[yor_on]

So there is no such thing a 'potential inertia', but there is 'potential energy'. That is, instead of a circle let there be a wall. With different velocities there must be different impacts, and so energies expended too. But, the deceleration then? Isn't that also a form of inertia?

Weird stuff, I will need to think more about this one. Is inertia expressed differently in a deceleration? How about a acceleration? Is inertia only changing in decelerations and accelerations then?

I better get some sleep here.

[yor_on]

It actually comes down to the same problem I've been wrestling with for a long time. I would love to define a time dilation & Lorentz contraction to only the acceleration/deceleration, but I can't see how that is possible. And now we see a similar possibility with inertia, the difference being that there it seems that you can?

[yor_on]

It would solve a lot of strangeness for me if there was a way to define it so, but consider the traveler. If he was near light speed then the Lorentz contraction only should be apparent in his acceleration (and even weirder, deceleration:), and that would destroy the symmetry we assume between the travelers Lorentz contraction, relative the earths observers definition of his time dilation. Also it would make the muon definition invalid.

And when it comes to the 'energy stored', a uniform motion will do as well as a deceleration/acceleration. In fact I might prefer to define both expressions to 'energy stored'. That is a simpler definition, but then we will find that gravity and inertia does not fit this expression at all, as 'energy stored' have nothing to do with inertia/gravity in a uniform motion.

If I'm thinking right, and now I will go to sleep, if I can
Da*n
==

Also it makes me wonder about how decelerations/accelerations. Both will express a 'gravity/inertia' locally, and so easy to define to a 'time dilation'. But a uniform motion seems like a different expression when thinking of it in form of mass? But, it's still a relation where, if 'stored' in space, must express itself as a Lorentz contraction.

Which leaves us 'energy', as the best definition for it locally.

[yor_on]

So, if we look at a time dilation as following mass, then a uniform motion can't be right, according to this definition, as there is no mass involved, neither any inertia. Which leaves us the relative motion versus the universe expressing itself in storing its 'energy' in 'space'. That as there will be no more 'jiggling of atoms' in that spacecrafts hull, and you, due to its 'relative velocity'.

All of this from one simple fact, that even relative motion kills Meaning that it does matter what uniform velocity you have, relative your origin. And that is your 'potential energy'. But that is also a definition between frames of reference, but for 'space' to be able to store it and translate it into a time dilation?

He* it doesn't matter if you define yourself as unmoving or not, the 'speed' you will measure relative some other object should be a 'time dilation' anyway, but who will be the younger one then you ask Well, that's a definition that only comes into play as defined by a same origin. As soon as you can't backtrack 'yourselves' to that 'exact same frame of reference originally', that question loses its validity. And the 'time dilation' you expect to measure will then be unmeasurable. The only way you ever can measure it will be relative the blue shift, and 'energy' your acceleration will create relative the outside (universe). And there you will have use a average measured from all stars, or the CBR to make a educated guess.

If I'm thinking right that is.
I probably will have to look at this later, to see if it makes any sense

[yor_on]

Why doesn't inertia change with your relative motion? The (potential) energy does?

This one is a headache, on Earth we definitely expect the inertia to change with motion. What fools us is the fact that it only express itself in accelerations and decelerations. Which makes it all to easy to assume that it has to be 'stored' somewhere in the motion too. And that was what I did too, but thinking of that table and earths motion I don't think I'm right?

So which is it? Will inertia keep track of relative motion or won't it? Will it 'know' my 'speed' relative a origin (like Earth) or won't it in space. That it does it ('knows') on Earth has to do with the gravitational field. But that's not a geodesic in space, is it? The only thing you will have there will be the invariant mass your spacecraft creates, you included. And in a uniform motion I can define you as being at rest with gravity's potential (surrounding you in space).

[yor_on]

I'll make some presumptions.

Just to get the ball rolling, sort of.
(Kind'a like those, presumptions that is:)

1. Inertia has to work from what 'gravity' that can exist?
Which will mean that a boson has no inertia, ever, and that one makes sense at least.

2. Inertia and gravity are not the same? Which then would mean that they are two things coupled to each other, but not the same? I don't know, that one is weird, and very difficult to define?

3. Inertia and gravity are the same, a symmetry. That one I like, it's simplest, and I guess most of you agree in that they seem to come together.

[yor_on]

The Higgs field don't seem to explain Inertia. Did you know that?

"Even if the Higgs field is experimentally discovered, however, that will still not explain the origin of inertial mass of ordinary matter. The Higgs field applies only to the electro-weak sector of the Standard Model. The mass of ordinary matter is overwhelmingly due to the protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms. Protons and neutrons are comprised of the two lightest quarks: the up and down quarks. The rest masses of their constituent quarks (approx. 0.005 and 0.010 GeV/c2 for the up and down quarks respectively) which could be attributed to the Higgs field comprise only about one percent of the masses of the protons and neutrons (0.938 and 0.940 GeV/c2 respectively). The remainder of the proton and neutron masses would have to be attributed to contributions from the gluon field strong interaction energies plus smaller electromagnetic and weak fields contributions which would not be affected by a Higgs field. The origin of inertial mass of ordinary matter is thus a wide open question.

The following description of the Higgs mass-generating process was published by M. J. G. Veldman (Scientific American, Nov. 1986).

"The way particles are thought to acquire mass in their interactions with the Higgs field is somewhat analogous to the way pieces of blotting paper absorb ink. In such an analogy the pieces of paper represent individual particles and the ink represents energy, or mass. Just as pieces of paper of different sizes and thicknesses soak up varying amounts of ink, different particles 'soak up' varying amounts of energy or mass. The observed mass of a particle depends on the particle's 'energy absorbing' ability, and on the strength of the Higgs field in space."

This is basically a transfer of energy from a field to a particle. Note that this does not address a deeper question: why does the energy "soaked up" from the Higgs field resist acceleration? Perhaps that is not a legitimate question. Perhaps mass and energy intrinsically possess the property of inertia and that is the end of the story. On the other hand, we have found a very intriguing interaction with the electromagnetic quantum vacuum that appears to provide just this property of resistance to acceleration that defines inertia."

From  Inertia and the Higg.

But it also has to do with how you define the universe. Those wanting it to be 'electrical' would have it easier as one then could presume 'EM forces' expressing it through the universe, carried by those 'virtual/real' photons that we already have defined as carriers of the electromagnetic force.

[yor_on]

Let us assume that they're not the same. Then Inertia could be defined as a property of EM-forces created in your acceleration/deceleration relative your 'energy expended' (involving Space 'virtual photons'). But then you have to answer why it would express itself differently in space as relative a planet.

And gravity will still be there, not answered by such a definition.
==

And it would use the 'time dilation' that rocket express relative the 'space' surrounding it as I see it. Which then open for the question of what times arrow is, again. It's a rather straightforward approach though, if we go from a relational approach in where you 'change' the parameters by accelerating/decelerating. But you can use the same definition not involving EM-forces, as the Higgs seems to do, as that particle has no 'charge'.

[yor_on]

It has to go back to what symmetries, and dimensions, are.

What is 'space'. Where are the symmetry breaks in it. Because that is what space should represent to me. Several symmetry breaks as it seems for now, to explain all those 'properties'. And it also goes back to 'size', as that is what we expect to express those 'properties'. It has to do with very short fluctuations, still expressing themselves constantly.

If they do it uniformly will that give us a average continuous force? And if they do it acceleratingly, what would that give us? I know, just testing the waters
==

Can 'energy' be defined as accelerating on its own? How about interference, quenching and reinforcing waves?

[yor_on]

Now, here is what I don't like "why does the energy "soaked up" from the Higgs field resist acceleration? Perhaps that is not a legitimate question. Perhaps mass and energy intrinsically possess the property of inertia and that is the end of the story." Not because it can't be true. Maybe it is a 'property' of something else, but we should still try to define it as narrowly as we can.

You see, assume that we get it all explained. We know it all one day, SpaceTime being our oyster :)Well, what's 'outside' it then? And when we've got that one cleared up, well what's 'outside that' then

There will always be the possibility of defining whatever we find 'resting' in something else, even if we define it as without a 'background'. Because it is 'somewhere' even if coming from itself, through symmetries breaking. So the concept of finding out never ends it seems.
==

The mere fact of it existing should do that. Although it may be a philosophical concept more than measuring if so. You could assume that what defines something is relations, where those relations end there will be no more to find out. It's a question of borders of the universe, there can very well be so that the universe is infinite in some aspect, meaning that you never will find a stop sign, walking a geodesic, as is the straightest 'lines' in SpaceTime due to its 'gravity' forming it. But it doesn't state that there isn't a 'border'.

To me the borders seems to be motion and size. Then you have fermions and bosons too but those are both restricted by our arrow. And as motion falls under the arrow too? But size? In a way it too seems a description of the arrow, if 'chopped up' to its smallest bits. So maybe we will be left with 'c'?

[yor_on]

And 'c' is the arrow, well, at least its clock as I think of it. We use it as our final description of a ultimate 'speed', as well as the definition of a 'smallest size' (Planck scales). And it's between those two borders we seem to exist.

'Time' as such flows in one direction, but that may just be a consequence of there being a SpaceTime. So in a way time is as much of a 'dimension' as length, height and width. That's also why I think of it as a fractal, it's not so much a concept of linear distances to me as it is of something 'opening up' or 'closing down' depending on your choice of parameters locally, speeding away for example.

If you stop thinking linearly you will see how I mean.

When it comes to 'time dilations' then that is a concept coming from 'frames of reference', having no real substance for me. As far as I can see we all 'locally' have one measurement, that is our measured timespan. I don't expect 'time travels' as in you going back to see your forefather to be possible. If it was we surely would have noticed it already. Also that concept brings with it all kind of difficulties, looking at time loops and time spiraling into endless bifurcations, although I can't state that it is impossible. But I do not expect it.

And a Lorentz contraction is just a 'fractal way' of expressing a change in parameters relative you/the observer. That makes it rather meaningless defining a certain 'size' to this universe. We might agree on it being 'infinite' but that doesn't define a size. What defines sizes is the way we measure in time, the arrow 'chopped up' defines a smallest size.

[yor_on]

The real mystery when it comes to 'size' are uniform motion versus accelerations. Assume that what defines a ground state of energy and gravity to be a uniform motion. Do that mean that motion relative a origin doesn't matter?

As all uniform motions will be the same, inside that black room? Remember that all other definitions you can use must involve other 'frames of reference'.

If I was correct about inertia, then inertia and a uniform motion seems equivalent to me, in that a inertia will not differ in a course-change, no matter your 'velocity', as defined from some point of origin (Earth). It will only react to the change relative that uniform motion so that we, for this, can define the inertia as being 'equally null' in all geodesics, the same way as your 'uniform motion' always will be 'null' relative gravity's potential, no matter your velocity.

So, is this a way the universe defines 'motion'? And a acceleration becomes a gravity, and a constant inertia acting on you. And as Inertia and accelerations goes together, as it seems to me, then are they the same? If you look at it as a fractal then the acceleration expends energy, exchanging it in gravity, inertia, time dilation and contraction. To the 'inertial observer' left at home, expending no 'energy', it also brings with it a time dilation and contraction, but only defined relative you.

So loosely we can say that he sees you shrinking as well as 'slowing down'. You see the universe 'shrinking' and its time 'speeding up'.
=

Then we have the 'energy'.

The observer do not see the universe change, only you, becoming red shifted as you speed away from him. You, on the other hand ,will find the universal 'frame' to blue shift before you, expending more energy, red shift behind you.

So how many of those effects can we place as 'relations', existing as a description between frames?

Well, to find out you will have to use 'black room scenarios' and in those all uniform motion is the same, all accelerations are gravity/inertia, and your time will never differ.

[yor_on]

But then we come to light. If you define light as 'propagating' which makes perfect sense for this, you need to ask yourself two things.

Does light have a mass?

Does light show inertia?

As far as I can see light has no discernible mass. What we have is definitions of how 'big' a possible mass could be still allowing light to do what it does. And that is the same as defining my chances of being the one and only Santa as I see it.

But has it a inertia?
==

To test it you can use 'matter waves'.

Think of everything as representations of waves. All matter can be set equivalent to a 'energy' and also to waves. Doing so we ignore the uniqueness of matter and it might be seen as flawed but we can use it for imagining how inertia/accelerations would express itself.

The question also seems to be what 'comes first', the acceleration, or the inertia?
Can you differ those two?

[yor_on]

Yeah I know, haven't really thought about it in terms of 'inertia'. It's a truly weird subject, where gravity at least have a kind of definition in a geometry, inertia is more of something acting like a 'syrup', but as far as I can see, not 'growing' with uniform motion? Einstein discussed it in form of 'energy' though, and doing so? Then again, he pressed for the definition of mass as 'invariant', not relativistic, meaning that there was no added 'mass' to something being in a motion relative some origin.

If I think of SpaceTime as 'slices', split at Planck size, would I see a 'quantum foam' there? It's irritating in that you can imagine it two ways, either as you 'magnifying' something by radiation (light), or delivering 'energy' to it visualizing it in its interactions.

But assume that there would be a way of showing that 'quantum foam', by 'magnifying it'. Would you still see 'SpaceTime'? Would 'SpaceTime' exist at all at that level. What I'm discussing here is how to see a 'symmetry break' actually.

[yor_on]

When you deliver a energy to something through the LHC, doesn't you also introduce the possibility of symmetry breaks? The only way to define something seems to me to be doing it at a 'ground state', if now that one makes sense? But I will presume it does, seems to be when at rest with whatever you're observing. When it comes to motion you do it by having the exact same velocity and so be at rest. How do you do it with 'energies'?

A ground state of motion I would define as 'uniform motion'. Can I use that definition for defining 'energy' too?

[yor_on]

So, we define 'states' from their 'energy' as well as temperature. What is a temperature? Something 'jiggling'? Not on its own is it? The temperature of something jiggling on its own can't be measured as I think of it. You need at least two 'thingies', as 'particles', interacting to measure a temperature. Can waves have a temperature, without interaction? How about interference, do 'reinforcing' give them a temperature?
=

Better point out that by 'measuring' you always will introduce that other 'thingie' interacting. What I'm wondering about is if temperature and 'energy' is the same and also, if they can be said to be 'equivalent', where they will differ. Something 'on its own' may have a temperature when measured, but does it exist on its own? Or is that 'energy' only?

[yor_on]

Well, it's interesting. I've been reading a little about his definitions and to me it seems as if he equalized 'gravity' and 'inertia', discussing 'inertial mass' instead of what we name 'invariant mass'. So his definition was simply the equivalence principle, stating that you can't differ an (inertial) acceleration from its equivalent gravity.

I kind'a feel a little stupid here But as I said, I haven't really considered inertia on its own, and somehow I missed what it was in his equivalence principle, thinking of both 'types' invariant mass and accelerations as 'gravity'. but it's perfectly correct, you can't differ it.

And it's 'gravity' they discuss, both of them. Forget about 'invariant mass', and forget about 'accelerations'. Define both from a local point of view and they will be inseparable. And then a acceleration always is 'the same' if defined from a uniform motion, no matter its velocity relative some 'third party'. If you're already inside a gravitational field it's different though as that will add to the effect, as on earth.

I really feel stupid about this one. Still, it made me look at something from another point of view.

[yor_on]

The problem is that before the equivalence principle people saw it as 'two definitions' in where one was the inertial reaction to a acceleration, and the other was 'gravity' as defined by 'invariant rest mass'. I think I jump started pass that definition some time long ago reading about Einsteins gravity. Ah well, enough excuses.

Inertia is just a symmetry to invariant mass, coupled to gravity, just as matter is. But one interesting thing is still left, can light have a inertia without having a mass? Most people questioning why 'photons' doesn't have 'mass' seems to consider 'gravity' a intrinsic property of mass? I don't, and the equivalence principle doesn't seem to do it either. How else would 'inertia' become gravity?

[yor_on]

The question I guess people want defined is just how 'inertia' can be 'gravity' though. First you have to admit that it is inseparable in a black room sceniario. If you do that the right question might be, if they are the same, why do we differ them?

One is about a very specific kind of 'motion', accelerations. There are only two states of motion in Einsteins universe, 'uniform motion' and 'accelerations'.

Then we have 'invariant mass' that, as I understands it, we define from geodesics, the so called 'inertial mass' existing when being 'at rest' in a uniform motion. And a 'uniform motion' is as I see it at rest with 'gravity's potential' leaving only the 'rest mass' to influence that 'flat space' locally.

It's quite beautifully defined, and Einstein did it before me
He was a very smart guy.

[yor_on]

You might want to see the equivalence principle as a proof of 'energy' becoming gravity though? And that would make all inertial reactions a definition of 'energy'. I don't know? Vacuum fluctuations knocking on that door again

Or you could define it as a 'symmetry break'.