Origin of Inertia
proton
understand correctly, it is all about explaining ¨why¨ does Newton´s
first law occur.
In the first volume of the famous book "Course of Theoretical Physics
- Mechanics", by Landau and Lifshitz, there is an elegant deduction of
Newton´s first law (and hence of inertia), from basic principles such
as the homogeneity of space and time and the principle of least
action.
Since this proof (?) looks rather solid to me, I am wondering if I'm
still missing something. Do they mean something else when they talk
about the origin of inertia? Or is Landau's deduction flawed? Can
anyone enlighten me?
TIA
PS: For those who don't know this book, they can find the relevant
pages 1-5 in Google Books
http://books.google.com/books?id=LmAV8q_OOOgC&pg=PA16&dq=landau+lifshitz+first+law&lr=#PPP1,M1
Uncle Al
>
> I read often about the mystery of the origin of Inertia.
Let's not gild the lilly - nobody knows.
> If I
> understand correctly,
See previou comment.
> it is all about explaining ¨why¨ does Newton´s
> first law occur.
> In the first volume of the famous book "Course of Theoretical Physics
> - Mechanics", by Landau and Lifshitz, there is an elegant deduction of
> Newton´s first law (and hence of inertia), from basic principles such
> as the homogeneity of space and time and the principle of least
> action.
This assumes an isotropic vacuum background, e.g., metric gravitation
in pseudo-Riemannian spacetime. You can have a chiral vacuum
bachground in the massed sector for teleparallel gravitation in
Weitzenböck spacetime without contradiction of any observation in any
venue at any scale.
Do left and right shoes fall identically? Is angular momentum
conserved by them? (Noether's theorem and isotropic vacuum) Somebody
should look.
Thermodynamics constrains an Equivalence Principle parity violation to
less than 10^(-12) relative. The pertinent experiment is an Eotvos
balance loaded with single crystal solid spheres of enantiomorphic
space groups P3(1)21 quartz opposing P3(2)21 quartz.
Cinnabar and tellurium also crystallize P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 if you
like heavier atoms and compositional homogeneity. You should start
with quartz re costs and quality control.
> Since this proof (?) looks rather solid to me, I am wondering if I'm
> still missing something. Do they mean something else when they talk
> about the origin of inertia? Or is Landau's deduction flawed? Can
> anyone enlighten me?
Does Euclid contain errors? Euclid was solid until the 1800s, then
pffft. Every deep sea navigator knew Euclid was wrong - look at a
globe, section of equator plus two lines of longitude meetting it on
the same side. Lines of longitude intersect the equator at right
angles. You have a 90 degree interior angle at each intersection plus
some more degrees where the longitude lines meet at the pole.
Euclid says all triangles' interior angles sum to exactly 180 degrees
- you proved it in high school. Looks to Uncle Al that no triangle
above can have as few as 180 degrees interior angles summed.
An axiomatic system is no stronger than its weakest axiom. If you
postulate inertia wbefore your start you know where your proof will
arrive, like Tommy Aquinas proving the existence of god. Look at the
first page pf "Principia." Newton declares weight and mass are
indistinguishable,
"It is this quantity that I mean hereafter everywhere under the name
of body or mass. And the same is known by the weight of each body; for
it is proportional to the weight, as I have found by experiments on
pendulums, very accurately made, which shall be shewn hereafter."
You haven't proven ANYTHING. You have only restated assumptions.
> TIA
>
> PS: For those who don't know this book, they can find the relevant
> pages 1-5 in Google Books
> http://books.google.com/books?id=LmAV8q_OOOgC&pg=PA16&dq=landau+lifshitz+first+law&lr=#PPP1,M1
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Y.Porat
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
--------------------
pioneering science is about
trial and error!!
it is not mathematics that can do it
Einstein was right about SR
he was wrong about his
curved peacetime guess !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------------
Sam Wormley
The Origin of Inertia
http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html
The Origin of Inertia
http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/origin-of-inertia.html
The Origin of Inertia
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm
Aetherist
>
>
>The Origin of Inertia
> http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html
Good stuff Sam, but is SED considered viable today? Also, if this is true, and the
equivilence principle is also, what does it say about gravitation??? For example,
what about the ZPE's possible self interaction? Without which matter wouldn't
even exist in the first place. If it does, this could be the source of the missing
mass and Dark Matter isn't necessary...
>The Origin of Inertia
> http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/origin-of-inertia.html
This is fluff, & useless...
>The Origin of Inertia
> http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm
This is good also, and inherrently LeSagian in nature. But dependss upon
a feedback mechanism like that described in the SED reference.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
one on one. "That inertia and gravity are two sides to the same
coin",and that was way back in 1952. TreBert
Sue...
> I read often about the mystery of the origin of Inertia. If I
> understand correctly, it is all about explaining ¨why¨ does Newton´s
> first law occur.
> In the first volume of the famous book "Course of Theoretical Physics
> - Mechanics", by Landau and Lifshitz, there is an elegant deduction of
> Newton´s first law (and hence of inertia), from basic principles such
> as the homogeneity of space and time and the principle of least
> action.
> Since this proof (?) looks rather solid to me, I am wondering if I'm
> still missing something. Do they mean something else when they talk
> about the origin of inertia? Or is Landau's deduction flawed? Can
> anyone enlighten me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_London
<< Einstein published his theory of gravitation, or
general theory of relativity, in 1916. And so a new
paradigm, or set of beliefs, was established. It was
not until 1930 that Fritz London explained the weak,
attractive dipolar electric bonding force (known as
Van der Waals' dispersion force or the "London force")
that causes gas molecules to condense and form liquids
and solids. Like gravity, the London force is always
attractive and operates between electrically neutral
molecules.And that precise property has been the most
puzzling distinction between gravity and the powerful
electromagnetic forces, which may repel as well as attract.
So it seems the clue about the true nature of gravity
has been available to chemists - who are not interested
in gravity - and unavailable to physicists - who are not
interested in physical chemistry (and view the world
through Einstein's distorting spectacles). Look at any
average general physics textbook and you will find no
reference to Van der Waals' or London forces. What a
different story might have been told if London's insight
had come a few decades earlier? Physics could, by now,
have advanced by a century instead of being bogged in
a mire of metaphysics.
An excellent illustrated lesson on the London force, or
Van der Waals' dispersion force is given at:
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html
The London force originates in fluctuating electric dipoles
caused by slight distortion of otherwise electrically neutral
atoms and molecules. The tiny electric dipoles arise
because the orbiting electrons, at any given instant, cannot
shield the positive charge of the nucleus equally in all
directions. The result, amongst a group of similar atoms or
molecules is that the electric dipoles tend to resonate and
line up so that they attract each other. >>
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=r4k29syp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers
<< Sakharov observed that many condensed matter
systems give rise to emergent phenomena which are
identical to general relativity quantitatively. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062
<< The phase Φ of the photons in the coherent
modes and hence their position being essentially
uncertain because of a fixed N and ωο, an infinite red-shift
at a finite effective distance causes the electronic and
partonic Zitterbewegung frequencies of far away matter
to acquire wavelengths larger than R', so that its evanescent
radiative field is felt here, in direct proportion to its energy.
This is in agreement with the equivalence principle. How
exactly is it felt ? Zitterbewegung involves oscillatory
motion at the speed of light. For any observer at that speed,
the photon bath is infinitely shifted to the blue.
Zitterbewegung is oscillatory because at light speed,
a charge ends up being back-scattered by such photons
within a short interval of time. Their dense, far infrared virtual
background is seemingly invisible to macroscopic observers
at non ultra-relativistic speeds, save for its inertia- inducing
ffects. It is nonetheless felt by the charged oscillating
microscopic constituents of matter, which propagate
at light speed. >>
The Origin of Gravity
--C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
Sue...
>
> TIA
>
> PS: For those who don't know this book, they can find the relevant
> pages 1-5 in Google Books
http://books.google.com/books?id=LmAV8q_OOOgC&pg=PA16&dq=landau+lifshitz+first+law&lr=#PPR11,M1
frank...@yahoo.com
This is an explanation of inertia from my web site.
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
Atoms, protons and electrons exist within the matrix of the aether, so
in order to move, they must push the aether out of the way. The aether
has a slight dipole, so it takes some energy to separate the aether
particles. The amount of energy depends on the effective size of the
particle. A larger sized particle takes more energy. In the case of a
proton and an electron, the effective size of a proton is about 1800
times as large as an electron. This size is proportional to what we
call “mass”, so a proton is about 1800 times as massive as an
electron.
What we call mass is really a measure of how difficult it is to push
an object through the aether. If we assume that the protons and
electrons in atoms are separated and surrounded by at least 1 aether
particle on all sides, then the total effort required to push an atom
through the aether is just the sum of the efforts required for the
protons and electrons that make up the atom. However, the binding of
protons and electrons into neutrons may reduce the effective size of
the pair and thus the mass. This would help explain why atoms have
less mass than their individual components.
When a particle moves, it breaks apart an aether bond, but as it
passes by, the aether bond will reform after the particle passes. When
the bond reforms, it will propel the particle forward with the same
energy it took to separate the aether bond in the first place. This is
like a pea shooting out between two round attracting magnets. Since
the energy is returned back to the particle, it can continue its
forward movement by constantly breaking and reforming aether bonds.
This keeps the particle in motion, once it is put into motion. This is
the fundamental cause of inertia.
The "higgs" boson is actually just a lightweight combination of
positron/electron. This dipole higgs particle provides the necessary
mechanism to support inertia.
fhuinertia
Strich.9
> proton wrote:
>
> > I read often about the mystery of the origin of Inertia.
>
> Let's not gild the lilly - nobody knows.
>
> > If I
> > understand correctly,
>
> See previou comment.
>
> > it is all about explaining ¨why¨ does Newton´s
> > first law occur.
> > In the first volume of the famous book "Course of Theoretical Physics
> > - Mechanics", by Landau and Lifshitz, there is an elegant deduction of
> > Newton´s first law (and hence of inertia), from basic principles such
> > as the homogeneity of space and time and the principle of least
> > action.
>
> This assumes an isotropic vacuum background, e.g., metric gravitation
> in pseudo-Riemannian spacetime. You can have a chiral vacuum
> bachground in the massed sector for teleparallel gravitation in
> Weitzenböck spacetime without contradiction of any observation in any
> venue at any scale.
>
AL-zheimer has gotten that psycho-babble down pat. Newsflash AL, the
nursing home attendants are not impressed. Better to take your
medications...
snip rest of psycho-bubbling