THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA

1) In summarizing, we have seen that the (changes of) size, condition (acceleration) and the direction of an object's speed (motion) has no relevance in respect to inertia. Only the changes of mechanical energy have relevance. In consequence, a "force" is characterized by its capability to bring about such changes in mechanical energy and the inertia arising from it is a "firce".

A firce is not a force in the physical sense of the word, because it has no potential to change the mechanical energy of an object on which it works (or rather, on which it is generated). Firces are imaginary or induced forces (reactions), like images seen in a mirror. The apparent reality of firces consists in the fact that we can observe/experience only them, instead of the real, causing forces. A (any) force can never be detected directly, but only by observing/experiencing the reaction (firce) it causes (the correct interpretation of the third Law of Newton).

Hence, inertia and "weight" are implicitly identical as reactions on in themselves undetectable forces and gravitation. A reaction firce can also be based on friction (mechanical resistance against motion) instead of inertia. Newton's third law should be formulated as: action force = reaction firce. As only firces can be detected/experienced, it would on the other hand be right to call them "forces" again, as long as we are aware of, that they are no more physical reality than your image is, when looking in a mirror. For this reason the use of the term "firce" is imperative to avoid confusion, when discussing the implements of inertia and gravity.

2) The amount of mechanical energy of an object in gravitational orbit (or in another free motion) remains constant. The moving object changes size, condition and direction of its speed, but not that of its mechanical energy (the resolved components of it). It moves in a straight line, according to previous mentioned definition(2), in an as yet unknown (indefinable) system of reference (the curvature of space-time ?). The object is not subjected to forces as per previous mentioned definition(5) and inertia does not arise.

3) The amount of kinetic energy (its rotational speed) of an object in mechanical rotation around a fixed point to which it is mechanically attached, remains constant. Nevertheless, the object changes size and direction of its kinetic energy (the resolved components of it). The rotating object is subjected to a working (causing) centripetal force, causing these changes, and inertia arises as a centrifugal firce. This approach omits the question whether an "absolute" space or system of reference exists in respect to Newton's "absolute rotation". Rotation can be perceived to be "absolute" if inertia (centrifugal firce) arises, but then regardless the nature of any reference system of observation. From 2) and especially 3) it can be understood that the "change of mechanical energy" as the cause of inertia, is not equal to the change of kinetic or potential energy alone. When the kinetic energy changes (in amount and/or direction), without an according compensating change of potential energy, the mechanical energy changes, even when no potential energy is present (flywheel), and inertia occurs.

4) Gravitational "attraction" can only be detected/experienced as a firce (weight) for objects at rest in a gravitational field (with reservation for the definition of "field"). The actual force causing this reaction (weight), is as yet of undefined nature and as such undetectable in our world of observations - a new cosmological theory is needed. This gravitational force is of the same nature as a centripetal force, equally undetectable, and thus gravity causes inertia (weight) in the same way centripetal forces do. Observers in free motion in a gravitational "field" cannot detect any gravitational effects, telling them what moves relative what (Einstein's equivalence-principle), otherwise than by the purely visual observation of the motion itself.

EXPERIMENTAL PROVE
An interesting speculation is that "weight" is caused when the object involved has a deficit in mechanical energy. As the same object, brought in gravitational orbit would become "weightless", it can be speculated that it would become that too if it was in a mechanical rotation (flywheel) on Earth's surface and with the according amount of kinetic energy. In other words, if a flywheel rotates fast enough, it would become lighter, weightless and finally could lift from the ground at high enough energy levels. Unfortunately there are no materials and technology available to achieve the conditions (the circumferencial speed of the flywheel would have to be in the order of 8 km/sec !).

Quite some years ago, two Japanese researches published their observation of a slight decrease in weight at a high speed gyro. In lack of a supporting theory (the one described here) and the inability to repeat the experiment, they were laughed at by the scientific world. They likely made their observation in a limit situation and so there is no high speed gyro fast enough to show the effect under all circumstances - it's not within our technological means.

A new experiment could be made at largely lower energy levels, bringing it within technological means, when performed on a flywheel (gyroscope) that already is in orbit around Earth (or the Moon). The outcome of such an experiment would be positive and fully confirm the theory as described here, if the orbit of the flywheel could be changed, simply by changing its rotational speed (the positioning of the axis of rotation may have a large influence on the outcome of the experiment).

Quod Demonstrandum

REFERENCES

1) Inertia Theory Magic Roundabout: Paul Davies on the Meaning of Mach's Principle Paul Davies, The Guardian, 9/22/94

2) BEYOND E=mc2 Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda & H.E. Puthoff  THE SCIENCES, Vol. 34, No. 6, Nov / Dec 1994, pp. 26-31

3) On the relation between zero-point-field-induced inertial mass and the Einstein-de Broglie formula   B. Haisch and A. Rueda, Physics Letters A, in press, (1999).

4) Inertia as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion. A.Rueda, B. Haisch Phys. Lett. A240 (1998) 115-126 Found. Phys. 28 (1998) 1057-1108