing of a two dimensional surface. Geometry doesn't apply the same way.

As for inertia, to me, it's related to mass and not "momentum" since free falling doesn't show "inertia". But then if "momentum" is related to "movement", movement produces mass; so there're all related. It's important to "see" in what way; not only "state" it.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 12th, 2016, 12:21 pm
by Inchworm
Dave_Oblad wrote:Is it a mistake to assume a straight line trajectory indicates Momentum/Inertia?
I agree with what Andrex just said in his last message:

As for inertia, to me, it's related to mass and not "momentum" since free falling doesn't show "inertia". But then if "momentum" is related to "movement", movement produces mass; so there're all related. It's important to "see" in what way; not only "state" it.

My small steps show the way, we only have to follow their tracks! :0)

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 12th, 2016, 12:35 pm
by Inchworm
Andrex » December 12th, 2016, 11:57 am wrote:
What conclusion? Time dilation and length contraction?
Both conclusions. If a "proof" is wrong, the conclusions must be different than if a "proof" is right. I'm questioning if it is the case here.
Marmet comes to the conclusion that relativity is wrong because, contrary to Michelson and Morley, his calculations show no difference in the length of the two light paths. Relativity takes for granted that light travels orthogonally to the mirrors in the arm that is traveling sideways to the motion of the earth. Marmet did not make that assumption but Michelson and Morley did. Adding that length to the length caused by reflection on a moving mirror gives a null result by calculation, so no need for the calculations of relativity to explain the observed one.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 12th, 2016, 1:32 pm
by Andrex
The question, then, becomes:
Is the Relativity wrong or is it only its calculations that are?

And this question is justified by the fact that Newtons gravitation is wrong but its calculations are right (almost).

As for myself I put more assurance on the logic of a notion than on the "calculations" that confirms it. Even though I don't exclude calculations; naturally. But it's not the "first" basic of my opinions.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 12th, 2016, 2:01 pm
by Inchworm
I think that the only thing we can rely on is data, and to me, the only reliable data on time dilation is the atmospheric Muon. In my opinion, whether time dilation really happens for bodies in constant motion is still uncertain. On the other hand, length contraction is unobservable: it happens when a body gets speed, but it disappears when it slows down. Einstein's gravitation follows his ideas on constant motion, namely that distance and time would be affected by motion, and that motion would affect distance and time in return. I can understand that our ideas may be circular since my small steps transform doppler effect into a cause for motion, but I have a real mechanism to show that it can work, whereas relativity has only maths to present. That said, while reading you, I noticed that you take for granted that space-time really exist, so I deduce that we are far from thinking the same about relativity yet. :0)

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 12th, 2016, 3:34 pm
by Andrex
distance and time would be affected by motion, and that motion would affect distance and time in return.


What you're saying here is:
AB =AB when it should be AB = BA.

I noticed that you take for granted that space-time really exist, so I deduce that we are far from thinking the same about relativity yet.


You're right on that: we're nor there yet. :-)

At least as long as I feel that my body "occupies" space-time composed of unidimensional euclidian's points. In other words, I don't need somebody else to be sure that I am.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 12th, 2016, 4:08 pm
by Dave_Oblad
Hi all,

Since we seem to agree.. let's get something a bit more clear: A Planck Length is the distance Light Travels in a Planck Interval. For convenience, I'm accepting a cubic array as Reality, a Planck Length in 3D is a Planck Cube. It is the foundation of the Metric Scale.

As one gets closer to a Black Hole, space doesn't suddenly become 2D.. just the volume of a Planck Cube is smaller than one further from the Black Hole. But it still takes one Planck Interval for light to jump from a cube coordinate to the next one. Thus the Speed of Light will always appear to be a constant Locally. The 4th Dimension as Time (or Planck Interval) is a constant, as we all progress though Time at exactly the same rate or speed. That would leave the only aspect for variable Speed to be Distance.

If I had two Identical Black Holes and shot a beam of light halfway between them (at 90' from a virtual line connecting the holes) from A to B. It would take longer (from A to B) than if the Black Holes weren't there. Why? Because the distance is compressed between them thus greater distance is traveled for a beam to shoot between them.. thus the trip takes longer.

. Time is not slower near a Black Hole.. only Clocks are.

Again, just my Model.. no one has to agree with me.. but time will tell.

Sorry, kinda rushed.. at work. Later...

Regards,
Dave :^)

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 13th, 2016, 11:40 am
by Inchworm
Andrex wrote:At least as long as I feel that my body "occupies" space-time composed of unidimensional Euclidean's points. In other words, I don't need somebody else to be sure that I am.
I read your description about the point becoming a surface, and the surface becoming a volume. Well done, but to me, the point is only a mathematical tool, it is not real since it doesn't carry any components, so it cannot induce any length in any direction. To do so, we have to take a particle and add some more to build what we wish. It will only take more to build the same thing if it is small, but that thing will be better defined. A particle already has volume, so we can build real things with it. I hope space-time will not fall on my head for contradicting Einstein, but if I am right that it is wrong, it should not hurt very much. :0)

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 13th, 2016, 12:26 pm
by Andrex
To do so, we have to take a particle and add some more to build what we wish. It will only take more to build the same thing if it is small, but that thing will be better defined.


I guess that you said "well done" because it was "better defined". To make it even better, you have to understand that the line formed was only a portion of the "surface circle" that was really formed. I used a line for better "understanding".

A particle already has volume


And a volume has three dimensions. In order to get them, it as to start with a "first" dimension.

so we can build real things with it


Before building "real" things, you have to build "virtual" things and "virtual" means before "real" matter.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 13th, 2016, 12:51 pm
by Inchworm
I said well done because you found a way to skip the line while postulating that the point had to expand in all directions at a time, so you can expand it directly to a surface. But then, it is no more the point that you expand to a volume, it's the surface. I don't believe in virtual particles or in virtual space or in virtual time. My small steps do not need any virtual stuff to be executed, only real doppler effect. And they don't need the Higgs either to resist to their acceleration. How can you believe in virtual stuff and not believe in the Higgs?

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 13th, 2016, 3:18 pm
by Andrex
I don't believe in virtual particles or in virtual space or in virtual time.


Neither do I; in fact I don't believe in anything. I oblige myself to "understand" things. "Believe" is another one of those words I banished from my vocabulary.

But then, it is no more the point that you expand to a volume, it's the surface.


Right; by added unidimensional points.

My small steps do not need any virtual stuff to be executed, only real doppler effect.


And what makes doppler effects? And how can an "effect" "act"?

How can you believe in virtual stuff and not believe in the Higgs?


Virtual is logic; Higgs particle and field are not.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 13th, 2016, 4:49 pm
by Inchworm
Andrex wrote:And what makes doppler effects? And how can an "effect" "act"?
That's a good question! When I imagined the small steps, I was working on doppler effect. I was questioning the fact that such a universal phenomenon was only useful to humans. Then I realized that light was produced buy atoms, so I decided to find out how they could use it, and the steps popped out of my mind all by themselves. :0) What the atoms do with doppler effect, we also do. Like them, we use the limited speed of the information that we share with others to stay on sync with them. The only difference is the time scale. It takes more time for us to make a step than for atoms, and it also takes more time to change its speed or its direction. But at least one thing looks exactly the same: it takes chance for us to succeed to change any direction or speed we had already taken, and it also takes chance for an atom to do so with its steps. With the steps, the hazard that what we observe at the particles' scale happens because we try to change their way, and it is also the case for us. If nothing blocks the way, there is no observable hazard. With the steps, mass is the result of waiting for hazard to permit their new direction and their new length, and motion is the result of hazard succeeding to do so. You like?

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 13th, 2016, 5:12 pm
by Dave_Oblad
Hi Inchworm.

Fun point. If I where blind and heard an Increased Pitch, I might pause or change course..lol.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 13th, 2016, 5:31 pm
by Inchworm
No way to know if the frequency we hear is different than at rest, except if we can produce the same frequency ourselves. This way you could run away if the pitch is too high and you recognize a train, and run after if it's too low and it sounds like a nude girl. :0)

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 13th, 2016, 6:21 pm
by Andrex
With the steps, mass is the result of waiting for hazard to permit their new direction and their new length, and motion is the result of hazard succeeding to do so. You like?


Sorry; no. But I'll have to re-read it.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 14th, 2016, 4:37 pm
by Inchworm
Errata

Sorry, the "what" was too many in that former phrase:

"With the steps, the hazard that what we observe at the particles' scale..."

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 14th, 2016, 4:39 pm
by Inchworm
Sorry, doublon!

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 20th, 2016, 1:34 pm
by Andrex
I Inchworm

Coming back to your explanation of "effect" that "acts", you say:

It takes more time for us to make a step than for atoms,


Atoms move by "pressure"; it doesn't "act"; it's like if your own "step" was provoked by an explosion of TNT.

An "effect" is not an "action" it's a "consequence" (reaction).

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 20th, 2016, 3:25 pm
by Inchworm
Hi Andrex,

My small steps only permit the two atoms of my animation to stay synchronized despite the limited speed of light. I can apply them to us because we do the same. We get synchronized with others while developing social automatisms, and we resist to change them, thus to get out of sync, when something unexpected happens. The way we act then may not look the same as atoms steps, but it is fundamentally the same. We both act to keep on moving the same as before, and we only change by chance. It takes us energy to move, an energy that we borrow from our environment. The only environment atoms have is light, and light is also energy, an energy that we can use to move, so why couldn't they do the same?

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 20th, 2016, 6:07 pm
by Andrex
The only environment atoms have is light


I might disagree here. Light is only what our eyes can capture of the electromagnetism. It's a conventional name for a very small portion of electromagnetism.

The atoms environment can be electromagnetism (physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles), if that kind of energy exists at that level (remember that to me it's not a force); which I must check to affirm it (and so do you) :-)

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 21st, 2016, 12:57 pm
by Inchworm
Andrex wrote:remember that to me it's not a force
To me neither, but it's an energy that atoms transform into motion, the same as what we do when we eat. The only difference is the time it takes to make the transformation, and the time it takes to spend the transformed energy: atoms are more precise than we are, and they do not have as much degrees of freedom.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 21st, 2016, 3:58 pm
by Andrex
To me neither, but it's an energy that atoms transform into motion,


The energy is not "transformed" into motion; the "motion" is the consequence of the energy; and since the consequence is "motion", it means that it's kinetic energy that is involved here.

...and the time it takes to spend the transformed energy


Energy is never spent; it only transforms itself in another kind energy. If your atom stops, it's not because kinetic energy has disappeared; it's because "kinetic energy" has transformed itself in "mass energy".

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 21st, 2016, 4:32 pm
by Inchworm
Andrex wrote:The energy is not "transformed" into motion; the "motion" is the consequence of the energy; and since the consequence is "motion", it means that it's kinetic energy that is involved here.
The energy that light carries is different than the one bodies carry: light has no mass, and its energy does not vary with speed. The link between energy and mass and speed is thus easier to understand with the small steps: a longer step means more doppler effect thus more speed, and a more frequent light means closer particles and more resistance to acceleration thus more mass.

Energy is never spent; it only transforms itself in another kind energy. If your atom stops, it's not because kinetic energy has disappeared; it's because "kinetic energy" has transformed itself in "mass energy".
[/quote]There is no mass in the small steps, there is only a certain time for the atoms' steps to be able to change their direction or their speed when they suffer an external acceleration. So when an atom stops, it is only because there is no difference between the energy it emits towards the other atom, and the energy it receives from it. In other words, there is no doppler effect to account for.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 22nd, 2016, 10:00 am
by Andrex
So when an atom stops, it is only because there is no difference between the energy it emits towards the other atom, and the energy it receives from it.


This is according to your premice you've established at the start; but in reality, there's no "connection" between the two atoms. Energy emission is provoked by the difference between the environment energy density and the energy of each atom. If they're in the same environment, they will emit energy simutaneously without any "exchange" between them. They only "respond" to their environment (to get equilibrium); not to one another.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 22nd, 2016, 1:42 pm
by Inchworm
The two atoms are part of the same molecule, so they are connected one way or another, and it isolates them a bit from their environment. The same thing happens when we make friends: as long as the link holds, we also get isolated from others a bit. Like the two atoms, if something affects only one of the friends, he might have to change a bit, and if the link is strong enough, this change will also affect the other after a while, but not at the same moment. Of course the same event could affect both at a time, or it could force the first atom to circle around the second one instead of moving directly to it, but those are more complex problems, and it's better to be familiarized with the direct steps before studying them.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 22nd, 2016, 3:06 pm
by Andrex
The two atoms are part of the same molecule, so they are connected one way or another, and it isolates them a bit from their environment.


The same molecule is their environment.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 22nd, 2016, 3:41 pm
by Inchworm
It's a friendship environment, different from the external one. When your friend changes, you got more chances to follow him than when somebody else changes. We all resist to change, but we offer more resistance with others than alone. As you can see, I can use the small steps to explain our own behaviors, what no other theory on motion is able to do, especially relativity. It may look as if I was pushing the note, but I am not. With the steps, evolution is simply a kind of motion.

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 23rd, 2016, 5:03 pm
by Andrex
It's a friendship environment


I guess you mean "a stable environment". So if it is "perfectly" stable, there's no reason for "emitting" or "injecting" energy.

We all resist to change,


I don't agree; we all have to adpt constantly otherwise we die; and that is all which is about with GR.

evolution is simply a kind of motion


In fact, everything is only motion (including matter, space and time)

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: December 24th, 2016, 9:58 am
by Inchworm
Andrex » December 23rd, 2016, 5:03 pm wrote:I guess you mean "a stable environment". So if it is "perfectly" stable, there's no reason for "emitting" or "injecting" energy.
I meant a closer environment. We don't really know yet how atoms are maintaining their bonds, but they probably spend some energy that is not observable outside of the molecules. In fact, we know that some energy is spent because a bonding always takes some mass away from particles.

Andrex wrote:
We all resist to change,
I don't agree; we all have to adapt constantly otherwise we die; and that is all which is about with GR.
With the small steps, we resist to a change in our environment the same way atoms resist to an external acceleration: we change our habits using hazard until it works. This is what our imagination is all about. One of our best theory is based on that principle: Evolution of Species. I think our imagination is constantly producing mutations in our ideas in case they would be selected by their environment. And I also think that atoms could not either change the direction or the length of their small steps without their components constantly playing dice.

Andrex wrote:
evolution is simply a kind of motion
In fact, everything is only motion (including matter, space and time)
Good, one small step together, one giant leap to come. :0)

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

PostPosted: April 28th, 2017, 3:58 pm
by Inchworm
Hi everybody,

Since last November, I read a few papers from authors that contest MM experiment's conclusion. Some like me who think that calculations might be wrong, and some others who think the data doesn't really show a null result. Here is a nice simulation made by a guy on another forum that shows the calculation are right even with ether represented by the still grid:
Image

Here is a guy that thinks the data doesn't show a null result.
http://www.anti-relativity.com/mmx.htm

And here is another one who believes that a standing wave between particles would
shrink with motion, thus giving a null result if ether exists. This guy uses phase shift between two bonded particles to explain mass and motion, and I use doppler effect, so his idea is very close to my small steps, the main difference being that his two particles move at the same time, whereas my small steps don't.
http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/index_en.htm

Lately, I realized that my steps were not symmetrical when observing the distance light had to travel wether it is the left particle or the right particle that was making its step, and they have to otherwise it can't work: the left particle gets closer to the right one at the end of its steps, whereas it is the inverse for the right particle. They would be symmetrical is if they would look like the steps we make when we walk for instance, or if they would be so small that we could assimilate them to the steps between their components. Atoms in a solid cannot make the kind of steps we make, but their components can since they can orbit one around the other, so maybe they do. Back to the drawing board again! :0)