Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jerrygg38 on 23/07/2016 13:03:03
-
Gravitational verses inertial mass
The question concerns the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass. Gravitational mass produces weight in a gravitational field. Inertial mass is a combination of gravitational mass and momentum. Gravitational mass is due to spherical energy patterns. Thus if you have a ball of steel on a surface and heat it up, the ball does not move. Yet its energy has been increased and it weighs more. All the energy is confined to a simple sphere.
Now let us take the ball lying on a plane and push it. We then have linear photonic energy added to the ball. This gives us spherical energy patters and linear energy patterns. Some of the energy added to the ball will result in additional spherical energy patterns. Some of it will be a combination of spherical energy patterns and linear energy patterns. Thus we get a gravitational mass increase and an even larger inertial mass where the inertial mass would the equivalent mass if all the energy was converted into spherical energy.
How can we write equations to approximate the masses? Einstein’s mass verses velocity equations provide an approximation for the gravitational mass. His clock equations show a slowing of the clock in orbit above the Earth. This is caused by a root mean square type response and thus the same factor is good for the gravitational mass equations.
Mg = Mo/[1-(V/C)^2]^0.5
Therefore the gravitational mass increases with velocity. What happens to the inertial mass? We need to increase the equivalent mass due to the linear motion which causes a combination of spherical and linear energy patterns. What is the best equation to do this job?
The Radar Department libraries of Defense companies have studies for this problem. They use a Doppler solution in which the Doppler mass in the front of the object is larger and the rearward mass is smaller. Thus we get a combination of Doppler and Einstein. This produces an inertial mass of
Mi = Mo/[1-(V/C)^2]
Notice that the inertial mass is larger than the gravitational mass by a second Einsteinian factor. Is this a good answer? It matches the energy necessary to bring a proton toward light speed pretty good. The big problem is that the actual solution would require a Fourier series non-linear analysis.
For myself I use the Doppler for the original mass and the root mean square of Doppler equals Einstein and then a double Doppler for the inertial mass. The best we can do is an approximation.
-
The question concerns the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass. Gravitational mass produces weight in a gravitational field.
Weight corresponds to passive gravitational mass and passive gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass.
Inertial mass is a combination of gravitational mass and momentum.
That's meaningless.
Gravitational mass is due to spherical energy patterns.
Also meaningless. There is no such thing as "spherical energy patterns". In fact there's no such thing as energy patterns whatsoever. This forum is not a place for your own personal theories of gravity. That's what the New Theories forum is for. This thread is about relativistic mass and weight. It's far from being a complex question. Weight depends on speed - Period!
Please stop taking this thread off topic with all that nonsense.
-
The question concerns the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass. Gravitational mass produces weight in a gravitational field.
Weight corresponds to passive gravitational mass and passive gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass.
Inertial mass is a combination of gravitational mass and momentum.
That's meaningless.
Gravitational mass is due to spherical energy patterns.
Also meaningless. There is no such thing as "spherical energy patterns". In fact there's no such thing as energy patterns whatsoever. This forum is not a place for your own personal theories of gravity. That's what the New Theories forum is for. This thread is about relativistic mass and weight. It's far from being a complex question. Weight depends on speed - Period!
Please stop taking this thread off topic with all that nonsense.
Sorry to upset you but the question has been studied by several universities funded by the government and written up in the classified libraries. Unfortunately since it involved radar studies the reports were kept under lock and key. I just point out that the information that are taught to students are limited for national security reasons. It has been over 50 years since I studied the reports and even today people are stuck with limited knowledge of the radar studies. Yet for those who try to make radar undetectable it may be better for the world not to know any of the details in the studies. And I was only concerned with the Doppler masses.
-
Inertial mass is a combination of gravitational mass and momentum.
Wrong. In the immortal words of my navigation instructor "start from where you are, then you won't get lost before you take off". So I advise you to try again.
-
I came across a special relativity text which says A particle does not become heavier with increasing speed.
Unfortunately there's an awful lot of relativity texts that are just wrong. Even MTW is wrong in claiming that mass is the source of gravity as per your post below. Energy is the source of gravity.
Do you believe the author is correct? What would you expect would happen to the magnitude of the gravitational field if the source of the field was moving?
Energy is the source of gravity. If you add energy, the gravitational field increases. IMHO it's best to think about the source moving round and round inside a gedanken box to avoid issues with all frames are equal.
As for a body moving linearly, mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion. If this didn't increase, you would be able to keep on pushing it past the speed of light. That can't happen because of the wave nature of matter. We make electrons (and positrons) out of light in pair production. You cannot make an electron go faster from the light from which it's made.
-
Inertial mass is a combination of gravitational mass and momentum.
Wrong. In the immortal words of my navigation instructor "start from where you are, then you won't get lost before you take off". So I advise you to try again.
I could be wrong in my definition of Inertial mass. To me gravitational mass is the mass of an object that is standing still. It could also be the mass of the same object when heat is applied. I say that this is spherical mass because all the energy is confined to the volume of the object.
Once we add linear photons of motion to the mass, some of this energy increases the mass of the object. thus the gravitational mass increases. However some of the energy results in linear momentum. This does not increase the gravitational mass and thus the total energy needs a new name. I call this inertial mass but perhaps my definition confuses people. In any event we have apples and oranges. The apples are the component of the photons that produce gravitational mass and the oranges are the component of the photons that result in momentum. In any event the energy charts in my old physics books showed that the energy applied in the cyclotron increased the mass as per Einstein for awhile but eventually more and more energy did not increase the mass. And then a point was reached where the energy would radiate. thus the data showed that Einstein's mass equations with energy was correct until the velocity reached near the speed of light and then you got mass plus momentum. what would you call it?
-
Gravitational verses inertial mass
The question concerns the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass. Gravitational mass produces weight in a gravitational field. Inertial mass is a combination of gravitational mass and momentum. Gravitational mass is due to spherical energy patterns. Thus if you have a ball of steel on a surface and heat it up, the ball does not move. Yet its energy has been increased and it weighs more. All the energy is confined to a simple sphere.
Now let us take the ball lying on a plane and push it. We then have linear photonic energy added to the ball. This gives us spherical energy patters and linear energy patterns. Some of the energy added to the ball will result in additional spherical energy patterns. Some of it will be a combination of spherical energy patterns and linear energy patterns. Thus we get a gravitational mass increase and an even larger inertial mass where the inertial mass would the equivalent mass if all the energy was converted into spherical energy.
How can we write equations to approximate the masses? Einstein’s mass verses velocity equations provide an approximation for the gravitational mass. His clock equations show a slowing of the clock in orbit above the Earth. This is caused by a root mean square type response and thus the same factor is good for the gravitational mass equations.
Mg = Mo/[1-(V/C)^2]^0.5
Therefore the gravitational mass increases with velocity. What happens to the inertial mass? We need to increase the equivalent mass due to the linear motion which causes a combination of spherical and linear energy patterns. What is the best equation to do this job?
The Radar Department libraries of Defense companies have studies for this problem. They use a Doppler solution in which the Doppler mass in the front of the object is larger and the rearward mass is smaller. Thus we get a combination of Doppler and Einstein. This produces an inertial mass of
Mi = Mo/[1-(V/C)^2]
Notice that the inertial mass is larger than the gravitational mass by a second Einsteinian factor. Is this a good answer? It matches the energy necessary to bring a proton toward light speed pretty good. The big problem is that the actual solution would require a Fourier series non-linear analysis. For myself I use the Doppler for the original mass and the root mean square of Doppler equals Einstein and then a double Doppler for the inertial mass. The best we can do is an approximation.
I think that Einsteinians cannot agree on mass or on E=mcc etc. We have -- mass, inertial mass, inert mass, gravitational mass, longitudinal mass, transverse mass, relativistic mass, virtual mass, apparent mass, true mass, absolute mass, rest mass, proper mass, invariant mass, mass-equivalence, infinite mass, Newtonian mass, massive, massless, center of mass, non-vanishing mass, etc.
Aetherists i think simply have one fixed non-changing constant mass (ie absolute mass), which doesnt change with speed~velocity or relative speed~velocity. Plus i think we have apparent mass, due to TD & LC affecting the observers ticking & metre (due to the observer's absolute speed~velocity)(ie due to the magnitude & direction of the aetherwind blowing throo the observer~laboratory).
Gravitational mass is the same thing as inertial mass -- i dont mean that they are equal (i mean that they are the same thing, & equal). There is no such thing as a measure of gravitational mass -- all u can do is measure the inertial mass (& then call it gravitational mass). Ok, they are not the same thing -- but because of the way we measure them then its silly to confer a status that our measure doesnt actually deserve.
Our proofs of equivalence that are accurate to the umpteenth decimal & which are held up to be the pinnacle of scientific accuracy are simply proving that inertia equals inertia -- & they will probably get a Nobel for that rubbish one day.