 |
|
|---|---|
| |
THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA |
| ABSTRACT |
Since the days of Galilei, through Newton and onwards today, the subject of inertia has always been viewed in terms of accelerated motion. In doing so, confusion arose, and still arises, whether or not there is an absolute frame of reference, relative to which inertial motions are defined. Newton believed in an absolute space in order to define absolute rotation, Mach used the matter of the distant stars as an according reference system, De Sitter and Lorentz believed in the Ether and even today, the ZPF-inertia, as proposed by Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff, uses the Quantum Vacuum (ZPF) as a kind of 'absolute' , an all-pervasive frame of reference , relative to which objects are accelerated. Not surprisingly, the confusion escalates once more.
In the following deductive analysis, the condition of motion in respect to inertia, is totally ignored; instead the condition of an objects mechanical energy is considered. It will show, that inertia only arises when the mechanical energy of an object changes in amount and/or 'direction'. Surely, mechanical energy is not known as a vector, but as the numeric sum of kinetic and potential energy. Nevertheless, speed is a vector (has direction) and so a given amount of kinetic energy , as a numerical value, can apply on very different situations that have significance in respect to inertia. Naturally, energy as such is whithout direction and polarity, so in mathematical terms nothing changes, but the physical implementation of it does significantly.
From this analysis follows a new definition of "force" and the term "firce" is introduced to eliminate existing confusions by distinguishing inertia and gravity (weight) from causal forces. It will show that the latter are not observable/detectable ones in our world of observations. Only the reaction forces, such as 'weight' , inertia and mechanical resistance (friction), can be measured. Newton's third law, nowadays seen as the more fundamental one, may be wrongly interpreted. Since reaction and action forces cannot be measured separately, it may just be that there is only one force; the one that can be measured. If so, matter resists changes in mechanical energy, by which a force arises (rather than is 'applied'), just as an electrical potential arises when an electrical current is 'forced' through a resistor.
We should be aware that the perception of inertia comes from the idea that an active force is applied. This is as we (seem to) experience it, but there is no physical evidence for it. In fact, Science is inconsequent here, to accept the physical reality of a force, that cannot be measured separately. If our perception instead would be that mechanical energy is applied, or changed, rather than a force, there is no longer a need for two physically existing balancing forces - they are identically the same, just as inert and heavy mass are/is identically the same physical mass - there is only force and mass. For this reason the term "firce" is needed to name the unmeasurable (non-existing), imaginary "force".
The theory shows a total consistency with general relativity (the equivalence-principle), the latter following from the analysis as well. From the analysis also follows a more fundamental interpretation of Newtonian laws. The theory as described here, does not explicitly answer the question whether or not there is an 'absolute' frame of reference, nor the physical nature of matter and energy as such. However, already the change of mechanical energy as the cause of inertia alone, seems to bring about the need for a new cosmological theory, that allows "absolute" motion without the need for an absolute frame of reference.
At the end of the following analysis, an experiment is described that could provide an exclusion about the viability of the theory. If successful, the "weight" of an object could be influenced.
******
LAW OF INERTIA - BASICS
(references are numbered in clickable superscripts)
Imagine an observer who stands on frictionless roller skates at rest on the floor of a moving bus or train. If the vehicle suddenly would brake, so its speed slows down, the observer will 'roll' in the direction of the vehicle's motion, with the same acceleration as by which the vehicle brakes. The numerical value of this acceleration is in no way related to the mass of the observer's body and there is no force working on it (no inertia). Naturally, because the observer's speed doesn't change, as it is the original speed of the vehicle, before it braked.
If the observer instead would be standing on his flat feet, leaning with his back against the front wall of the vehicle's compartment, he would experience his body being pushed against the wall, with a force that is proportional to the vehicle's rate of decreased speed and his body mass (Newton's second law). There is however no physical difference between the cause of either events, so if there was no force accelerating the skating observer, there can be no force pushing the standing one against the wall either. The only conclusion must be that the wall is pushing against the observer's body and not vice versa - there is only one force working! This brings us in an apparent conflict with Newton's third law, saying that two equal forces are working in opposite directions (action = reaction).
Furthermore, in the case of the skating observer, Science says that the system, in which the vehicle is at rest, is not an inertial one (newtonian laws do not apply) and that's why no forces are working on the free rolling skater, but in the case of the standing observer against the wall, newtonian laws do apply and now the same system suddenly becomes an inertial one?
Moreover, Earth's center of gravity is considered to be that of an inertial system, even though a body in free fall is not subjected to any force accelerating it - there is no inertia. Mach's principle, greatfully adopted by Einstein, tries to get around this, but I claim that the physical situation of a body in free gravitational fall is equivalent to that of the skating observer in the vehicle, that brakes its speed. I mean EQUIVALENT and not just similar! This thus means that a body in free fall is not accelerated toward's Earth, but rather the other way around - the Earth accelerates towards the body in free fall!(a new cosmological model is required to explain that - 3D time)
To illustrate how we are fooled by our observations, let's consider the rotational equivalent of the above experiment. A passenger sitting in a car that moves at constant speed and then goes into a curve, will feel his/her body to be pushed against the inside of the car. We call this pushing force a "centrifugal force". In reality however, there is only a centripetal force, by which the inside of the car pushes the passenger's body into the curve (Newton's second law). This situation is in essence no different from the above one, where the wall of the braking vehicle pushes against the body of the observer. The conclusion can only be that centrifugal forces are no physical reality, only centripetal ones are. Yet, Science persists in distinguishing the two as being physical realities. This in spite of lack of evidence, because the two cannot be measured, nor detected separately - how inconsequent!
To examine what really is going on, let's consider two objects that move towards each other under the influence of their mutual gravitational attraction only and that hence no other forces are working on these objects. For convenience, we further assume that the objects are of equal mass. Evidently, these objects are not subjected to inertia. Accelerometers, attached to them, will not show any reading until the objects collide with each other. On impact, the accelerometers will show a reading, the magnitude of which depends on how fast the objects will come to a halt (elasticity of the impact) and read zero again when the objects are at rest relative each other (upper left two sequences in the illustration below).
We can create the same type of motion with a mechanical analogy, in which two objects move accelerated towards each other by the action of a contracting spring connected between them. But now the objects are definitely subjected to inertia - accelerometers attached to these objects will show a reading during the whole course of the accelerated motions and read zero again when the objects come at rest at the end of the motion, when the spring then is fully compressed. However, the polarity of the readings changes when the spring becomes compressed during the last half of the motion (upper right two sequences in the illustration below).
We can extend the above imaginary experiments by letting the objects move away from each other again, through the expansion of the spring in the spring-model and through a fully elastic bounce of the objects in the gravity-model. During the impact, as a fully elastic bounce, all of the kinetic energy of the objects fully converts into potential energy, which is stored in the matter through deformation of the objects (tensions). At maximum deformation, when the objects come to a halt, the accelerometers read zero (middle left sequence in the illustration). If the bounce is fully elastic, the tension in the material will release itself by pushing the objects away from each other, during reformation of their shapes. As soon as the objetcs loose mechanical contact, there is only the gravitational force left, working against the direction of the motion, while the accelerometers read zero (lower left sequenece in the illustration).
In the spring-model, all of the kinetic energy of the objects is stored as potential energy in the compressed spring. During the action of the bounce, by which the spring expands, the readings of the accelerometers will have the same polarity as was during the previous compression of the spring and change polarity again, when the spring becomes stretched during the last half of the motion away from each other (lower right sequenece in the illustration).
In both cases the accelerometers will show a reading as long as energy is converted from potential to kinetic and vice versa. In the gravity-model, the objects lose mechanical contact with each other, having their maximum speed in the moment of losing contact. After that, the readings of the accelerometers remain zero until the next bounce occurs. In the spring-model the objects remain connected to one another by the spring and conversion of energy is going on during the whole duration of the motion, during which the accelerometers will show a reading.
We will see that the direction of the motions as such, away from or towards each other, has no influence on the polarity of the readings of the accelerometers - only the direction and magnitude of the accelerations have influence.
In summarizing, we have performed two imaginary experiments in which objects move accelerated in a similar way. However, in one experiment inertial forces occur, where they do not in the other. As both experiments can be performed in any environment, the choice of whatever reference system of observation can have no influence on the characteristic readings of the accelerometers. For this reason, neither the laws of Newton, nor Mach's principle.(1), nor General Relativity can explain the occurrence or non-occurrence of inertial effects in the imaginary experiments described above.
Therefore, the explanation must be found within the system of the moving objects themselves. There must be a significant difference between the physics of the motions in the respective models, that causes inertia to arise in one model and not in the other. Indeed, there is:
Note: You have permission to copy and reprint all or part of this article. Use it in your ezine, at your website or in your newsletter. The only requirement is including the following footer with it:Source: Physics and Cosmology, at www.draaisma.net/physics_cosmology/ for more original content like this. Copy and reprint permission granted with this footer included.