Inertial Equations

[Tom Vose]

So, i devise this mathematical theory on the theory of Relativity. I would appreciate constructive comments.

 

[math]I=M[/math]

 

Which is what Einstein derived under the relations of relativity.

 

[math]pM=I_t[/math]

 

Is how i calculate the total inertia. It works well with concept.

 

[math]FI=M^2a[/math]

 

[math]EI=c^2M^2[/math]

 

[math]EI+FI=M^2a+c^2M^2[/math]

 

Since [math](Fvt)=E[/math], then,

 

[math](Fvt)I=c^2M^2[/math]

 

[math]pM\sqrt{c^2}=EI[/math]

 

Which leads me to suggest this important relationship

 

[math]\sqrt{I^2c^2}=p[/math]

 

which relates directly that the momentum is indeed a product of the inertia or mass of a system multiplied by the speed of light squared.

 

I am now applying these equations to the zero inertial system of energy particles.

[swansont]

How can inertia and total inertia have the same units when you've got I = M and I_t = pM ?

[Tom Vose]

How can inertia and total inertia have the same units when you've got I = M and I_t = pM ?

 

They have different values, of course. Inertia, and your total inertia therefore, must be given different values, and these are the values that make sense to the mind. Why do you think one is simply inertia, and the other the total?

[D H]

You have different units, not just different values.

[Tom Vose]

I do... would you show me where i have errored then?

[D H]

You are equation inertia with mass in your first equation. In your second equation you use [math]pM=I_t[/math]. The left-hand side has units of mass²*length/time.

 

Inertia is not a commonly used term in the physics community. In the vernacular it means mass or linear momentum (and sometimes even angular momentum), depending on context. Physicists have perfectly good words for mass, linear momentum, and angular momentum (to wit: mass, linear momentum, and angular momentum). Why use a term that has unclear meaning and doesn't add value when we have perfectly good words with clear meaning?

[Tom Vose]

Yes, as i thought... these are the units i use. These are the units consistent with the theory... It has different units to singular [math]I[/math]...

 

Again, total inertia and simply inertia must have different units.

[D H]

Yes, as i thought... these are the units i use. These are the units consistent with the theory

With your "theory", that is. In all appearances, your "theory" differs in no regards with "theories" posed by other "purveyors of alternate explanations".

 

Again, total inertia and simply inertia must have different units.

Stop being so blessed sloppy.

 

Thread moved to pseudoscience.

 

It can be moved back to a physics forum if and when you stop being so sloppy.

Edited December 18, 2008 by swansont
fix quote tag

[Tom Vose]

With your "theory", that is. In all appearances, your "theory" differs in no regards with "theories" posed by other "purveyors of alternate explanations".

Again, total inertia and simply inertia must have different units.

 

Stop being so blessed sloppy.

 

Thread moved to pseudoscience.

 

It can be moved back to a physics forum if and when you stop being so sloppy.

 

 

An error arises though under

 

[math]M=I[/math] with [math]I_t=M[/math]

Edited December 18, 2008 by Sayonara³
Fixed broken tags

[Bignose]

There is at least one big huge thing missing -- definitions of what the terms in your equations mean! i.e. what is supposed to be the difference between inertia and total inertia?

 

I'd suggest you define every term -- with the units -- at the top of every page. At the very least, you can't just assume that every reader knows what you mean by all the symbols you use.

[D H]

That is exactly what I meant about being sloppy.

[mooeypoo]

Again, total inertia and simply inertia must have different units.

Repeating a statement that was unsubstantiated will not make it true.

 

The problem here is that you invent a term (which is perfectly fine, for the purpose of inventing a new theory) but you don't quite define it. As a result, your units are inconsistent and unclear, if not flat out wrong.

 

Tom, take into account that in physics, there is no difference in units between the same terms; for instance, velocity has the same units as speed. One is the magnitude, one is the vector, so they are different in physics, but they relate to the same movement, or the same phenomena, and therefore have the same units.

 

Units don't just exist for 'fun', they are part of explaining the phenomena, most of the time (with a few exceptions). For instance,when we look at velocity, the units are [distance]/[time] because the definition of velocity is the distance an object goes through at a specific amount of time.

Units are crucial.

 

If you say that Total Inertia (and I agree with D H here, inertia is a problematic term in physics, you need to be more specific), is different than Simply Intertia, then you need to use the same units, because it doesn't make sense otherwise.

 

If they're NOT the same, then you need to define what you mean by "simply intertia".

 

It seems to me (and i may be wrong, do correct me if I am) that your "simply inertia" and "total inertia" have the same relationship as, say, a force on an object vs. the total force on that object. For that matter, an object can be subjected to many individual forces, ("simply force"?) and the total "Net" force is all of their effects, combined ("total force"?). If this is what you meant, then they indeed must have the same units, otherwise you cannot add them up.

 

Units are like properties. If you have two objects with different units, they have different properties. They cannot be added to one another (or, well, not in a way that would make sense) and if they are multiplied, the result now has the multiplication of the units. So you need to show that this is logical in your theory; that the units "add up". That is part of the proof.

 

 

~moo

[Reaper]

Alright everybody, he's been banned. Turns out he was a sockpuppet of Graviphoton.

 

Move on, nothing to see here.

[swansont]

Indeed. Locked.