Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671220
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin* |
| Date | 2026-06-15 21:33 -0700 |
| Organization | The Starmaker Organization |
| Message-ID | <6A30D231.F1F@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
| References | <110q7ni$p76b$1@dont-email.me> |
Y wrote: > > Below is the link to my Relativity of Inertia paper. The origins of this > work go back roughly 13 years to discussions on sci.physics.relativity. > After extensive exchanges with Odd Bodkin on how inertia should be > defined, I developed the ideas further and formalised the framework. The > approach involves identifying structural asymmetries in Newton’s laws > and applying a relational inversion to the dynamical equations. This > reveals that inertia is not purely an intrinsic rest‑mass property but > instead arises from a combination of rest and relational contributions. > In other words, inertial behaviour depends not only on a body’s rest > mass but also on its dynamical relations with other bodies. > > https://zenodo.org/records/20453334 > > Abstract > > This paper proposes a relational framework for understanding inertia > within classical mechanics and introduces its first extension into the > relativistic domain. While rest mass is treated as an invariant, > intrinsic property of a body, we argue that inertia — understood as a > body's resistance to changes in motion — is not an absolute quantity but > a relational, frame-dependent property emerging from the dynamic > interaction between bodies. The framework is grounded in Newton's three > laws, with particular emphasis on the Third Law as the foundation from > which the equal and opposite reaction force at the contact boundary is > derived. Rather than presenting a correction of Newtonian mechanics, > this framework offers an alternative mathematical accounting that > localises inertial resistance to the boundary of interaction between > bodies. Building upon Newton's laws and engaging with the historical > critiques of Mach's Principle, we introduce new equations for relational > inertia, clarify their dimensional status as standalone relational > quantities distinct from mass, and demonstrate their application through > worked examples with exact values. We distinguish relational inertia > from momentum, examine seven classical paradoxes, and identify > engineering implications across six domains. The paper introduces a > relativistic extension, presenting a first-order relativistic relational > inertia bounded below by the transverse (γ) and above by the > longitudinal (γ³) relativistic equations of motion. Seven roadblocks are > identified and addressed inline. A companion paper developing the full > relativistic extension is in preparation. > > https://zenodo.org/records/20453334 This is delusional Machian cosplay dressed up as physics — a self-published Zenodo preprint that fundamentally misunderstands what inertia is, what Newton's laws already accomplish, and why relativity already resolved the relational aspects it pretends to "discover." Inertia is not "relational" in the way you claim; you're redefining the word to dodge falsification. In Newtonian mechanics, inertial mass is the measure of resistance to acceleration (F=ma), and it is invariant. The Third Law gives action-reaction pairs, but the resistance itself isn't "emerging at the boundary" as some frame-dependent fairy dust. Your "alternative mathematical accounting" that localizes it to the contact boundary is just bookkeeping sleight-of-hand. It adds no new predictive power and contradicts the empirical fact that isolated bodies (rockets in deep space, gyroscopes, etc.) exhibit inertia without needing a "dynamic interaction" partner at every instant. Mach's Principle has been engaged for 130+ years; you didn't solve its critiques, you ignored them. Einstein tried, GR partially incorporates it via frame-dragging, but inertia remains tied to the local spacetime metric, not some vague "relational" quantity between bodies. Your paper waves at historical critiques then introduces "new equations for relational inertia" distinct from mass and momentum. Without showing how these reduce to observed F=ma in the two-body limit or survive Cavendish-type experiments, this is intellectual junk food. Exact values in worked examples mean nothing if the framework is ad hoc. The relativistic extension is embarrassing hand-waving. You claim a "first-order relativistic relational inertia" bounded by ? and ?³. Special relativity already gives the correct relativistic inertia/momentum (p = ?mv, with transverse and longitudinal mass distinctions in old formulations, now properly handled via four-vectors). Your "bounded below/above" nonsense doesn't derive the Lorentz transformations, doesn't conserve four-momentum, and doesn't reproduce E=mc² or particle collider data. It's not an extension; it's a Frankenstein patch that will explode the moment you try actual QED or LHC kinematics. "Seven classical paradoxes" and "engineering implications across six domains" is classic crank signaling. Real physics resolves paradoxes by deriving consequences from axioms. You examine paradoxes then declare victory with relational inertia. No citations to peer-reviewed tests, no falsifiable predictions, no simulation or experiment proposed. Engineering implications? Name one concrete, quantifiable improvement to rocket design, MEMS accelerometer, or particle trap that your framework enables which current physics doesn't. (There isn't one.) Garbage.. That re-labeling the reaction force at a "contact boundary" as the true locus of inertia constitutes a new framework rather than trivial tautology. That rest mass being invariant magically allows inertia to be frame-dependent without breaking conservation laws or equivalence principle. That "addressing seven roadblocks inline" substitutes for rigorous derivation, peer review, or mathematical consistency checks. Survivorship bias: you only see your own worked examples with "exact values" and ignore the mountain of data (Foucault pendulum, Coriolis, Lense-Thirring, binary pulsars) that standard inertia explains without your extras. Physicists will ignore this because arXiv/Zenodo is flooded with relational-inertia crank papers. Engineers won't touch it because it offers zero actionable advantage over existing models. If you push it into "engineering domains," regulators and liability lawyers will eviscerate any claim that relies on untested redefinitions of inertia. Competitors (actual working physicists) will point out it fails basic Noether's theorem consistency and move on. At laboratory scales it collapses to standard Newtonian because any "relational" correction must be tuned to zero to match experiment. At relativistic scales it contradicts accelerator data where effective inertia follows ?m precisely. At cosmological scales it offers nothing beyond vague Mach nods while GR already works with observations (CMB, gravitational waves). Your framework doesn't scale; it evaporates. The entire core claim that inertia is "not an absolute quantity." Burn it. The "new equations" for relational inertia. Replace with actual four-vectors or shut up. The relativistic "extension." Torch it and learn proper special relativity textbooks. The structure pretending this is an "alternative mathematical accounting" rather than a misunderstanding of what mass does. Not one salvageable insight. Distinguishing inertia from momentum is standard pedagogy. Engaging Mach is fine but you contributed zero This isn't a bold challenge to orthodoxy — it's a confused amateur repackaging 19th-century philosophy as 21st-century physics, complete with self-congratulatory "roadblocks addressed" and a companion paper tease. Delete the preprint, study Goldstein or Misner-Thorne-Wheeler, and never submit something this weak again. The strongest part surviving is the abstract's word count. Everything else is on fire. Tom Roberts is turning in his grave... Odd Bodkin reads physics books written by girls only. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin* Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-16 11:08 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin* The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-15 21:33 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin* The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-15 21:41 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-16 14:42 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-16 14:50 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-17 10:30 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-17 12:23 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-17 13:07 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-17 19:24 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-17 21:07 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-17 22:13 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-17 23:46 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-18 15:28 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-18 15:37 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-19 12:18 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-19 21:55 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-21 13:28 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 14:14 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-21 19:02 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 20:39 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-22 20:41 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 00:01 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-23 11:19 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 12:30 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-23 22:53 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 23:20 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 22:06 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 22:19 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-24 15:55 +0000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-24 12:49 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 08:17 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-18 10:56 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-18 10:21 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-18 12:17 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-18 01:15 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-17 22:04 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-18 10:47 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-18 14:38 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-19 06:55 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-18 21:22 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-20 15:32 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 05:31 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-21 13:39 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 14:15 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 14:17 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-21 19:40 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 20:38 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-22 19:10 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-22 23:56 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-23 21:54 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 22:20 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 14:43 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 15:38 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 20:16 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 20:24 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 21:15 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 12:20 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 21:38 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-23 22:01 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 22:30 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 20:49 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 20:52 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 21:29 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 21:34 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-17 16:36 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-18 10:38 -0700
csiph-web