Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Mr. Scientist on 24/12/2008 11:05:27
-
I=M is not sufficient in describing inertia. This was Einstein’s relationship, but this equivalence does require the motion of a moving body F=Ma or more precisely, p=Mv. Since momentum itself is the measure of mass in motion, it makes logical sense to assume that inertia is the product of a mass in motion, and excluding all together the idea of a mass at rest. The ability to speed up an object, and the ability to slow down an object, is independent of a single mass in motion, whilst requiring an external force to do so F=Ma, which means inertia can be seen as strictly the restriction of acceleration and restriction of deceleration of an object. Whether is it at rest, should not matter in the long run. The ability to speed up and object and the ability to slow it down, truly is the real form or definition of inertia, without bring in the implications of rest mass, or an invariant mass term.
So is this a new idea? Yes it is, because Einstein strictly related the rest mass of an object to the property, or even measure of the inertia of the said system. My idea is to rid of this complication and bring in only the measure of motion and related to the mass (whether relativistic or rest) – which means that even a photon could have an inertial property, and this would be interesting to see what could transpire from such concepts. The idea of I=M is insufficient, because it requires a more descriptive term, without relying on the rest energy concept of matter.
A few equations I derived can help me describe this. I had the strange idea, that force is also related to the Kinetic Energy of a moving mass, which I evidently proved. This was the following analysis of my conclusions:
This is Einstein’s (actually it wasn’t his originally), famous formula;
E=Mc²
Add E to both sides
2E=Mc² + E
Divide by 2 from both sides
E= ½ (Mc² + E)
Which is ironically very similar to the Kinetic Energy Equation, E= ½ Mv². Manipulating the above equation through algebra gives;
E-½ E= ½ Mc²
Then just solving the left hand side gives
½ Mc²= ½ Mc² [1]
Whilst not a very appealing result: it still has its use. Half the energy of a system is indeed required to set a thing into motion, this kinetic motion, is also related to force, I speculate. Plugging [1] into the right hand side and raising the value of the left hand side of the well-known equation E=Fvt where energy equals force times mass times time gives;
½(Fvt)²= ½ E²
Which states that half of the energy of a system also is the same as the force exerted on that system. From an equation I derived to find the time,
t=(vt/E)mv
With some algebraic manipulation (if one wants to see these algebraic operations, I am quite happy to show and even explain how its done on request), one can arrive at:
E=(mv/t)vt
Plugging in the equation above into the force-energy equation I derived ½(Fvt)²= ½ E² gives the relationship between mass, energy and force;
E ½(Fvt)²= ½ E²(Mv/t)vt
Divide both sides of this equation by E², and we get the energy relationship due to the force exerted on the system, or the force exerted on the system which is due to energy. The energy is found to be proportional to half of the energy of the system. More or less, the value obtained is the same as the following:
½ E= ½ Fvt
In other words, one can say that:
E_k=½Mv²=½(Fvt)
Which is my new equation deriving the kinetic energy and force. These equations are older, but they will have their uses.
The final equation here, helps to derive a relationship between the kinetic energy, and the force required to sustain that energy, as also related to the energy content (½Mc²) since (½Mc²)=(½Mv²). It seems that inertia might also be related to the equations, so in short, under the application of my rule that rest energy is not really needed to describe the inertia of a system, the same principle can arise for inertia under the similar premises thought of in ½ E= ½ Fvt.
So as I have proved, the force is related to motion, but is also related to the energy required for motion, which is itself the kinetic motion of matter. If inertia is, as I proclaim, the measure of motion in matter, which must be the same thing somehow as the momentum of a body, then the inertia of a body must be zero at rest. But is matter ever at rest? It may cause a problem that inertia be the total measure of mass, because the measure of mass is not equivalent to the motion of matter: only the relativistic mass is equivalent to the motion of matter, which is simply the measure of a changing energy.
Is there a way around the idea of a mass at rest? The other idea I have is that inertia isn’t a total measure of the system in question with mass. Inertia might not be I=M in general, as I presumed at the beginning of this work, so the idea of inertia may be completely wrong.
Indeed, if you introduce the concept of a rest mass, and a rest energy, then the idea of a slowing down or a speeding up seems redundant at best. Momentum is required in this picture, and may have no real effects with rest energy at all. Mass is not a measure of motion, however, if inertia is, then I=M is made erroneous at best. So perhaps, dare I say, Einstein had it wrong, including all those behind him?
I have more to post soon, which will incorporate a new theory on inertial equations.
-
I=M+Mv²
Which must be the inertia of the theory; and the beginning of this theory, which recreates a new idea, other than I=M. This can simplified into
I=M(v²+1)
So we can now localize it to a single system. Using the velocity as whole value, we have now our Inertia. But total inertia must be
I_t=M(v²+1)+d/t
which would require any of these relationships,
I_t=pv+d/t
and I_t=(Mv²+M)+a'
If we plug (I=M+Mv²) into (½ E= ½ Fvt), then we would have
½I=KE=-PE
Because,
½I=½(M+Mv²)
Since
½ Fvt=½I
So inertia certainly can be related to the force equations I had derived.
-
√I²c²=p
Is the main equation i help to derive within all of this. It truely is without complication. The ability to express:
EI+FI=M²a+c²M²
then
EI=c²M²
and
FI=M²a
-
If mass M=1 cannot have rest mass ( and rest energy too)
and moves without stopping for ever is it a Eternal Jew?
Only the fact that you can sleep and rest disproves your theory.
S.
=============
-
Philosophy which has not been thought through well, but if you want to stick to the philosophy, then that's fine. I indulge in a loew of philosophy myself.
If i sleep at night, my body is still moving through space at thousands of miles per hour. I attempt to argue that rest concepts are just examples of matter being made under a force to synchronize with the earths gravitational field. Does my body stop moving through space, because theoretically, i am still moving through the vacuum at 1000's of miles per hour...? So am i really at rest?
Secondly, moving bodies should have what can be measured as an inertia, but not a real sitting object, if it really is at rest, because where is the inertial effect of not slowing down? Sure it resists to acceleration, but a real invaraint mass object when not moving, can't describe sufficiently the resistence of slowing down.
-
If i sleep at night, my body is still moving through space at thousands of miles per hour. I attempt to argue that rest concepts are just examples of matter being made under a force to synchronize with the earths gravitational field. Does my body stop moving through space, because theoretically, i am still moving through the vacuum at 1000's of miles per hour...? So am i really at rest?
=======================================
The condition when you in the rest,
“sleep at night, my body is still moving through space
at thousands of miles per hour. “ . . . . . is different
than you work . . . it means that your moving is different
. . . your moving is active . . . and you need another laws of movement.
So.
You need two different laws:
for rest moving and laws for active moving.
-
If i sleep at night, my body is still moving through space at thousands of miles per hour. I attempt to argue that rest concepts are just examples of matter being made under a force to synchronize with the earths gravitational field. Does my body stop moving through space, because theoretically, i am still moving through the vacuum at 1000's of miles per hour...? So am i really at rest?
=======================================
The condition when you in the rest,
“sleep at night, my body is still moving through space
at thousands of miles per hour. “ . . . . . is different
than you work . . . it means that your moving is different
. . . your moving is active . . . and you need another laws of movement.
So.
You need two different laws:
for rest moving and laws for active moving.
Define rest moving and active moving. They seem to me only illusions of our limited experimental abilities?
-
Define rest moving and active moving. They seem to me only illusions of our limited experimental abilities?
[/quote]
====================
Moving, energy . . .etc are part of physics.
Is physics as a science
“ illusions of our limited experimental abilities? “
Or the physics’ modern interpretation is
“ illusions of our limited experimental abilities? “
===========
-
Inertia and momentum?
Momentum is what invariant mass gets added with, as a result of motion and acceleration.
What is sure is that it will be there (express itself) if two 'frames' meet.
Inertia is what invariant mass express when one try to change its energy level by introducing another 'force' working on the frame existing.
The crux of your thinking is here, right?
"Since momentum itself is the measure of mass in motion, it makes logical sense to assume that
inertia is the product of a mass in motion, and excluding all together the idea of a mass at rest"
To proof inertia without any force seems impossible and if one allow frames respective each other to have 'interchangeable' aspects such as motion or accelerating then you would be correct.
If we only look at objects in uniform motion then it seems correct to me, but when accelerating we can always define the frame accelerating as it creates that 'gravity well' behind it.
Am I correct there?
For your reasoning to be correct it seems to me that it have to be valid for both 'frames', the coasting one as well as the 'accelerating'?
That is that inertia only will be an expression of something moving but not 'existing' when seen 'in rest'?
And :) that is when considering an accelerated frame meeting an frame seen as being at rest relative an observers frame.
Or am I bicycling here?
---------
How can we ever say that something 'is standing still' in spacetime?
Except when two frames are moving at the same 'velocity' as compared with each other.
Acceleration exists and can be proofed even though it is interchangeable with 'gravity'.
But how to define 'uniform motion'?
-
Yes, for uniform motion and accelerating motion. This is right from my theory. A theory which is young might i add.
-
You know, I've also wondered about the similarities between inertia and momentum.
The larger the momentum the larger the inertia, am I right there.
The opposite seems also true?
The larger the inertia the larger the momentum.
So they definitively have a 'relation' with each others.
I can't see anything wrong in questioning the idea of being 'at rest'.
Not if the definition of it 'only' is a relation between two frames.
It's easy to prove those two 'inert' frames as moving, when compared from a third frame not being 'at rest' with those two.
Also being 'at rest' raises the question if those two frames, if having identical velocities etc, couldn't be seen as one frame?
We do have distance as a criteria, but how do that relate to being 'at rest'?
If that is possible then there are nothing that will be 'at rest'.
And the definition of invariant mass seems, to me, more to be a description of the invariant relation of a chosen object, not isolated from spacetime at any time, with any other 'frame' we might want to 'transform/move' it into.
Then on the other tentacle, I don't really understand those definitions yet?
Frames as well as 'invariant mass'.
:)
----------
If we for example had two accelerating objects at a uniform acceleration and direction of (you guessed it:) one G.
Could we not then say that they were 'at rest' relative each other?
And if the definition of inertia is.
" Physics. The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force. "
Then inertia is existent at rest too, am I right?
( As Alice once said, confuseder and confuseder :)
And it's true, the rabbid overheard her...
-
yor_on wrote:
Inertia and momentum?
Momentum is what invariant mass gets added with,
as a result of motion and acceleration.
#
You know, I've also wondered about the similarities
between inertia and momentum.
============= ======================================. .
Inertia and momentum (motion + acceleration).
Newton wrote that acceleration in the Nature is going
according to the formula: a= F/m.
Questions:
1.
Does Maxwell’s electrodynamics use conception “acceleration”?
2.
Does Special theory of relativity use conception “acceleration”?
( The Special Theory of Relativity uses the concept of
inertial reference frames without acceleration.)
3.
Does General theory of relativity use conception “acceleration”?
( The General Theory of Relativity uses the concepts of
gravitation and acceleration. Do you know the formula of
acceleration in GRT ? )
4.
Does Quantum theory use conception “acceleration”?
( Planck constant: h or h = h/2pi !!!
What is interaction between them ???).
5.
Does Quantum Electrodynamics use conception “acceleration”?
======= . .
#
We need acceleration to make a body to move.
After it is possible to say that a inertia force moves this body.
But once moving body , it takes an acceleration force to stop
or change direction of this moving body.
#
Where did the “acceleration” ( even in inertia frame) appear from?
#
We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two,
because one and one are two. We are finding
that we must learn a great deal more about `and'.
/Sir Arthur Eddington/
In my opinion the Eddington’s “and” is acceleration in SRT+QT)
#
From an article:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
========================== . .