2

# What is the root cause of Inertia?

stuh505

1
Thu 10 Mar, 2005 09:27 am
Re: What is the root cause of Inertia?
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.
0 Replies

rosborne979

1
Thu 10 Mar, 2005 09:41 am
Re: What is the root cause of Inertia?
stuh505 wrote:
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.

Of course it is. Please explain.

stuh505 wrote:
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.

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.

stuh505 wrote:
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.

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.

stuh505 wrote:
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.

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)?
0 Replies

stuh505

1
Thu 10 Mar, 2005 12:22 pm
Re: What is the root cause of Inertia?
Quote:
Of course it is. Please explain.

Well this is the argument I see you making:

1) A(x) = x is in motion
2) B(x) = x tends to stay in motion
3) C = acceleration causes resistance
3) A(x) -> B(x)
4) Therefore, C is true?

Perhaps you could clarify if that's not your argument

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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)?

Well, yes...it seems perfectly logical that there cannot be a reaction without an action (energy) to cause that reaction.

I am not implying anything about the mass of a particle. I never mentioned using E=mc^2 on a particle that was not at rest as a means to determine invariant mass, if that's what you're implying...but certainly, the mass (or invariant mass if you will) of an object is static with respect to velocity unlike "relativistic mass".
0 Replies

rosborne979

1
Fri 11 Mar, 2005 08:25 am
Re: What is the root cause of Inertia?
stuh505 wrote:
Indeed I am referring to friction. Will you then clarify the limits of the system model you were using?

I'm sorry. I've confused everyone with my use of the term "resistance". I wasn't talking about friction. The resistance I was talking about is the resistance to change; inertia.

And when I said "an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force" I'm just talking about Newton's basic principles of motion.

The model I'm using is a simple thought model in an empty frictionless environment, like space with nothing else significant around it.

Eorl and E_Brown seem to have understood the example. The logic for associating asymetrical gravitational fields with inertia seems very sound to me. So far, nobody has been able to explain to me where the logic breaks down.

The one answer I got from a physicist I know was something about a tensor metric being assumed in the field without describing a force carrier. Needless to say, his explanation (or challenge to the theory) pretty much went over my head, so I can't even tell if he understood what I was getting at, or if he simply dismissed it as an imaginary model.
0 Replies

USAFHokie80

1
Tue 8 May, 2007 03:16 pm
Resistance is friction - be it surface friction or friction from air particles or another field. It's all the same really, it opposes changes in velocity.

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

Setanta

1
Tue 8 May, 2007 03:20 pm
Quote:
What is the root cause of Inertia?

There can be many causes . . . hell, some days it seems i just can't get out of bed . . .
0 Replies

USAFHokie80

1
Tue 8 May, 2007 03:20 pm
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 ?
0 Replies

rosborne979

1
Tue 8 May, 2007 04:55 pm
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).
0 Replies

spendius

1
Tue 8 May, 2007 05:24 pm
ros wrote, possibly in a fit of guilt-

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

No. As Settin' Aah-aah intimated it is more to do with common sense.
0 Replies

USAFHokie80

1
Tue 8 May, 2007 08:03 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
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 ?
0 Replies

rosborne979

1
Tue 8 May, 2007 08:47 pm
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.
0 Replies

USAFHokie80

1
Tue 8 May, 2007 09:51 pm
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.
0 Replies

rosborne979

1
Wed 9 May, 2007 05:36 am
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?
0 Replies

USAFHokie80

1
Wed 9 May, 2007 06:06 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
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 ?

Here is my objection. Your logic is wrong.
0 Replies

USAFHokie80

1
Wed 9 May, 2007 06:20 am
rosborne979 wrote:
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. If you're going to do that you might as wel just assume you're right and be done with it. When you build an exeriment or theory, there has to be a base build on facts to support it. I could assume that unicorns exist for the sake of having a "pure situation" for my experiment. Obviously, that's a bad assumption.
0 Replies

rosborne979

1
Wed 9 May, 2007 07:03 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:

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. The only real question is if one causes the other or if they are coincidentally related by some other aspect.
0 Replies

USAFHokie80

1
Wed 9 May, 2007 07:12 am
rosborne979 wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:

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).

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.

Quote:

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

I don't understand how you can assume this. You don't know that it is the field shape that causes resistance to motion. It is more reasonably field strength - not the shape. Like I said, you're making assumptions to fit your needs and not because they are proven or likely.
0 Replies

rosborne979

1
Wed 9 May, 2007 01:43 pm
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?
0 Replies

USAFHokie80

1
Wed 9 May, 2007 01:57 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
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?

Now I'm beginning to think you're ignoring this fault on purpose. It is posted at the top of the screen, BUT I'll repost:

you said....
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.

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

0 Replies

rosborne979

1
Wed 9 May, 2007 02:09 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Now, what you just said, written more simply: A --> B, B --> A.
Which means B --> B and gravity causes itself.

Ah, I see. That little thing.

The reason I didn't respond is because your analysis looked flawed.

Please explain how what I said translates into A>B, B>A, B>B

Maybe that will get us going again.
0 Replies

### Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek