What is the root cause of Inertia?

We know that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so it is not motion itself which causes resistance, but acceleration.

We know that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so it is not motion itself which causes resistance, but acceleration.

We know that every object curves space due to its gravity, and we know that gravitational curvature is symetric for a body if it is not acted upon by another gravitational field, or by acceleration.

Can we conclude therefor that it is a resistance to asymetric curvature of space which is the root cause of Inertia?

Thanks,

Quote:

We know that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so it is not motion itself which causes resistance, but acceleration.

This conclusion is not supported.

Quote:

We know that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so it is not motion itself which causes resistance, but acceleration.

Resistance can cause acceleration. And resistance can occur without acceleration.

Quote:

We know that every object curves space due to its gravity, and we know that gravitational curvature is symetric for a body if it is not acted upon by another gravitational field, or by acceleration.

Can we conclude therefor that it is a resistance to asymetric curvature of space which is the root cause of Inertia?

Thanks,

No we can't! This conclusion does not follow any logical form.

I think that the explanation for inertia/momentum is much much simpler than all this --

Simply, it takes energy to change the state of a particle! So if that particle is in motion, it will take energy to slow it down...and if it is at rest, it will take energy to speed it up. Additionally, there are probably some attractions between objects which must be forced apart which further leads to resistance.

Of course it is. Please explain.

I hope you're not referring to friction when you say this, because that would mean that you do not understood the limits of the system model I was using.

Yes it does. There is a logical sequence right in the argument. If you see a flaw please be specific as to why it's a flaw, and support your argument.

So are you saying that the root cause of inertia is a resistance to a change in energy state? And are you implying that an object traveling at a high velocity due to a previous acceleration has a different mass than when it started (not relativistic mass)?

Indeed I am referring to friction. Will you then clarify the limits of the system model you were using?

What is the root cause of Inertia?

We know that acceleration is related to gravity from General Relativity, and we know that gravity is a function of curvature of space.

We know that every object curves space due to its gravity, and we know that gravitational curvature is symetric for a body if it is not acted upon by another gravitational field, or by acceleration.

I have a question... How do you know that all objects do display a symmetric gravitational field?

Can we conclude therefor that it is a resistance to asymetric curvature of space which is the root cause of Inertia?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I have a question... How do you know that all objects do display a symmetric gravitational field?

Why would they not?

Assuming of course that they are not interacting with other gravitational fields.

When a small object orbits a larger object it doesn't suddenly hit 'bumps' in its orbit. And this indicates that gravitational fields are symetrical when in an isolated state (just like a bubble is spherical unless acted upon by external forces).

Because there's no reason to think that they would. Gravity is a function of mass. There is the possibility that a celestial body could have a very massive hemisphere and a much less massive hemisphere. How do we know that the field would not be larger on the more massive side ?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Because there's no reason to think that they would. Gravity is a function of mass. There is the possibility that a celestial body could have a very massive hemisphere and a much less massive hemisphere. How do we know that the field would not be larger on the more massive side ?

I think you're missing the point.

Take a theoretically pure case to start with. Assume an object like spherical boulder or something. It will have a center of mass which will cause a 'normal' symetrical distortion in space around it (a gravity field). In other words, all I'm saying here is that in a pure example, the field will be symetrical (a 4th dimensional sphere if you will).

If you push the object, then you accelerate it, and that will distort the symetry of the gravitational field, compressing it on one side and stretching it on the other.

My conjecture is that, it is this distortion in symetry which we perceive as inertia. Once you stop pushing the object the field goes back so symetrical and the object continues on its way.

rosborne979 wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Because there's no reason to think that they would. Gravity is a function of mass. There is the possibility that a celestial body could have a very massive hemisphere and a much less massive hemisphere. How do we know that the field would not be larger on the more massive side ?

I think you're missing the point.

Take a theoretically pure case to start with. Assume an object like spherical boulder or something. It will have a center of mass which will cause a 'normal' symetrical distortion in space around it (a gravity field). In other words, all I'm saying here is that in a pure example, the field will be symetrical (a 4th dimensional sphere if you will).

If you push the object, then you accelerate it, and that will distort the symetry of the gravitational field, compressing it on one side and stretching it on the other.

My conjecture is that, it is this distortion in symetry which we perceive as inertia. Once you stop pushing the object the field goes back so symetrical and the object continues on its way.

Except for your idea is just wrong. You can't make assumptions that are the crux of the case. Furthermore, a graviton is massless and so would not experience this lag that you're talking about. Then there is the fact that the gravity may have absolutely NOTHING to do with inertia. Perhaps it is gross energy...

Nevermind the fact that this whole thing is based on circular logic that I pointed out a few posts ago and no one has bothered to answer.

You first 4 assumptions were not correct --> your hypothesis is not correct.

Ok ok ok ok... wait... I can't believe no one has asked this yet...

Quote:

We know that acceleration is related to gravity from General Relativity, and we know that gravity is a function of curvature of space.

We know that every object curves space due to its gravity, and we know that gravitational curvature is symetric for a body if it is not acted upon by another gravitational field, or by acceleration.

So what your saying is that we know A --> B and B --> A ? So then by your assertions, doesn't B --> B and gravity cause itself ?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Because there's no reason to think that they would. Gravity is a function of mass. There is the possibility that a celestial body could have a very massive hemisphere and a much less massive hemisphere. How do we know that the field would not be larger on the more massive side ?

I think you're missing the point.

Take a theoretically pure case to start with. Assume an object like spherical boulder or something. It will have a center of mass which will cause a 'normal' symetrical distortion in space around it (a gravity field). In other words, all I'm saying here is that in a pure example, the field will be symetrical (a 4th dimensional sphere if you will).

If you push the object, then you accelerate it, and that will distort the symetry of the gravitational field, compressing it on one side and stretching it on the other.

My conjecture is that, it is this distortion in symetry which we perceive as inertia. Once you stop pushing the object the field goes back so symetrical and the object continues on its way.

Except for your idea is just wrong. You can't make assumptions that are the crux of the case. Furthermore, a graviton is massless and so would not experience this lag that you're talking about. Then there is the fact that the gravity may have absolutely NOTHING to do with inertia. Perhaps it is gross energy...

Nevermind the fact that this whole thing is based on circular logic that I pointed out a few posts ago and no one has bothered to answer.

You first 4 assumptions were not correct --> your hypothesis is not correct.

My first 4 assumptions are just summary statement of Newtons laws of motion and of General Relativty. Which ones do you object to?

Before you trash the whole thing I wish you would at least demonstrate an understanding of the concept I'm trying to convey. At least E_Brown can rephrase the concept so that I know we're talking about the same thing.

No offence, but I don't have any idea what your level of understanding is in this area, so I can't just take your word for it when you object.

Just two posts ago you got off on a tangent worrying about theoretically non-pure conditions rather than focusing on the point. That's not a good indication of a grasp of the theoretical concepts. Theories have to be worked out in pure conditions before they are tested with physical variations.

Maybe we can step back and take each assumption one at a time so I can see where we disagree. The last point you were objecting to was the assumption that pure gravitational fields are symetrical. Do you still disagree with that assumption?

I wasn't off on a tangent. I think you're wrong about this whole "pure" environment.

You can't just assume something is true because it is required for what you want to believe.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I wasn't off on a tangent. I think you're wrong about this whole "pure" environment.

It's very common for theory to be described under 'pure' conditions. Most physics problems are stated that way so I don't know why you're so surprised by this.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

You can't just assume something is true because it is required for what you want to believe.

I don't.

I'm stating certain assumptions, some of which I know to be true because they are standard theory.

I'm building on those with certain conjectures, and those are the things I'm interested in debating.

Newton's laws of motion and General Relativity are not in question in my mind, nor is the obvious fact that gravitational fields are symetrical under pure theoretical conditions.

I also know that objects in free fall are relativistically symetrical (as specified by GR).

And since acceleration by force and acceleration by gravity are related, there is a correspondence between field shape and inertia.

Fine, assume all you want. Still, your assumptions in the beginning are based on circular logic and are still flawed. You've neglected to respond to that twice now.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Fine, assume all you want. Still, your assumptions in the beginning are based on circular logic and are still flawed. You've neglected to respond to that twice now.

I've already said that my original assumptions are based on standard laws of motion and on GR.

Could we go through these one at a time?

What is the first thing I said which you don't think is supported by standard theory?

We know that acceleration is related to gravity from General Relativity, and we know that gravity is a function of curvature of space.

We know that every object curves space due to its gravity, and we know that gravitational curvature is symetric for a body if it is not acted upon by another gravitational field, or by acceleration.

Now, what you just said, written more simply: A --> B, B --> A.
Which means B --> B and gravity causes itself.