Nature of inertial mass

[huytoan]

Abstract

The inertial phenomenon whose characteristic quantity is that the inertial mass is one of the natural phenomena known soonest but its nature has so far still been a big scientific enigma. On the basis of analyzing trends of cognizing the definition of inertial mass from the past up to present, the author has found another approach to the nature of this phenomenon, that is the limited time of all processes of energy exchange. In the mechanics, the finiteness of the time of energy exchange leads to the motion of the body with the limited acceleration. It does prove the portion between the potential field force and the motion acceleration of the body in the potential force field, that is a constant entity for each body, not depending on its motion; that is the inertial mass that has been hiding for a long term. Thanks to that, it is also to accurate the law of freely falling body and the principle of equivalence is also a long term enigma up to date. In addition, it has developed the general laws of dynamics for all frames of reference, not only for the inertial frame of reference. See full text in attachment:

Nature of inertia.pdf

[throng]

I like the theory, or musing, but is there such a phenomena as inertia, or is it purely a mathematical tool? I would think all things accelerate as gravity acts upon all bodies, and though gravity isn't actually force, it does cause acceleration.

[The Geoff]

gravity isn't actually force

 

Step out of a third floor window and say that...

 

It is a very interesting question - there's a good (but pricey) book called "In The Grip Of The Distant Universe" that covers a lot of the history and weirdness of inertia.

[Bignose]

and though gravity isn't actually force, it does cause acceleration.

 

uh huh....

 

[math]\mathbf{F} = m\mathbf{a}[/math] pretty much disagrees with that. A force is an acceleration multiplied by a factor of the object's mass. If an object undergoes an acceleration -- it experiences a force that is directly proportional to that acceleration. There is no separating the two. If something causes an acceleration, then it is also a force, and if something is a force it causes an acceleration.

[D H]

I would think all things accelerate as gravity acts upon all bodies, and though gravity isn't actually force, it does cause acceleration.

You're mixing theories here. Gravity is a real force in Newtonian mechanics and causes an acceleration from the perspective of an inertial frame. Gravity is a pseudo-force in general relativity and does not cause an acceleration from the perspective of an inertial frame.

 

An inertial frame in general relativity is a frame whose origin is free-falling with respect to the local gravity field. An object close to the origin of the frame (inertial frames do not have infinite extent in GR) that is in free-fall will not be measurably accelerating with respect to the inertial frame origin. You have to look at the object from the perspective of a non-inertial frame to see an acceleration.

 

===========================================

 

To the OP: I realize that English is not your first language. The paper has quite a few grammar and wording errors that make the paper rather hard to read. I suggest you get the assistance of someone to help you in this regard.

 

More importantly, your paper has a number of logical flaws. It is a purely classical, pre-relativistic description. We already know Newtonian mechanics is wrong on many fronts. Your paper starts on the wrong footing by assuming Newtonian mechanics as a foundation.

 

Your understanding of the equivalence principle is fatally flawed. You get into trouble by erroneously treating a body-centered frame as an inertial frame. Newtonian mechanics strictly applies in inertial frames only. As soon as you go to non-inertial frames you have to add fictitious forces. None of this is new; physicists (particularly d'Alembert and Euler) developed the mathematics underlying non-inertial frames.

 

The equivalence principle is one of the most accurately verified principles in all of physics.

[huytoan]

I realize that English is not your first language

Yes, it is. So I’m sory for get quite a few grammar and wording errors.

 

We already know Newtonian mechanics is wrong on many fronts

More precisely is then the speed of a body (V) approachs to the speed of light © only, but when V<<c Newtonian mechanics is quite verified. Since, the following your comment:

 

Your paper starts on the wrong footing by assuming Newtonian mechanics as a foundation

 

Is not active. In addition, there isn’t use of Newtonian mechanics in my paper! There is only his famous law of universal gravity (when V<<c – OK?).

 

You get into trouble by erroneously treating a body-centered frame as an inertial frame

 

Not at all. In the contrary, this reference frame is always considered as non-inertial one.

 

As soon as you go to non-inertial frames you have to add fictitious forces.

 

Gravitational force is always real but isn’t fictitious one in any frame of reference!!!

 

The equivalence principle is one of the most accurately verified principles in all of physics

 

Now, I don’t think so, but it is verified only when the gravitational mass of a body (Ma) is too small with respect to the gravitational mass of the Earth (Mb), that is: Ma<<Mb. Then, inertial mass of a body ma = Ma.Mb/(Ma+Mb)≈ Ma (maybe with the accuracy: 10^-24!). But when Ma is weight enough, for example, Ma=Mb, then ma = Ma/2 - The equivalence principle doesn’t verified at all!

[D H]

The equivalence principle is one of the most accurately verified principles in all of physics.[/quote']Now, I don’t think so, but it is verified only when the gravitational mass of a body (Ma) is too small with respect to the gravitational mass of the Earth (Mb), that is: Ma<<Mb. Then, inertial mass of a body ma = Ma.Mb/(Ma+Mb)≈ Ma (maybe with the accuracy: 10^-24!). But when Ma is weight enough, for example, Ma=Mb, then ma = Ma/2 - The equivalence principle doesn’t verified at all!

You are wrong. The inertial mass is still Ma.

 

You are getting into trouble by looking at things from the perspective of a non-inertial frame. A frame with origin at the center of object B is a non-inertial frame. The gravitational force acting on object A due to object B is [math]\frac {G M_b M_a}{r^2}[/math]. An inertial observer will see object B accelerating toward object A with an acceleration of [math]a_b = \frac {G M_b}{r^2}[/math]. This inertial observer will also see object A accelerating toward object B with an acceleration of [math]a_a = \frac {G M_a}{r^2}[/math]. The relative acceleration is indeed [math]a_{rel} = \frac {G (M_a+M_b)}{r^2}[/math]. So, who sees this acceleration? Answer: An observer fixed with respect to object A or with respect to object B. That observer is not in an inertial frame.

 

================================

 

Thread moved to pseudoscience.