Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's no such thing as *a free lunch* for Inertia.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • There's no such thing as *a free lunch* for Inertia.

    There's no such thing as 'a free lunch' for Inertia.
    =.
    Newton wrote:
    * For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover
    the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions
    and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces*
    =..
    For the movement we must pay energy-money.
    There isn't inertia without force / energy.
    Your car wouldn't move even one inch without force /energy.
    But Newtonian conception of *inertia* says nothing about the forces of inertia.
    The idea of forces for * Inertia* was solved by Einstein.
    In 1905 Einstein wrote paper:
    “ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”
    As he realized the answer was:
    “ Yes, the inertia depends on its energy E= Mc^2.”
    How can E=Mc^2 be responsible for inertial movement of quantum particle?
    Nobody explains the details of such possibility of inertia movement.
    Someone wrote:
    “An old professor of mine used to say
    that anyone who can answer that question
    what inertia is, would win a Nobel Prize. “
    =..

  • #2
    1.
    Inertia as to keep * the tendency of bodies at rest to stay at rest* or
    *the tendency for bodies in motion to stay in motion* means
    ” Inertia is a tendency to do nothing or to remain unchanged.”
    To keep *the tendency . . . for bodies in motion to stay in motion*
    is needed force / energy.
    2.
    Wikipedia:
    " Inertia is the resistance of any physical object
    to any change in its state of motion . . . "
    Inertia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    3
    We are deceiving ourselves using the word *inertia* as a clear idea.
    ===..

    Comment


    • #3
      Today the inertial movement is taken as a fact, as a reality.
      But in our earth-gravity conditions this motion doesn't work.
      Therefore this law is abstract.
      But if this law isn't abstract (!) then this inertial motion needs forces.
      Therefore to explain inertia I need forces. Therefore I say:
      There's no such thing as *a free lunch * for Inertia.
      ==..
      Inertia:
      Inertia is a tendency to do nothing or to remain unchanged.
      Inertia is ' attempt to keep its state intact'.
      Inertia is a tendency to be 'inviolable'.
      Inertia is ' a virgin state'.
      Inertia is 'a scientific spirit in movement'
      God kicked " an amount of matter" at inertial movement.
      #.
      * We have seen that this law of inertia cannot be derived directly
      from experiment, but only by speculative thinking . . . . . *
      . . . . . . .
      * In our idealized experiment the uniformity of the motion
      was due to the absence of all external forces.*
      / Book: ‘ The Evolution of Physics ‘ pages 9- 10. By Einstein and Infeld /
      #
      I need forces for inertia because inertia is speculative thinking,
      because inertia is an un-adapted motion in the Nature.
      Such scientific *inertial* view contradicts the character of Nature.
      There isn't movement without forces.
      If you don't think speculatively and inertia isn't a scientific spirit ,
      but an " amount of unknown matter" then must be reason and
      formula (s) of its motion.
      =...
      My peasant's conclusion:
      If you want to understand reality - don't think speculatively.
      ==..
      P.S.
      * For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover
      the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions
      and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces*
      / Newton /
      The basic problem is:
      . . . to discover the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions
      ( including the phenomena of inertial movement of an unknown amount
      of matter) and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces.
      / in my layman's opinion, Newton could be agree with such addition /
      ==============..
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by socratus View Post
        There's no such thing as 'a free lunch' for Inertia.
        =.
        Newton wrote:
        =..


        Newton was an idiot,


        I see now what an intellectual failure you are.


        Newton got his first law utterly wrong.


        Newton's first law says: "Every body tends to continue in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is acted
        upon by an outside force". This statement of Newton’s is untrue however on many levels, no body of mass and matter is ever at rest,
        definitionally this is insanity to state as much. All bodies are moving curvilinear relative to one or more planes of inertia, local,
        galactic or otherwise. Field pressure mediation is not a force, nor is it ‘outside’ except in the case of divergent magnetic fields which
        have spatial vectorization as they are so defined. Likewise there exist no straight lines of motion, only spiral or curvilinear motion
        relative to a null fulcrum. Likewise further, as in the case of iron accelerating from rest in the presence of a dielectric field of voidance
        (i.e. the ‘magnet’) this is not a force at all, but a field voidance of space which is the attributional byproduct of magnetic fields. A
        physical force of pushing or pulling is wholly unrelated to field voidances or countervoidance. A field is not a force, instantaneous
        motion in dielectric voidance is not an empirical force of one body acting upon another by either contact or empirical coercion; rather
        is a field voidance of increasing movement towards dielectric inertia which is the cancelation of said movement in a shrinking sphere
        of space which is definitionally a polarized sphere of movement created from one or more spatially divergent in creation (past tense)
        magnetic field dominances. A increasingly moving body is losing inertia, never gaining it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
          Newton was an idiot,

          I see now what an intellectual failure you are.
          a)
          You can be right saying
          "I see now what an intellectual failure you are."
          because : my IQ is less than average,
          but you are wrong writting : " Newton was an idiot".
          Man . . . Newton was a genius . . . Genius.(!)

          b)
          It is said that conception "inertia" is approximate concept and
          that resistance "kills" inertia.
          Question:
          is it possible to say:
          a) insofar as gravity field has résistance - pure (!) inertia is impossible . . . ?.
          b) insofar as SRT/ Minkowski space doesn't have gravity / resistance –
          pure (!) inertia can exist . . . . ?
          ====…
          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #6
            IQ means nothing, its a worthless measure.




            Walter Russell dropped out of school in the 2nd grade as I recall....

            look what he accomplished.




            Whatever,.... peace to you

            Comment

            Working...
            X