Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / August 2006

THE INERTIAL FORCES AND THE LAW OF THE CONSRVATION OF THE
ENERGY

Speaking about the relations that exist between the first law of the
mechanics, the principle of the relativity, the Galilei's
transformation, and the behavior of the inertial forces and the
gravitational forces to act upon every atom of the matter, I had
omitted there to put in a first position the importance that has the
law of the conservation of the energy in these relations. Now I'd
like to remedy this omission.
 The first law of the mechanics I could say is a consequence of the
law of the conservation of the energy and especially in this case of
the kinetic energy of the material bodies. So we can conclude that the
material bodies tend to keep their kinetic energy if there are not
acting upon them external forces. To change this level of kinetic
energy is needed to act upon them an external force. Then the material
body,
respecting the law of the conservation of the kinetic energy opposes to
that action with the inertial force that is produced by the material
body. This phenomenon could be compared with the phenomenon of the
production of electrical current in a generator in a power station
producer of electrical energy. To the mechanical torque produced by the
turbine, the generator opposes a torque that is produced by the induced
electrical current in the generator. In this case we have a
transformation of the mechanical energy in electrical energy. In the
case of the inertial forces we have a change of the level of the
kinetic energy of the material body and this results as a change of the
speed of the material body accordingly to the known relation:
Ek=mv^2/2.
  In such a way we can conclude that a material body posed far away in
a portion of the space where doesn't exist gravitational forces will
keep its state of staying or moving in a right line and with constant
speed. Of course the material body acts in this way taking in
consideration his previous state of motion, but minded people like
Newton imagined the absolute system of coordinates that describes
perfectly the behavior of the material body. Evidently we with this
interpretation of the first law of the mechanics doesn't change
anything in respect to the efforts done by scientists in the past,
trying to explain why the laws of the mechanics are valid and for a
coordinate system rigidly attached to the center of the earth.
To my opinion everything that is said in my article about the principle
of the relativity is valid and is not a need of modifying anything.
What we could conclude as a consequence of this explanation by the use
of the kinetic energy is the fact that the inertial forces can't be
overborne or annulled. The same thing could be said about the
gravitational forces. The notion of gravitational field is an abstract
notion. We suppose that there must be a field, but we have in
disposition only the Newton's law of the universal attraction as a
practical mean for the detection of the gravitational field. Thanks to
these two forces, the inertial and the gravitational, we have our
planet so wonderfully constructed, permitting the existence of the life
on it. So we can say that Einstein replacing the inertial forces with a
gravitational field has done a big mistake. He putting an observer in a
cosmic cabin and arguing that the observer didn't know that the cabin
was pulled up by an imaginary force, he didn't do anything else but
to trick the reader. But both of them Einstein and the reader knew very
well that there was only an enigmatic force and not a gravitational
field.
 On the other hand the fact that the first law of the mechanics is a
consequence of the law of the conservation of the energy, allows us to
conclude that Newton was right when he made the supposition that exists
an absolute system of coordinates.
 This is explainable by the fact that the material bodies try to
maintain their state of motion or staying, just in the same way as says
the first law of the mechanics. The Foucauld pendulous maintains the
direction of swinging in respect to the far stars and not in respect to
the gravitational field that is supposed to be attached to the earth.
Einstein trying to avoid the absolute system of coordinates, changing
his name ones in Galileian system of coordinates and another time in
inertial system of coordinates, saying by this nothing new, because we
can't determine all of them by practical means. So what is the
difference?
 What is important to be concluded is the fact that because the
inertial forces are a consequence of the law of the conservation of the
energy, there does not exist a possibility these forces to be
overpowered by man. We can discover the laws of the nature but we are
not capable to change them. The same, we can conclude that, if the
inertial forces are a consequence of the law of conservation of the
energy, there does not exist any possibility to replace them with a
gravitational field.
 On the other hand an other problem is very important to be mentioned.
It is the question, how many relativities are content in Einstein
theory of the relativity? There are two of them:
1)    The first is the relativity that is a result by the use of the Loren
transformation.
2)    The second is the relativity when Einstein compares the motions of
the material bodies between them. These two understandings are complete
different notion and are not taken in consideration seriously by people
who defend Einstein theory.
   In the first kind of relativity can be included: the conclusions
that the time, the space and the mass, are relative sizes, as well, and
the law about the transformation of the mass in energy and inverse.
   This relativity is a false theory because the Lorenz transformation
is a false mathematical relation.
  In the second group could be included the cases when we compare two
systems of coordinates K1 and K2, the first law of the mechanics, the
principle of the relativity, and other comparisons. When we say for
example that the train is in motion relatively to the earth, or the
earth is in motion relatively to the train is the same thing that means
that the mathematical results about this motion will be the same. I
should mention that this affirmation is not correct at all. We have to
take in account that the earth is a bigger material body and has a
naturally inertial and stable motion of rotation around his axis.
Because of that the earth has a stable level of kinetic energy. The
train is that who starts and stops relatively to the earth's surface
and changes his level of kinetic energy. If we say that the earth is in
a motion relatively to the train and if it is true this motion should
provoke a cataclysm at the earth by the apparition of the inertial
forces that should act upon the oceanic waters for example. And I have
to mention that the Einstein relativity can't describe these starts
and stops of the train just if they are moving in a right line because
of the apparition of accelerating and braking motions. Because of that
we have to consider that the train is in motion relatively to the
earth. The same we can't say that the earth is in motion relatively
to an earth's satellite and we can't say that the sun is in a
motion relatively to the earth, but the earth is in a relative annual
rotation relatively to the sun. All these conclusions are in
contradiction with the Einstein theory of the relativity but are in
accord with the law of conservation of the energy and can be described
with the aid of the Galilei and Newton relativity. With this we can
realize ones again the inconsistency of the Einstein theory of the
relativity. So the slogan that says that every thing is relative is a
false conclusion an we can conclude that everything is absolute that
means that for everything exits only one truth the absolute truth.
Vancouver
March 2005