[Physics] Fwd: Physics Digest, Vol 5, Issue 2

[mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk]

Tom, 

The general usage of 'inertial' mass is that mass which is on
one side of the energy and force equations, opposite the gravitational
mass side. Because the gravitational side uses G, it is not thought
certain that the moving mass is identical in type when it appears on
both sides of the equation. I have eliminated G, so showing that the
moving mass is the same type on both sides. 

I also show that force
equation and the energy equation, which are currently different by more
than just the extra distance term in the force equation, are identical
(other than that extra distance term) when you take into account the
kinetic energy of the spin of particles that make up a body. Since the
spin energy and the mass energy of all fermions are the same size, the
motional energy in the energy equation is double the accepted value.
This brings the energy and force equations to be identical (other than
the extra distance term). This means that a) stable orbits have zero
total energy - they are stable because they have no energy to leave and
b) inertia is the energy and force that a particle has in the frame of
reference in which it is observed. Energy is thus a vector property like
force and you need to work out in which direction it acts in any system.
In the case of an orbital system, the motional (kinetic) energy acts
outwards and the gravitational energy acts inwards. When the energies
(or forces) balance, the orbit is stable. 

So to start a body from rest
in a frame of reference, you need to give it some energy. That energy is
what needs to be taken from the body to stop it. That energy is its
inertia. You can also describe the same as the force needed to move it
and then stop it. 

Hope that helps. 

Cheers 

Mike 

On 07.02.2017
12:51, carmam at tiscali.co.uk wrote: 

> Mike, I am answering to your
post, but this really is a general post, prompted by reading your link.

> 
> We come across the phrase "The equivalence of gravitational and
inertial mass", mentioned in your link "How SI Units Hide the Equal
Strength of Gravitation and Charge Fields" quite often, but the phrase
really is meaningless. Let me explain. Inertia is an illusion, there is
no such thing, therefore there is no "inertial mass", just mass. This
was brought to my attention quite vividly a few years ago when I drove a
van with a sliding side door. Sometimes I would set off driving with the
side door open, and it would slide closed. The thought occurred to me
"That is inertia at work". 
> 
> A closer inspection however, reveals
what is happening. As I set off, looking at the side door (not good
driving practice I know), I could see that as I set off, the door
remained stationary relative to the road until it closed, then it moved
with the van. What is happening here is that the door (assuming perfect
friction free runners), is having no force applied to it and therefore
does not move relative to the road. It is obeying Newton's first law and
is quite simply left behind as the van moves. This gives rise to the
illusion that there is something resisting movement. There is not. As no
force is being applied, no movement is possible. QED. 
> 
> Tom
Hollings. 
> ----Original Message----
> From:
mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk
> Date: 06/02/2017 22:28
> To:
<physics at tuks.nl>
> Subj: Re: [Physics] Fwd: Physics Digest, Vol 5,
Issue 2
> 
> Jesus, 
> 
> The hyperlinkfor the paper is
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2090-0902.1000151 
> 
> Any questions, please
ask. 
> 
> Cheers 
> 
> Mike

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170207/b5ddccc5/attachment.html>