<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN">
<html><body>
<p>Tom,</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Hope that helps.</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
<p>Mike</p>
<p>On 07.02.2017 12:51, carmam@tiscali.co.uk wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Mike, I am answering to your post, but this really is a general post, prompted by reading your link. </span><!-- o ignored --></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We come across the phrase "The equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass", mentioned in your link “<span style="font-weight: bold;">How SI Units Hide the Equal Strength of Gravitation and Charge Fields” </span>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”. <!-- o ignored --></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 <!-- st1 ignored -->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.<!-- o ignored --></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!-- o ignored --> Tom Hollings.</p>
</div>
<div>----Original Message----<br /> From: mikelawr@freenetname.co.uk<br /> Date: 06/02/2017 22:28<br /> To: <physics@tuks.nl><br /> Subj: Re: [Physics] Fwd: Physics Digest, Vol 5, Issue 2<br /><br />
<p>Jesus,</p>
<p>The hyperlinkfor the paper is http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2090-0902.1000151</p>
<p>Any questions, please ask.</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
<p>Mike</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<div> </div>
</body></html>