If the atoms (particles) inside an object can be addressed directly by a force, (so, not a force initiating at a point that is futher distributed through the object), would the object still 'feel' inertia during the acceleration?
Inertia and gravity are the same. Always, if a "force" affects on a body directly in every particle, it's apparent fictitious force. A genuine interactive force is chain reaction between structured particles.
Dear Esa,
I do not agree with "Inertia and gravity are the same."
Neither do I with "if a "force" affects on a body directly in every particle, it's apparent fictitious force." That seems to be a quite imprecise definition.
Neither do I with "A genuine interactive force is chain reaction between structured particles." That also seems to be a quite imprecise definition.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Fictitious forces occur when observer accelerates i.e. is under intercative force. This way we can separate potential energy changes from active energy flow.
Dear Esa,
Let's analyze this step-by-step.
"Inertia and gravity are the same."
Can you prove that?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Hello Thierry, there are plenty of references in regards to this issue proved. Relational mechanics is prominent example for it, in which Mach, Scima, Assis, etc were/are working (including myself too). There is no real intrinsic inertia, only the relative field effect at cannon experienced due to gravity.
Dear Bishal,
Relational mechanics is about the relationship between the observer and the subject, the event. It is what Einstein originally meant with his 1905 paper, for the interaction with light.
My question here is more fundamental. It is not about observation, it about the very fundament of inertia.
You wrote: "There is no real intrinsic inertia".
In that case, you refer to Mach, which is certainly wrong, except if one sees that as relational mechanics between the atoms of an object: if one atom is pushed by a force, the atoms that are in the neighborhood, and connected by other forces, will tend to move with the first atom. This is precisely the meaning of inertia.
So, if atoms can be addressed directly to a force, what will be the result?
In other words, if we can produce a flying saucer that can address an electromagnetic force to the whole spaceship, is a superfast acceleration of 40g possible?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Hello Thiery,
How could you say that Einstein's 1905 paper is about relational mechanics? It is totally different than what you perceived in your own way. I think I should not tell you what actually relational mechanics is about. For that I could suggest you the direct topical book "Relational Mechanics" by AKT Assis and references therein. And how do you object that Mach's principle has nothing to do with intrinsic inertia in regards to relational mechanics? see Sciama, D. W. On the origin of Inertia, MNRAS 113, for the core topic of distinguishing between inertia and gravity. I am simply talking about it.
Dear Bishal,
You wrote "How could you say that Einstein's 1905 paper is about relational mechanics?"
I agree with you. That nonsense was written in Wikipedia, which always tries to hijack science into the relativity bubble.
Relational mechanics is much more than observation with light. It is interaction with fields. But in that case, it is nothing more than electromagnetism, gravitomagnetism and Newton's law of inertia combined.
I know some of André Koch Assis' work and had some conversations with him. He uses Weber's electromagnetism, which works better in some circumstances, like with the calculus of fields inside a hollow shell.
For other situations, I am not convinced that it gives superior results.
Mach's statement was that the whole universe is responsible for the inertia of an object. That is of course wrong, since it is only the object itself that generates inertia. The very limited connections between objects through gravity aren't much relevant.
If you can forward me specific interesting links, I will be interested in looking at them.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Talking about the gravitational source of intertia, I made a calculation by developing Sciamas work taking concern about retardation. This analysis is based on Weber electrodynamics applied on gravitation:
Article Sources of inertia in an expanding universe
As seen in the references several others have made similar analyses.
And the theory used was actually formulated by Einstein, presented in his book The Meaning of Relativity. It is linearized GR.
Conclusion is that inertia is gravity.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Electromagnetics
- Electromagnetic Fields