Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671251

Re: The Relativity of Inertia

Show all headers | View raw

Y wrote:
> 
> On 6/17/2026 8:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 17.06.2026 02:30, skrev Y:
> >> On 6/16/2026 10:42 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>> Den 16.06.2026 03:08, skrev Y:
> >>>> Below is the link to my Relativity of Inertia paper.
> >>>> https://zenodo.org/records/20453334
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Quote from 3. Co-Moving Bodies and the Contact Boundary
> >>>
> >>> "Consider two bodies, A and B, in continuous contact.
> >>> Â Â By Newton's Third Law, they exert upon each other an
> >>> Â Â equal and opposite reaction force of 500 N at their shared
> >>> Â Â contact boundary. Body A has invariant mass 800 kg; Body B
> >>> Â Â has invariant mass 3000 kg."
> >>>
> >>> Two possible scenarios:
> >>>
> >>> #1: An external force F = 633.33 N is exerted on body A
> >>>      and both bodies will accelerate at 0.1667 m/s².
> >>> Â Â Â Â  (Body B is accelerated by 500 N)
> >>>
> >>> #2: An external force F = 2375 N is exerted on body B
> >>>      and both bodies will accelerate at 0.625 m/s²
> >>> Â Â Â Â  (Body A is accelerated by 500 N)
> >>>
> >>> You can't have both at the same time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Quote from "refutation of anticipated objections"
> >>>
> >>> "The scenario is physically equivalent to two bodies pressing
> >>>   against each other — each exerting 500 N on the other — and
> >>> Â Â asking what acceleration their shared contact point undergoes
> >>> Â Â given their combined mass."
> >>>
> >>> One possible scenario:
> >>> #3: A force 500 N is exerted on body A.
> >>> Â Â Â Â  A force 500 N is exerted on body B in opposite direction.
> >>> Â Â Â Â  The acceleration of both bodies is zero.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You cannot have  a reaction force without a force.
> >>> Perpetuum mobile doesn't exist.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Your point is correct as statement of Newton's third law, but it
> >> supports the framework, not undermines it.
> >>
> >> Newton's Third Law does not say a reaction force exists in isolation
> >> or as a sequence. It says that whenever a force exists between two
> >> bodies, there is simultaneously an equal and opposite reaction force.
> >
> > Right.
> > But you cannot have two forces which are reaction forces
> > to each other.
> >
> > Remember:
> > Newtonian mechanic from Newton's three laws of motion
> > is thoroughly confirmed as long the involved speeds
> > are small compared to the speed of light.
> >
> > There are only three ways you can have two equal forces
> > between two objects. (Or combinations of the three ways.)
> >
> > Let's see these ways in detail:
> >
> > Mass of body A: Ma =Â  800 kg
> > Mass of body B: Mb = 3000 kg
> >
> > #1:
> >  Â An external force F1 is exerted on body A.
> >  Â Body A exerts a force F2 on body B.
> >  Â Body B exerts a force F3 on body A.
> >  Â Body A exerts a force F4 on the object that exerted the force F1 on it.
> >
> >  Â F4 is reaction force to F1. F4 = F1
> >  Â F3 is reaction force to F2. F3 = F2
> >  Â Given: F3 = F2 = 500N
> >
> >   Acceleration of body B: Ab = F2/Mb = (500/3000)m/s² = 0.1667 m/s²
> >   Acceleration of body A: Aa = 0.1667 m/s²
> >  Â The force F5 accelerating body A: F5 = Aaâ‹…Ma = 0.1667â‹…800N = 133.33N
> >  Â F1 = F5+F3 = 633.33 N
> >
> > We can let an external force accelerate body B
> > and do the same calculations:
> >
> > #2: An external force F = 2375 N is exerted on body B
> >      and both bodies will accelerate at 0.625 m/s²
> >  Â Â Â  (Body A is accelerated by 500 N)
> >
> > #3: A force Fa = 500 N is exerted on body A.
> >  Â Â Â  A force Fb = 500 N is exerted on body B.
> >  Â Â Â  Body A exerts a force Fra = 500 N on body B.
> >  Â Â Â  Body B exerts a force Frb = 500 N on body A.
> >  Â Â Â  Fra is reaction force to Fb, Fra = Fb
> >  Â Â Â  Frb is reaction force to Fa, Frb = Fa
> >  Â Â Â  Net force on body A = Fa - Frb = 0 N
> >  Â Â Â  Net force on body B = Fb - Fra = 0 N
> >      Acceleration of both bodies = 0 m/s²
> >
> >
> >>
> >> A simultaneous mutual interaction. In the worked example, bodies A and
> >> B are in contact and interacting. The 500N force A and B are exerting
> >> are the same interaction described from two perspectives simultaneously.
> >
> > The three possible perspectives are described above.
> >
> >>
> >> The contact itself is the event; the equal and opposite forces are its
> >> two faces.
> >
> > The contact is permanent. Not an event.
> >
> >>
> >> This is why what I propose is on solid ground. It does not require an
> >> external driving force to be specified separately. The interaction
> >> between the bodies (whatever its physical origin) produces the equal
> >> opposite reaction force pair at the contact boundary by definition of
> >> Newton's Third Law.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> > If you put two bodies in contact with each other without
> > external forces, there is obviously no forces between the bodies.
> >
> > Quote from 3. Co-Moving Bodies and the Contact Boundary
> >  Â "Applying Newton's Second Law individually to each body in isolation:
> >
> >    Body A: 500 N =  800 kg × a  => a = 0.625 m/s²
> >    Body B: 500 N = 3000 kg × a' => a'= 0.1667 m/s²
> >
> >  Â  In standard Newtonian mechanics these two results reflect
> >  Â  the individual free-body analysis of each mass under the
> >  Â  contact force."
> >
> > This is nonsense. You cannot have what you call a "contact force"
> > between the bodies without external forces.
> > (When the bodies are electrically neutral and without magnetism.)
> >
> > You are claiming that two bodies repel each other.
> > Free energy!!
> >
> >>
> >> Two classical bodies making contact do not necessarily fuse into a
> >> single undifferentiated lump of matter. The framework does not claim
> >> the two bodies become one body. It claims that for the duration of the
> >> force interaction at the contact boundary, they constitute a single
> >> dynamical system with a shared acceleration.
> >
> > Quite.
> > As explained in the three perspectives above.
> >
> >>
> >> Yanick Borg
> >>
> >> -y
> >>
> >
> > Sorry Yanick.
> >
> > I have not read your whole paper, I stopped at your claims about
> > Newton's third law in the introduction.
> >
> > With such a wrong starting point your theory can not be meaningful.
> >
> >
> 
> Thankyou for taking the time to engage with the paper, and raise the
> objections. This kind of scrutiny is exactly what strengthens the work.
> You raise two points, both of which I agree needs to be made clearer in
> section 3.
> 
> Your points as I understand them.
> 
> Point 1: "If you put two bodies in contact with each other without
> external forces, there is obviously no forces between the bodies."
> Point 2: "You cannot have a contact force between bodies without
> external forces. You are claiming two bodies repel each other. Free
> energy!!"
> 
> Both points rest on the same misunderstanding, and it is a
> straightforward one to correct.
> 
> The paper does not claim two bodies spontaneously generate a force by
> being placed next to each other. The 500 N is not conjured from nothing.
> It is the force arising from whatever physical scenario caused the
> bodies to be in contact and pressing against each other, a push, a
> collision, a compression, a driven mechanism. The scenario presupposes
> an interaction is occurring. That is the whole point: the framework
> applies to bodies that are interacting, not to bodies sitting passively
> adjacent to one another.
> 
> When two bodies are actively pressing against each other, for whatever
> reason, Newton's Third Law mandates that the force each exerts on the
> other is equal and opposite. That is the contact force. It is not free
> energy. It is not spontaneous repulsion. It is the Third Law applied to
> an active interaction.
> 
> Maybe you read "bodies in contact" as "bodies merely touching while at
> rest relative to each other." ? The paper means "bodies actively
> exerting force upon each other at their shared boundary." The
> distinction needs to be stated more explicitly in Section 3.
> 
> kind regards
> 
> Yanick Borg
> 
> -y


You’ve written a 10,000-word word salad that confuses “re-description”
with “explanation” and mistakes “formal notation” for “physics
progress.”



1. **“Not A Correction But An Alternative Accounting” Is An Admission Of
Uselessness**    You literally pre-negotiate that your framework adds no
predictive or explanatory power to standard Newtonian mechanics. If the
mathematics are mathematically equivalent to Newton’s laws for all
classical cases, then you’ve just added vocabulary—not depth. Physics
doesn’t reward expensive re-labeling. What new prediction does this make
that Newton cannot?

2. **“Relational Inertia” Is Mass With A Coat Of Paint**    You define
relational inertia as frame-dependent resistance to change in motion.
That’s already handled identically by *effective mass* (in N2: F = m * a
? a = F/m). There is no experimental scenario where your relational
inertia gives a different numerical result than Newton’s mass *
acceleration decomposition. If it does—show the divergence; if it
doesn’t—it’s a tautology.

3. **The Third Law “Foundation” Is Misapplied**    You claim the Third
Law is where resistance at the contact boundary emerges. That’s already
Newton’s Third Law *plus* Second Law: F12 = -F21, and each body’s
acceleration is F/m. You haven’t localized anything new—you’ve just
called the contact force “inertial resistance” instead of “reaction
force from the other body.” This is relabeling, not a mechanism.

4. **Relativistic Extension Is Mathematically Empty**    You claim
“first-order relativistic relational inertia bounded below by ? and
above by ?³”—but that’s *literally* the range of relativistic mass
definitions from transverse vs. longitudinal mass, a standard result
from 1906 (Einstein, Planck). You’ve repackaged historical confusion
(relativistic mass vs. rest mass) as novelty. The “bounded below and
above” is trivial—it’s just stating that *if* you define inertia as m?
for transverse motion and m?³ for longitudinal motion, the values fall
in that interval. There’s no new physics; it’s a vocabulary table
derived from 120-year-old equations.

5. **Seven Classical Paradoxes Examined = Seven Straw Men Lit On
Fire**    Anyone who has taken sophomore mechanics knows the “paradoxes”
you’re about to debunk (e.g., “if force and acceleration are
proportional, why does a heavier object fall at the same rate?”) are
resolved by Newton’s laws *including* gravitational mass equivalence
with inertial mass. Your framework doesn’t resolve them *better*—it
resolves them *the same way* but with six extra pages of notation.

6. **“Seven Roadblocks Identified And Addressed” Is A Guarantee That You
Haven’t Addressed Them**    In the actual paper, these roadblocks read
like defenses against anticipated objections. But you haven’t *solved*
any roadblock: you’ve written “we can mathematically handle this
boundary condition” without showing that the boundary condition changes
experimentally testable behavior. The roadblocks are *logical*, not
physical. That’s not a roadblock—it’s a sign you’re solving a formal
puzzle, not modeling reality.



- **You never define what “dynamic interaction between bodies” means in
a way that isn’t identical to “forces between bodies per Newton’s Third
Law.”** If relational inertia is a function of the relative acceleration
of two masses, you’re just writing F12 = -m1 * a1 (in one body’s frame)
and calling that “relational inertia”—it’s the same equation.

- **You assume that “frame-dependent property” is a meaningful
distinction.** In Newtonian mechanics, every measure of motion is
already frame-dependent (velocity, momentum, kinetic energy). That
doesn’t make it “relational inertia”; it makes it *kinematics with a
different label*.

- **You implicitly assume that adding a new name for an old quantity
makes the quantity more fundamental.** It doesn’t. It just makes your
paper harder to read.

- **You claim engagement with Mach’s Principle but don’t address its
core: that inertia vanishes if the rest of the universe isn’t there.**
Your framework uses Newton’s Third Law, which requires two bodies—but
Mach’s actual problem is *a single body in an empty universe*. You don’t
address that because your framework collapses to “the body has no
partner to exert force on, so relational inertia is undefined”—which is
just saying “inertia is a property of pairs,” which is *not* what Mach
wanted and *not* a resolution.



- **No journal will publish this as a physics paper** —it’s a semantic
exercise disguised as a physical hypothesis. The reviewers will flag “no
new testable prediction” on line 1 and bounce it.
- **No physicist will adopt an alternative vocabulary with zero
computational advantage.** The community already has F = ma, p = mv, and
E = mc². Your relational inertia adds symbols for quantities they
already compute in 0.2 seconds. You are asking them to learn a new
notation system in exchange for *nothing*.
- **The “engineering implications across six domains” section** will be
read by engineers and immediately discarded: they don’t need to reframe
inertia to build a bridge or land a rocket. If you claim an advantage in
structural dynamics, you need a scenario where the standard mass-based
calculation fails and your relational one succeeds. You provide none.
- **The “companion paper on full relativistic extension in
preparation”** is a narrative crutch. It’s code for “I don’t have the
answer yet, but I want credit for promising it.” In grants or journal
submissions, this guarantees rejection.



- **At scale of an n-body simulation** , your framework requires
computing pairwise “relational inertia” for every pair of bodies, then
summing them to get a net resistance. Standard Newtonian mechanics does
F_total = S F_ij, then a = F_total / m_i—one division per body. Your
framework: for each pair, compute a relational inertia I_ij (a function
of acceleration difference), then combine. For 106 bodies, that’s an
extra O(N²) algebraic term *per time step* with zero accuracy gain.
That’s why professional physics simulators use Newton, not relational
inertia.
- **At relativistic speeds** , your “bounded below by ? and above by ?³”
is a statement about *mass limits*, not a solution. For motion at 0.9c,
inertia varies by factor 2.3 between transverse and longitudinal—but
that’s already known from the relativistic equation of motion. You’ve
added no computational shortcut, no unification, no new regime.



- **The entire notion that this is an “extension” rather than a
“vocabulary replacement.”** If you want to do something substantive,
derive a *new prediction*—like a deviation from Newton in a regime that
can be tested (e.g., strong field gravity, quantum to classical
transition). Right now, every equation you write is a re-arrangement of
existing ones.
- **The “paradox” section.** Delete the whole thing. Staging fake
problems to show your framework “solves” them is dishonest pedagogy. If
the paradoxes were real, the community would have noticed in 350 years.
- **The “seven roadblocks” construct.** Rebuild it as a single section
titled “What observational consequences follow from this formalism?” If
the answer is “none,” don’t publish.



- **One fragment survives:** The question of whether “inertia” should be
considered a pair-wise property rather than an intrinsic one is a
genuine philosophical/terminological issue, worthy of a short note in
*Foundations of Physics* or a philosophy-of-science journal—*as a
historical categorization exercise*, not as new physics. The paper could
be salvaged if rewritten as “On the terminological history and
pedagogical utility of treating inertia relationally” and stripped of
all claims of novelty.



This paper doesn’t extend physics—it draws a map of the known territory
using a new color scheme, then claims to have discovered new mountains
where the old map had perfectly good elevations.

-- 
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

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