Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / April 2005

  There is no "force of inertia"

Yes, there is, Wormy, now that I discovered all that you support has
been lies all these years. I am so glad you finally agree with me that
there is now inertial force!

I am so glad that some knowledge has finally entered your brain, Worms.
Thanks for finding another source which confirms the one I found.  You
left out some stuff, though, which really serves to drive the last nail
in the coffin:

"That all bodies are moveable,and endowed with certain powers (which we
call the forces of inertia) or persevering in their motion or in their
rest, we only infer from the like properties observed in the bodies
which we have seen."

Get it?  _Endowed_ with certain powers - the forces of inertial!

Endowed:

"provide with something desirable: to provide somebody or something
with desirable qualities, abilities, or characteristics"
"Nature has endowed the area with a perfect climate."
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

"By their inherent force I mean nothing but their force of inertia.
This is immutable."  What part of immutable did you not understand?
What part of "I mean nothing but..." is confusing to you?  What part of
"their force..." cannot get through to you?

Lingo?  You quoted lingo against a translation?  Where do you get any
mention of the four fundamental forces?  Are you now agreeing with me
that the inertial force is also a fundamental force?  If so,
congratulations are due to you for such a revelation.

How can you, as insignificant as we all are, argue against Newton even
when your arguments are contradicted by themselves?  What kind of fool
are you?  Even Lemmings have some sort of brain with which to follow
blindly their beloved teachers off the cliffs, but they don't leap into
space yelling contradictions to their beliefs.

TomGee

ass-kissing maggot
motherf..ker
f.cking

I do not know what "vis inertiae" specifically means, but I think he
meant "the idea of inertia" is a passive notion, meaning that the
persistence of bodies to continue moving or at "rest" is not enough to
explain the why of it but only the how of it.  IOWs, it is observed to
that extent, but the mechanism of it is not.

Then he says that by the idea of inertia alone, motion cannot be
explained.  It requires some cause to have motion, and the idea of
inertia does not provide us with that.  I contend that in other
publications, he does offer that cause when he talks about "an inherent
force" existing in a single body.  I have not gone beyond that so far,
but your idea of continuity may explain the process of the cause, so
that difference in ideas between us do not conflict at this point.

There are some conflicts, however, along some points of our ideas.  I
am interested in learning more about your ideas of motion where they
continue from mine, but we must agree to disagree at some point if only
because our ideas cannot be entirely alike.

For example, you seem to base your ideas on what some call "particulate
time", where time exists in start/stop segments which further infers
that time stops in-between segments.  This POV was dominant in the time
of ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean.  I tried to find a way
for that to be true, but I had to lay it aside for a while to get on
with other aspects of my model.

I thought that the varying time rates could be the times between the
time segments and that could explain time dilation.  Then I thought,
what if the time segments varied but not the in-between times?
Finally, what if both vary?  How would that accommodate our
observations?

The ancients thought that time may stop in-between the passage of time,
and that history may be erased and restarted each time after each time
break.  I soon discarded that with the argument of needing a mechanism
for restarting at the exact same past instant at which we stopped.

I was argued that if time did stop incrementally, it may be that each
instant could be a random restart from a universe which ceases to exist
in-between the pauses of time.  If so, that would mean, some said, that
each new instant of time occurs randomly and thus without a cause.  The
evidence I used against that was my typing letters into my computer
would soon make gibberish if chance prevails in our universe.  Since
you can read this, cause prevails.

I explained previously in this tread why I answer those like Worms, and
I still think I can be reaching some who are too afraid to speak out
against the conformist hordes.  I can be of service to them, for
service for the common good is the most noble of all services.  So long
as I can think that, I can enjoy tilting at windmills with Wormsy, et
al.

TomGee

In order to understand Mr. Savain's argument, we have to consider the
following two scenarios.

**  Universe immersed in Aether
**  Universe without the Aether

Without the Aether, the laws of physics should apply every where even
outside of our universe.  With the Aether, our laws only apply to the
universe with the Aether.  In this case, you cannot say the conservation of
energy and momentum are both applied outside of the Aether.

Is there an Aether?  The burden to answer this question, of course, is on
the shoulders of the ones who do claim so.  However, from observation of a
photon acting wave-like, it does hint at the existence of a medium for waves
to propagate.  Michelson-Morley Experiment did not disprove the existence of
the Aether but merely discovering a property of the Aether if the Aether
does exist.  So far, the composition of the Aether has not been thoroughly
identified theoretically by anyone.  This led Einstein and Poincare years
before Einstein to proclaim the non-existence of the Aether.  The bottom
line is that the Aether is still not proven to exist nor proven not to exist
both experimentally and theoretically.  If it does exist, that only means we
are not looking at the right places.

[cut]

There is no braking taking place when a particle makes a quantum jump.
A jump has a beginning and an end, by definition. On moment the
particle has a given position and the next moment it has another. That
is all.

A body consists of particles and these jump. But since you want to be
f.cking anal retentive about it, I'll use particles.

Physicists are wrong about this issue. They are worse than wrong. They
are f.cking clueless and stupid. Not to mention insufferably pompous.

Nonsense. One more time for the morons: Every jump, by definition,
implies a start and an end. Otherwise it is not a f.cking jump. It
takes a very small interval for the jump to complete. A jump is just a
change of a positional property. There is no change in velocity in a
jump. A change in velocity is a macro phenomenon and it happens when
the intervals in a series of jumps are not equal. You have no clue
what you are talking about. You are a product of brainwashing by a
bunch of equally clueless teachers. You are in f.cking vegetative
coma. You should wake the f.ck up or someone should yank out that
feeding tube to put you out of your misery.

You are stupid to an obscene degree. You are beginning to seriously
waste my time.

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm

I don't expect the mentally retarded to get this right. But I really
would have expected better from someone who seems generally like a
perfecly bright person.

Physicists assume no such thing.

The word "acceleration" is simply shorthand for "change in velocity".
That is all. There's no physics to see here anywhere -- a body that
does not experience 'acceleration' does not experience 'change of
velocity'. The one is not an effect of the other, it is merely another
word for it.

Asking "why does a body that isn't accelerated move at a constant
velocity" is like asking "why is frozen water ice".  As if there's some
kind of additional step to get from "frozen water" to "ice". But "ice"
is merely another *word* for "frozen water" -- there's no 'causes' to
examine here, no 'mechanisms' to unearth and in particular there's
nothing to 'assume' here anywhere.

"No acceleration" is simply another way of saying "constant velocity".
It's the definition of the word "acceleration".

cordially

Y.T.

It has no end. And please don't give me the usual retort about
infinitesimals and calculus to the effect that shorter distances take
shorter times to jump and that they converge toward zero. It's boring
and dead wrong. It does not matter how small distances and intervals
are.

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm