The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Acceleration and inertia
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Acceleration and inertia

  • 0 Replies
  • 1291 Views
  • 1 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nilak (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 445
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Acceleration and inertia
« on: 16/04/2017 08:56:30 »
My concept[1]doesn’t allow forces or inertia as fundamental phenomena but as effects therefore it says something different about acceleration.
A constant force applied to particular points of the body is felt as constant by an observer that can be a human or for example a spring and a weight. However, since the concept allows an absolute frame, the acceleration produced by something that we see as a force is not constant but as the velocity approaches c, it tends asymptotically to zero.
The proper acceleration, just like in relativity, will be measured constant because the clock that moves, will tick slower, compensating the reduction in the real acceleration.
The concept explains that, a body following a uniform straight motion, continues with the same velocity, because of inertia, but what causes inertia is the constant propagation speed of light and conservation of the wave structure. The propagation speed of an OAM light beam under the same conditions is constant and subluminal as well. Matter propagates nonlinearly that is why it can travel slower than c. If the shape structure of the wave is conserved, the velocity is conserved. Unlike the conventional explanation for inertia as resistance to change in the state of motion, I explain inertia as conservation of the shape of the wave structure. For example a linearly polarized light beam continues to propagate keeping the polarization angle and frequency as long as nothing perturbs it.

Let’s consider a celular body and the deformation of any cell to represent that the body feels it. If a force act on all cells at the same time, they do not deform. Inertia, in classical physics also acts on all cells at the same time. Such a force can be gravity, that is why this ball in free fall, will stay undeformed, the same as in deep space. Any other force applied to the ball that acts on particular areas will cause the cells to deform, with the highest deformation close to the points of contact. In the context of this concept let’s consider a constant gravitational field and a distant flat infinite plane body that produces it. A particle at a low velocity close to 0, with a certain helical wave-structure will free fall towards the massive body. The field alters the wave constinuosly with every moment, giving it energy. In classical physics we explain it as a gravity force and inertia and we explain inertia as resistance to change. Here, within our model, there is no resistance to change, basically, the wave changes instantly with every moment, no matter the mass/energy of the wave. Here the energy of the wave is proportional to its classical amplitude. The wave receives energy at a constant power rate, and the rate at which it receives it is given by the strength of the gravitational field.

https://dwgtheory.quora.com[1]
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: particle physics 
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 35 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.