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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671219 > unrolled thread

The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin*

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#671219 — The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin*

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#671220

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671221

Y wrote:
 
> 
> 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.



This abstract reads like a philosophy student who learned the word
"relational" and decided to staple it to Newton's laws and call it a new
theory of physics — it is 400 words of elaborate throat-clearing that
promises a revolution and delivers, so far as can be verified, a
notational redescription of something already handled by existing
mechanics.


1. "Alternative mathematical accounting" is not physics — it's
bookkeeping theater.

The abstract explicitly says this is "not a correction of Newtonian
mechanics" but "an alternative mathematical accounting." That is a
confession, not a disclaimer. If it makes identical predictions, it is
not a new framework — it is a new ledger for the same numbers. Mach's
Principle has been debated for 130 years precisely because relational
inertia without new predictive content is unfalsifiable metaphysics.
Asserting that inertial resistance "localises to the boundary of
interaction" is meaningless if no experiment can distinguish that
localization from the standard treatment. What observable, testable
prediction does this framework make that standard Newtonian or
relativistic mechanics does not? The abstract never says. That is fatal.
2. Invoking Newton's Third Law as the "foundation" of inertia is a
category error.

Newton's Third Law governs action-reaction pairs between interacting
bodies. Inertia — the resistance to acceleration — is encoded in the
Second Law and is a property that manifests even in the complete absence
of a reaction partner (e.g., a lone mass in empty space subject to a
field). Claiming the Third Law is the foundation from which inertial
resistance is "derived" is not a deep insight; it is a confusion between
the kinematic/dynamic source of inertia and the logical structure of
contact forces. If this derivation is meant seriously, the paper needs
to show how F = ma for a single isolated body emerges from a Third Law
relational treatment without smuggling in the Second Law — because if it
does smuggle it in, the Third Law is doing zero foundational work.
3. "Dimensional status as standalone relational quantities distinct from
mass" — show your math or stop talking.

This is the most dangerous sentence in the abstract. If relational
inertia has different dimensional status than mass, it either (a)
reduces to kg under any consistent dimensional analysis, making the
distinction cosmetic, or (b) genuinely introduces a new dimensional
quantity, which requires an entirely new physical constant and a
corresponding measurement protocol. The abstract claims this is
clarified in the paper. An abstract that makes a dimensionally novel
claim and then waves at the paper for justification is not building
confidence — it is asking for blind faith. What are the dimensions? What
is the SI unit? What is the measurement procedure?
4. The relativistic extension is structurally premature and the bounding
claim is vague to the point of uselessness.

"Bounded below by transverse (?) and above by longitudinal (?³)
relativistic equations of motion" — this is not an extension, it is a
statement that the new quantity lives inside a range already defined by
established physics. Transverse and longitudinal mass were concepts from
pre-1905 Lorentz/Abraham electrodynamics that Einstein's Special
Relativity subsumed and largely rendered obsolete as separate
quantities. Saying your new construct is "bounded between ? and ?³"
means you are operating inside a regime already fully described by SR,
and you have not shown why a new construct is needed to describe motion
in that regime. A "first-order" relativistic extension that is merely
sandwiched between two known results is not a contribution — it is a
graph with a dot drawn between two existing curves.
5. Seven paradoxes, six engineering domains, seven roadblocks — this is
a rhetorical scoreboard, not an argument.

Enumerating problems examined ("seven classical paradoxes," "six
engineering domains," "seven roadblocks addressed inline") is a
marketing tactic. It signals breadth. It does not signal depth,
correctness, or novelty. Every crank paper ever posted to arXiv or
Zenodo lists the domains it will revolutionize. The number of things
addressed says nothing about whether any of them are addressed
correctly, whether the resolutions are distinct from standard
treatments, or whether the "roadblocks" were actually roadblocks to
begin with versus manufactured obstacles erected to be knocked down.



Assumes "relational" automatically means "better." The Machian tradition
is well-documented, the objections are devastating (bucket argument
survives just fine in GR without Mach), and this paper seems to assume
that framing inertia relationally is inherently an advance. It is not,
unless there is a predictive consequence.
Assumes the Third Law can bear foundational weight it was never designed
to carry. Newton himself did not derive the Second Law from the Third.
This ordering is invented, and the abstract offers no justification for
why this re-ordering is physically meaningful versus logically
arbitrary.
Assumes a preprint on Zenodo with 22 views and 23 downloads has survived
meaningful scrutiny. It has not. Zenodo is a repository, not a journal.
Self-archiving is not peer review. "v11 FINAL" in the filename signals
eleven rounds of private revision, none of which constitutes external
validation.
Assumes the companion paper will exist. "A companion paper is in
preparation" is the academic equivalent of "check is in the mail." The
relativistic extension is presented as a contribution; deferring the
full development to a paper that does not yet exist means the
contribution is incomplete by the author's own admission.




No physicist with reputation to lose will engage with this until it
clears peer review, and peer review will demand exactly what the
abstract fails to provide: a novel, falsifiable prediction. The target
audience for this paper is either people who already agree with the
relational premise (echo chamber) or people who will dismiss it before
page two (everyone else).
The "alternative accounting" framing is a double-edged trap. If the
author concedes it makes the same predictions, reviewers will reject it
for lack of novelty. If the author later claims it makes different
predictions, they need to produce the experiment — and they haven't.
Engineers will not touch this. "Engineering implications across six
domains" requires that the new framework produce different quantitative
outputs than existing tools. If it doesn't, engineers have zero
incentive to change their workflow. If it does, you need experimental
validation first. Either way, engineering adoption is a decade away at
minimum and requires a peer-reviewed, experimentally confirmed
foundation the paper does not have.



The moment this framework encounters quantum mechanics — where inertia,
mass, and the very notion of "interaction boundary" become ill-defined
at the Planck scale — it collapses. GR already handles frame-dependence
and relational dynamics more rigorously than Newton's laws can support.
The Standard Model's Higgs mechanism gives mass (and thus inertia) a
field-theoretic origin that is neither relational in the Machian sense
nor boundary-localized. If this framework cannot be reconciled with QFT
and the Higgs, it is not a foundation for anything — it is a classical
island that cannot be connected to the mainland of modern physics. The
abstract does not mention this problem once.



The entire motivating claim needs to be rebuilt from a single, clean,
falsifiable prediction. Everything else — paradoxes, engineering
domains, roadblocks — is irrelevant without it.
The dimensional analysis section must be exposed to the light in full
before any other claim can be assessed. If the dimensions don't work out
to something new and measurable, the whole enterprise collapses into
relabeling.
The relativistic extension cannot be presented as a contribution while
simultaneously deferring to a companion paper. Either it stands alone
with full mathematical derivation, or it doesn't belong in this paper at
all.
The philosophical framing around Mach's Principle needs to either (a)
produce a new empirical consequence that distinguishes this framework
from Machian and neo-Machian predecessors, or (b) be removed entirely,
because name-dropping Mach without advancing beyond him is not
engagement — it is citation cosplay.



The instinct to examine where, geometrically and physically, inertial
resistance is "located" during a collision is not a stupid question.
Contact mechanics and stress propagation at material boundaries is a
legitimate and underexplored area. If the author is actually doing
serious work on how inertial response distributes across interaction
zones in extended bodies — rather than point particles — that could be a
real contribution to applied mechanics. But the abstract gives no
indication that this is the actual content, and the philosophical
framing around "relational inertia as a new quantity" drowns out any
signal of genuine applied insight.


Eleven versions, no peer review, no novel prediction, no defined SI unit
for the new quantity, a relativistic extension that defers to a paper
that doesn't exist, and an abstract that proudly announces it does not
correct Newtonian mechanics — you have spent what looks like
considerable effort building an elaborate, internally consistent
rearrangement of furniture in a house that physics already burned down
and rebuilt twice.

I going to throw up...


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671222 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

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.
  By Newton's Third Law, they exert upon each other an
  equal and opposite reaction force of 500 N at their shared
  contact boundary. Body A has invariant mass 800 kg; Body B
  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.
     (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
     (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
  asking what acceleration their shared contact point undergoes
  given their combined mass."

One possible scenario:
#3: A force 500 N is exerted on body A.
     A force 500 N is exerted on body B in opposite direction.
     The acceleration of both bodies is zero.


You cannot have  a reaction force without a force.
Perpetuum mobile doesn't exist.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671223 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

On 6/16/2026 2:42 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> 
> You cannot have  a reaction force without a force.

Oh, yet another common sense prejudice
"refuted" by your idiot guru and his bunch
of idiots.
And yet another demonstration that you have
no clue about the teachings of your moronic
Shit. Don't worry, most of other relativistic
doggies have no clue either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671236 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

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.
>   By Newton's Third Law, they exert upon each other an
>   equal and opposite reaction force of 500 N at their shared
>   contact boundary. Body A has invariant mass 800 kg; Body B
>   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.
>      (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
>      (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
>   asking what acceleration their shared contact point undergoes
>   given their combined mass."
> 
> One possible scenario:
> #3: A force 500 N is exerted on body A.
>      A force 500 N is exerted on body B in opposite direction.
>      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.

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 contact itself is the event; the equal and opposite forces are its 
two faces.

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.

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.

Yanick Borg

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671241 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

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.
>>   By Newton's Third Law, they exert upon each other an
>>   equal and opposite reaction force of 500 N at their shared
>>   contact boundary. Body A has invariant mass 800 kg; Body B
>>   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.
>>      (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
>>      (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
>>   asking what acceleration their shared contact point undergoes
>>   given their combined mass."
>>
>> One possible scenario:
>> #3: A force 500 N is exerted on body A.
>>      A force 500 N is exerted on body B in opposite direction.
>>      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 =  800 kg
Mass of body B: Mb = 3000 kg

#1:
  An external force F1 is exerted on body A.
  Body A exerts a force F2 on body B.
  Body B exerts a force F3 on body A.
  Body A exerts a force F4 on the object that exerted the force F1 on it.

  F4 is reaction force to F1. F4 = F1
  F3 is reaction force to F2. F3 = F2
  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
  The force F5 accelerating body A: F5 = Aa⋅Ma = 0.1667⋅800N = 133.33N
  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
     (Body A is accelerated by 500 N)

#3: A force Fa = 500 N is exerted on body A.
     A force Fb = 500 N is exerted on body B.
     Body A exerts a force Fra = 500 N on body B.
     Body B exerts a force Frb = 500 N on body A.
     Fra is reaction force to Fb, Fra = Fb
     Frb is reaction force to Fa, Frb = Fa
     Net force on body A = Fa - Frb = 0 N
     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
  "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

   In standard Newtonian mechanics these two results reflect
   the individual free-body analysis of each mass under the
   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.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671242 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

On 6/17/2026 12:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:


> 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.

According to NM a free-falling object is
no way inertial. Is it really so thoroughly
"confirmed", poor brainwashed idiot?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671244 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

Den 17.06.2026 13:07, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/17/2026 12:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
> 
>> Remember:
>> Newtonian mechanics from Newton's three laws of motion
>> is thoroughly confirmed as long the involved speeds
>> are small compared to the speed of light.
> 
> According to NM a free-falling object is
> no way inertial. Is it really so thoroughly
> "confirmed", poor brainwashed idiot?
> 
> 

Do you claim NM is not thoroughly "confirmed"?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671247 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

On 6/17/2026 7:24 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 17.06.2026 13:07, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/17/2026 12:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Remember:
>>> Newtonian mechanics from Newton's three laws of motion
>>> is thoroughly confirmed as long the involved speeds
>>> are small compared to the speed of light.
>>
>> According to NM a free-falling object is
>> no way inertial. Is it really so thoroughly
>> "confirmed", poor brainwashed idiot?
>>
>>
> 
> Do you claim NM is not thoroughly "confirmed"?


Well, only brainwashed by your moronic religion
idiots can believe that "confirmation" nonsense.

But you didn't answer the question. According
to NM a free-falling object is  no way inertial.
According to The Shit of your idiot guru it
absolutely is inertial. Let me guess - both
of these are "confirmed"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671249 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

Den 17.06.2026 21:07, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/17/2026 7:24 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 17.06.2026 13:07, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 6/17/2026 12:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Remember:
>>>> Newtonian mechanics from Newton's three laws of motion
>>>> is thoroughly confirmed as long the involved speeds
>>>> are small compared to the speed of light.
>>>
>>> According to NM a free-falling object is
>>> no way inertial. Is it really so thoroughly
>>> "confirmed", poor brainwashed idiot?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do you claim NM is not thoroughly "confirmed"?
> 
> 
> Well, only brainwashed by your moronic religion
> idiots can believe that "confirmation" nonsense.
> 

OK.
So according to Maciej Woźniak Newton's three laws of
motion are not thoroughly confirmed as long the involved
speeds are small compared to the speed of light.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671250 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

On 6/17/2026 10:13 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 17.06.2026 21:07, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/17/2026 7:24 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 17.06.2026 13:07, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 6/17/2026 12:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Remember:
>>>>> Newtonian mechanics from Newton's three laws of motion
>>>>> is thoroughly confirmed as long the involved speeds
>>>>> are small compared to the speed of light.
>>>>
>>>> According to NM a free-falling object is
>>>> no way inertial. Is it really so thoroughly
>>>> "confirmed", poor brainwashed idiot?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you claim NM is not thoroughly "confirmed"?
>>
>>
>> Well, only brainwashed by your moronic religion
>> idiots can believe that "confirmation" nonsense.
>>
> 
> OK.
> So according to Maciej Woźniak Newton's three laws of
> motion are not thoroughly confirmed as long the involved
> speeds are small compared to the speed of light.

Well, only brainwashed by your moronic religion
idiots can believe that "confirmation" nonsense.

But you didn't answer the question. According
to NM a free-falling object is  no way inertial.
According to The Shit of your idiot guru it
absolutely is inertial. Let me guess - both
of these are "confirmed"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671261 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

Den 17.06.2026 23:46, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> 
> According
> to NM a free-falling object is  no way inertial.
> According to The Shit of your idiot guru it
> absolutely is inertial. Let me guess - both
> of these are "confirmed"?
>


You are free-falling in a spaceship with no windows.
You may be orbiting the Earth, be on your way to Sirrius,
or falling towards the Earth. You don't know.
Your accelerometer say your acceleration is zero.

Are you accelerating, or are inertial?



-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671262 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

On 6/18/2026 3:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 17.06.2026 23:46, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>
>> According
>> to NM a free-falling object is  no way inertial.
>> According to The Shit of your idiot guru it
>> absolutely is inertial. Let me guess - both
>> of these are "confirmed"?
>>
> 
> 
> You are free-falling in a spaceship with no windows.

No, I am not. Anyway - according to NM
If I was I'wouldn't be inertial, what is,
according to you, "confirmed". According
to The Shit of Einstein if I was I would
be inertial, and that's also, according
to you, "confirmed".
In both cases - it doesn't matter whether
my spaceship would have windows or not.

So, both options are "confirmed"? Did
I understand you correctly, poor mumbling
idiot?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671269 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

Den 18.06.2026 15:37, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/18/2026 3:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> 
>> You are free-falling in a spaceship with no windows.
>> You may be orbiting the Earth, be on your way to Sirrius,
>> or falling towards the Earth. You don't know.
>> Your accelerometer say your acceleration is zero.
>> 
>> Are you accelerating, or are inertial?
> 
> No, I am not. Anyway - according to NM
> If I was I'wouldn't be inertial, what is,
> according to you, "confirmed". According
> to The Shit of Einstein if I was I would
> be inertial, and that's also, according
> to you, "confirmed".
> In both cases - it doesn't matter whether
> my spaceship would have windows or not.

OK.
Your answer is that you are not inertial,
you are accelerating.

Let's change the scenario slightly.
You are still weightless in a space vehicle.

If you are in orbit around the Earth,
are you then accelerating or inertial?

If you are falling straight towards the Earth,
are you then accelerating or inertial?

> 
> So, both options are "confirmed"? Did
> I understand you correctly, poor mumbling
> idiot?

No.





-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671272 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

On 6/19/2026 12:18 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 18.06.2026 15:37, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/18/2026 3:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You are free-falling in a spaceship with no windows.
>>> You may be orbiting the Earth, be on your way to Sirrius,
>>> or falling towards the Earth. You don't know.
>>> Your accelerometer say your acceleration is zero.
>>>
>>> Are you accelerating, or are inertial?
>>
>> No, I am not. Anyway - according to NM
>> If I was I'wouldn't be inertial, what is,
>> according to you, "confirmed". According
>> to The Shit of Einstein if I was I would
>> be inertial, and that's also, according
>> to you, "confirmed".
>> In both cases - it doesn't matter whether
>> my spaceship would have windows or not.
> 
> OK.
> Your answer is that you are not inertial,
> you are accelerating.

I'm not answering, I'm questioning.
And you're not answering. Of course.


> 
> Let's change the scenario slightly.
> You are still weightless in a space vehicle.
> 
> If you are in orbit around the Earth,
> are you then accelerating or inertial?

According to NM I'm accelerating,
and - since the velocities are
much lesser than c - according to
you it's confirmed.
Right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671278 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

Den 19.06.2026 21:55, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/19/2026 12:18 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> You are still weightless in a space vehicle.
>>
>> If you are in orbit around the Earth,
>> are you then accelerating or inertial?
> 
> According to NM I'm accelerating,
> and - since the velocities are
> much lesser than c - according to
> you it's confirmed.
> Right?

A short repetition of what I am sure you know:
According to Newton:
  F = ma
I will not insult you by explaining what F, m and a are.
You know.

A commercial aircraft will accelerate at a ≈ 3.5 m/s² before takeoff.
If your mass is m = 80kg, the force the backrest of the seat is
exerting on your back is F = (80⋅3.5) N = 280 N
(F ≈ 63 pound if the SI nonsense 'Newton' confuses you)
You are pushed against the backrest.

The point is:
If you are accelerating, a force is acting on you.
You can feel when a force is acting on you.

When you are weightless, you can feel that no force is acting on you.
So how can you be accelerating?


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671280 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

On 6/21/2026 1:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 19.06.2026 21:55, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/19/2026 12:18 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> You are still weightless in a space vehicle.
>>>
>>> If you are in orbit around the Earth,
>>> are you then accelerating or inertial?
>>
>> According to NM I'm accelerating,
>> and - since the velocities are
>> much lesser than c - according to
>> you it's confirmed.
>> Right?
> 
> A short repetition of what I am sure you know:
> According to Newton:
>   F = ma
> I will not insult you by explaining what F, m and a are.
> You know.
> 
> A commercial aircraft will accelerate at a ≈ 3.5 m/s² before takeoff.
> If your mass is m = 80kg, the force the backrest of the seat is
> exerting on your back is F = (80⋅3.5) N = 280 N
> (F ≈ 63 pound if the SI nonsense 'Newton' confuses you)
> You are pushed against the backrest.
> 
> The point is:
> If you are accelerating, a force is acting on you.
> You can feel when a force is acting on you.
> 
> When you are weightless, you can feel that no force is acting on you.
> So how can you be accelerating?

So, is your point that according to NM a satellite
rotating around Earth is not accelerating? Well,
you're an idiot, sure, you're ignorant of basics
of your moronic physics, sure - but you re not THAT
idiot and THAT ignorant, are you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671283 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

Den 21.06.2026 14:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/21/2026 1:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> A commercial aircraft will accelerate at a ≈ 3.5 m/s² before takeoff.
>> If your mass is m = 80kg, the force the backrest of the seat is
>> exerting on your back is F = (80⋅3.5) N = 280 N
>> (F ≈ 63 pound if the SI nonsense 'Newton' confuses you)
>> You are pushed against the backrest.
>>
>> The point is:
>> If you are accelerating, a force is acting on you.
>> You can feel when a force is acting on you.
>>
>> When you are weightless, you can feel that no force is acting on you.
>> So how can you be accelerating?
> 
> So, is your point that according to NM a satellite
> rotating around Earth is not accelerating? Well,
> you're an idiot, sure, you're ignorant of basics
> of your moronic physics, sure - but you re not THAT
> idiot and THAT ignorant, are you?
> 

The question was:
When you are weightless, you can feel that no force is acting on you.
So how can you be accelerating?

Don't you know?


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671286 — Re: The Relativity of Inertia

On 6/21/2026 7:02 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 21.06.2026 14:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/21/2026 1:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> A commercial aircraft will accelerate at a ≈ 3.5 m/s² before takeoff.
>>> If your mass is m = 80kg, the force the backrest of the seat is
>>> exerting on your back is F = (80⋅3.5) N = 280 N
>>> (F ≈ 63 pound if the SI nonsense 'Newton' confuses you)
>>> You are pushed against the backrest.
>>>
>>> The point is:
>>> If you are accelerating, a force is acting on you.
>>> You can feel when a force is acting on you.
>>>
>>> When you are weightless, you can feel that no force is acting on you.
>>> So how can you be accelerating?
>>
>> So, is your point that according to NM a satellite
>> rotating around Earth is not accelerating? Well,
>> you're an idiot, sure, you're ignorant of basics
>> of your moronic physics, sure - but you re not THAT
>> idiot and THAT ignorant, are you?
>>
> 
> The question was:
> When you are weightless, you can feel that no force is acting on you.
> So how can you be accelerating?


Simply, poor trash.
So, is your point that according to NM a satellite
rotating around Earth is not accelerating? Well,
you're an idiot, sure, you're ignorant of basics
of your moronic physics, sure - but you re not THAT
idiot and THAT ignorant, are you?

Or maybe you are, after all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web