what is Inertia

[Allcanadian]

Smudge

On the subject of inertia our teaching is all wrong.  Since Newton inertia is described as an internal property of matter to resist change of motion.  This is nonsense, there is ample evidence that inertia is an external force.  We are familiar with a liquid (or indeed a gas) having viscosity that is a property that impedes motion of a body through it.  Similarly space is a gas that impedes motion, but the rules are different from viscosity.  Perhaps we should teach space as being a substance like a gas that has a property called inertivity.  We know the rules, space imparts a force on a mass that is proportional to its acceleration.  I say a gas because we know that it is full of particles, not mass particles but photons or sub-photons whizzing about at light velocity.  So this inertivity comes from interaction between the mass and the space gas particles.  To me that makes sense.

I came to the same conclusion and the common view of inertia amounts to something "acting on itself" which is problematic.

Suppose we have two identical objects A and B in outer space with no resistance. Object A pushes itself away from B and since there mass/inertia is the same they move away from each other with equal velocities ie. Momentum (Mass-Velocity) is conserved. It's well enough however that still does not explain how either mass produced a force capable of resisting the others acceleration allowing the objects to move in opposite directions.

It's easier to break the problem down...
1)In order for A to accelerate B must have some form of resistance to an acceleration.
2)In order for B to accelerate A must have some form of resistance to an acceleration.
3)Inertia is not a solution to the resistance problem because we would then have to explain what inertia is, how can it resist an acceleration?.
4)Thus when we speak of inertia there are only two possibilities, the mass interacted with something in the space it occupies or it acted on itself.
5)Here we should be clear something "acting on itself" is absurd and amounts to something from nothing, it's not a solution.

I find most peoples view on this very strange, they claim A acted on B as B acted on A using inertia to explain how A-B can accelerate. However it's obviously problematic when they have no idea what inertia is. So in fact it doesn't explain anything in my opinion.

Regards
AC

[F6FLT]

...
I find most peoples view on this very strange, they claim A acted on B as B acted on A using inertia to explain how A-B can accelerate. However it's obviously problematic when they have no idea what inertia is. So in fact it doesn't explain anything in my opinion.
...

This is what the equations describe, and what is perfectly modeled by a mathematical formalism that allows us to predict the movements of objects and everything we observe, is not strange, it is on the contrary common sense.
For me what is strange is that we do not know the underlying principles at work, while the models work perfectly. But it's the same in quantum mechanics: the equations work and are the same for everybody, contrary to the interpretations. Whether it is about QM or inertia, to select the best interpretation, they have to provide operational predictions different from each other, and depending on what is observed and measured, one makes the choice.

For example at the link I passed in the other thread is a good starting point (A Martins - The Connection Between Inertial Forces and the Vector Potential  (pdf)). If inertia can be manipulated by electromagnetism, experiments could confirm it, then only the theory needs to be revised.

[Jerry Volland]

Inertia is a Principle of Nature referred to as Conservation of Momentum.

[Jerry Volland]

Inertia is a Principle of Nature referred to as Conservation of Momentum.

Inertia is a fundamental Principle of Nature.  If we choose to think about propelling ourselves with Inertia, we need the perspective of Conservation of Momentum.  This isn't just some passive rule from a science book.  Conservation is an ACTIVE Principle, a 'wheelwork' of Nature.  Even an orbital mass is effected, having Rotational Inertia (Angular Momentum).  If we try to change a radius, a Force of Nature causes the entire device to move so that the Rotational Inertia doesn't change.  Understanding Resultant Movements holds the key to producing emissionless propulsion.

[Smudge]

See my paper written in 2003.

[Kator01]

Hello everyone,

this fits in here:

http://www.aetherscience.org/www-energyscience-org-uk/le/Le30/le30.html

Mike_G

[Jerry Volland]

The gyroscope is an illustrative example of Conservation Mechanics.  The downwards turning side of the wheel couples with gravity.  The added accelerating impetus, if everything else remained stationary, would cause mass particles to travel a normal distance in less time.  This would upset the rotational inertia.  Instead, a precessional roll lengthens the distance for the mass particles, keeping all momentum constant.  Conservation of Momentum is the reason a gyroscope works.

I remember the days when Alphonce Rueda derived the Third Law from ZPE equations.  This went on for quite a while, with a lot of people advancing the math.  Eventually, though, the theory that ZPE causes inertia was refuted.  Space curl, if separate from Frame Dragging, and much stronger, might present an interesting angle.

[Allcanadian]

Jerry

The gyroscope is an illustrative example of Conservation Mechanics.

It's a pretty cool subject and I have done quite a few tests over the years.

For some reason my intuition seems to pick up on many things which seem off. For example, the gyroscope on the end of a stick experiment,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo, Veritasium, Anti-gravity wheel? video.
I get the video, the equations and the physics however that is still an incomplete explanation in my opinion. If we concentrate on only the fact we have a large mass on the end of a stick and all the weight transfers to the other end of the stick we have problems.

One concept I often use to understand things better is an equivalent mechanical analogy.

That is, I don't care about complex non-answers, show me a simple mechanical system which could produce the same effects. So if the gyro was point A, the stick B and the fulcrum point C then "something" must act upwards on A while transferring all of the weight of A to point C. Obviously it's problematic because in a mechanical system the upward angular force acting on A would have to originate at C. In any mechanical system the origin of the force can only be C. This is true because A has nothing to act on at point A other than itself or the space it occupies.

I understand that A produces an angular force on B which transfers to C. What I'm asking is how and in order to answer the question we would have to know what inertia is. There is simply no valid explanation until we know what inertia is in my opinion. One cannot claim to understand something and not know what it is...

Regards
AC

[Jerry Volland]

AC:

The wheel has the torque.  If the speed is maintained, then the wheel has positive torque, due to the constant input.  When the wheel slows down as it idles, the torque curl points in the other direction, and is negative.  This is Point A in your example.

A torque arm B coupling the wheel mass to the point C pedestal doesn't change the position of the torque.  Any seeming weight or mass increase at Point C is a torque pressure.  Point C feels the torque pressure but does not originate the torque.  The torque comes from the wheel changing speed.

While the wheel spins at a given rate, the torque arm B maintains it's angle with gravity.  The gyro is already precessing, to Conserve Momentum.  Any torque added to the wheel produces a Resultant movement perpendicular to the precession.  This movement also Conserves Momentum.  The Principle manifests as the resultant movement.

The upwards tipping of the wheel is in opposition to gravity, so the causation, coming from gravity, is an example of an anti-gravity force in a mechanical system.  The resultant weight loss at Point A is real.  But gain at Point C isn't.  And neither is mass loss at Point A.

So Inertia is still Nature's determination to Conserve Momentum, invoking any required channel, such as a momentary centrifugal reaction force, to maintain that end.  With force being mass times acceleration.

[Smudge]

Inertial forces exist in electromagnetism.  If you accelerate an electrically charged body that is within a space that is at a scalar electric potential then the body will react with an inertia that is in addition to its mass inertia.  The additional inertia is proportional to the charge and the scalar potential.  This has been called electrostatic mass.  We have no doubt that this inertia is an external force acting on the body.  The body endures an electric field conjured up by its acceleration within that scalar potential.  Our mass particles are within a scalar gravitational potential coming  from all the mass in the universe.  Isn't it likely that acceleration within that huge scalar potential also conjures up an external force?  And that is the reason for our conservation of momentum laws?  Why are we so besotted with this non external force nonsense?

Smudge

[Allcanadian]

Jerry
That's a good explanation but it still doesn't answer the hard questions.

Let's break it down...
It works by conserving momentum
What is momentum?, mass-velocty.
What is mass?, mass is determined by measuring the inertial properties of an object
What is Inertia?, does not compute, we don't know.

So while the explanation sounds reasonable to most it doesn't to me. It's an abomination because in reality the only force keeping the spinning mass from falling is Inertia and we don't know what it is.

Inertia is the property of mass which leads to all the other forces and actions in question.

I think smudge gets it and what appears normal is in fact far from it. There are huge gaps in understanding we have yet to resolve.

Regards
AC

[Allcanadian]

We could think of it this way...

I have an apple in my hand and I let go of it and it falls to Earth.

It seems quite normal and we have all seen and experienced similar effects all our life.

However it's not normal and we have literally no rational explanation for it. This is true because in order to fully explain it we would need to know what Gravity and Inertia are in reality. I get it, many like to pretend they understand but nobody seems to have a rational explanation for even the most mundane effects we experience every day.

I find it kind of disturbing and exciting because if nobody really understands anything that matters there's a lot of opportunity to make progress. Maybe some of us here could devise a simple experiment towards understanding the primary fields and inertia better, who knows.

Regards
AC

[3D Magnetics]

The exact same thing Happens with both oranges and pears.

[Jerry Volland]

Smudge:

Inertial forces exist in electromagnetism.  If you accelerate an electrically charged body that is within a space that is at a scalar electric potential then the body will react with an inertia that is in addition to its mass inertia.  The additional inertia is proportional to the charge and the scalar potential.  This has been called electrostatic mass.  We have no doubt that this inertia is an external force acting on the body.  The body endures an electric field conjured up by its acceleration within that scalar potential.  Our mass particles are within a scalar gravitational potential coming  from all the mass in the universe.  Isn't it likely that acceleration within that huge scalar potential also conjures up an external force?  And that is the reason for our conservation of momentum laws?  Why are we so besotted with this non external force nonsense?

Smudge

Your comments present an interesting angle in support of the theory of universal gravitation as the source of inertia.  However, a Scalar field is non vectorial.  This means the effect cannot have an external origin, since that would imply that the Scalar impetus has a direction.

We should consider the part of the universal field, coming from all directions, which is inside the particle itself.  It's been pretty well covered up, but I've seen video evidence that squeezing one side of a quadrature field makes it squirt off in the other direction.  Perhaps we should think about shape integrity when mass is accelerated?    And Nature's resistance to this deformation.  Once the acceleration ends, so would the particle deformation, and everything keeps coasting at the new velocity.

Here's an abstract about Mercury drop deformation under acceleration:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32526910/

[Smudge]

Smudge:
Your comments present an interesting angle in support of the theory of universal gravitation as the source of inertia.  However, a Scalar field is non vectorial.  This means the effect cannot have an external origin, since that would imply that the Scalar impetus has a direction.

No no no!!!  The scalar field has no direction.  But the accelerating particle does, the acceleration has direction.  That acceleration direction creates the opposing external force direction on the particle, not the scalar field.  If you are not happy with that then just consider the forces on the stationary charge particles that are creating the scalar electric field.  The accelerating charge radiates EM and those waves reach the stationary charges to impose forces on them.  And you find that those forces are in the reverse direction to the acceleration direction.  There you have the conservation law of momentum law where you have to consider the source of the scalar field.  In the case of mass inertia the accelerating mass radiates a gravitational field that eventually imposes forces on the sources of the scalar gravitational potential, and that is all the other mass in the universe.

Smudge

[Smudge]

Most people here have sampling 'scopes and are familiar with a sample being a discrete value, and you need a series of samples to describe a wave.  They should have no difficulty in the realization that the wave-particle dualism of photons is similar, that a photon could simply be a series of particles each carrying a discrete value of an electric field (that is a vector transverse to the velocity), and you need a certain number of these to be a photon wave.  Thus we have a space that is filled with photons and more importantly with sub-photon particles.  We know that photons carry momentum, hence so do sub-photons.  The attached paper shows how a mass particle interacting with sub-photon particles can have inertia, and it all comes down to momentum being absorbed and emitted.  Enjoy.

Smudge

[Smudge]

Following on from that paper on inertia, here is another one showing how the sub-photons have a vector property that can be considered like spin.  And the "rules of engagement" between the sub-photon particle being absorbed and emitted from a matter particle like an electron result in a force that we recognize as being from an electric field.

Smudge

[F6FLT]

...
The attached paper shows how a mass particle interacting with sub-photon particles can have inertia, and it all comes down to momentum being absorbed and emitted.  Enjoy.

Smudge

When you write that Absorption Rate = Nd.Ac.(c-v)/2, the speed is relative to which reference frame?

[Smudge]

When you write that Absorption Rate = Nd.Ac.(c-v)/2, the speed is relative to which reference frame?

A reference frame where distant matter at a particular radius from the observer is expanding outwards at the same velocity in all directions.

[F6FLT]

A reference frame where distant matter at a particular radius from the observer is expanding outwards at the same velocity in all directions.

I don't see what that means from an operational standpoint. By "expanding outwards", do you mean the expansion of the universe following the Hubble constant? If so this expansion is the same everywhere, and it is not a speed but a speed/megaparsec.
What matter ? What radius ?

Two observers can be at this place where each one notices the same expansion, but each one being at a considerable speed relative to the other.
Are you coming back to a static ether as an absolute reference frame (even if it contains the dynamics of S particles) without saying so?

[Smudge]

......Are you coming back to a static ether as an absolute reference frame (even if it contains the dynamics of S particles) without saying so?

I think I probably am.  As you say the universe expansion is the same everywhere no matter where you are, and that is a universal sameness so it is a sort of absolute.  For those who believe that terms like c-v or c+v don't really have any meaning because, whatever your speed, EM waves arriving at you will seem to be traveling at c should really study Doppler where c-v or c+v do have real meaning.  And if EM waves really are very dense (in number volume density), virtual particles carrying momentum and energy (thus explaining wave-particle dualism) could be responsible for inertia as I described.  Mach's principle that distant matter is responsible could be true because most of the matter in the universe is distant from us.  Put it into another math form, we live in a huge static gravitational potential determined by all the universe's matter, and acceleration of a mass particle through that potential could use formula to explain its inertia in a similar way that acceleration of a charged particle within an electrostatic potential explains EM inertia.  "Explain" is perhaps the wrong word to use since the formula just gives you an answer, not an explanation.  I have attempted to provide an explanation.
Smudge

[F6FLT]

You say that the Emission Rate = NdAc(c-v+at)/2, but since the Absorption Rate = NdAc(c-v)/2, then Momentum is absorbed at rate NdAcatp0.
So the velocity v is useless, whether it is constant or not. An absolute reference frame introduces a superfluous assumption, which is problematic.
What experimental or observational result would show an absolute velocity?

[Hakasays]

What experimental or observational result would show an absolute velocity?

I'm not sure such a thing would even conceivable in the current standard model, if space itself is continually expanding.

[Smudge]

What experimental or observational result would show an absolute velocity?

I have witnessed an experiment where a fibre-optic cable was wound onto a drum.  The two ends were brought out with enough slack that the drum could be rotated a few turns.  A single colour light source was fed through the cable and splitters at each end enabled the input and output to be compared producing an interference pattern on a screen.  With the drum stationary the pattern remained static.  With the drum rotating the pattern changed indicating a change of phase.  That phase difference is proportional to the circumferential velocity.  The Sagnac effect comes to mind.
Smudge 

[F6FLT]

The absolute velocity that I wanted to prove experimentally is on a linear axis, measured in an inertial frame of reference. I have no doubt that an absolute velocity can be perfectly observed in rotation. The Sagnac effect can be explained by relativity even if it can also be explained by an ether drive. In rotation, accelerations cannot be avoided because the velocity vector is not constant in direction, and these accelerations are absolute.

In the Sagnac effect the interferences are visualized in the rotating frame of reference, while from what I understand from the experiment you describe, they are in the fixed frame of reference, which simplifies the analysis and is different, but still not a proof of absolute velocity for the following reasons.

First, the drum is rotating, so the light is moving in a non-inertial medium.
Then, between the rotating fiber and the fixed interference detection device, the medium that the light follows accelerates at the start and decelerates at the finish, in the slack left on the ends of the optical cable.
Finally, even if we ignore the accelerations, the speed of light is constant and the same for all inertial observers but only in vacuum. But in a material, it will also depend on the speed of the material. It is therefore normal to obtain a phase shift between the source of light at the entrance of the fiber, and the one that comes out and moved in a medium itself in motion.