Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671219 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-16 11:08 +1000 |
| Last post | 2026-06-18 10:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 66 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 20:49 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <111h8d8$38122$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #671304 |
Den 23.06.2026 22:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/23/2026 10:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 22.06.2026 23:56, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> And how about another case? 2 object are closing
>>> Earth, directly on its axis. One is free-falling
>>> at the distance of 2000km from North Pole - according
>>> to your moronic religion it means it has no
>>> acceleration.
>>
>> OK. Let object A be free-falling at altitude 2000 km.
>>
>> The coordinate acceleration of A is 5.7 m/s².
>
> What a moronic try of changing the subject.
> Feeling cornered, poor trash?
> What "coordinate acceleration"? Your claim was
> about acceleration. And acceleration of a
> free falling object is - according to your
> moronic Shit - 0.
It is a fact that according to both NM and GR
the coordinate acceleration of an object at
altitude 2000 km is 5.7 m/s² towards the Earth.
Your ignorance of elementary physics can't change
this fact.
The coordinate acceleration will increase all
the time until it hits the ground at 9.8 m/s².
>>> The second one is co-moving at the
>>> distance of 600000 from the North Pole and
>>> keeping constant distance from the first one.
>>> Also free falling - no acceleration?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You said "the second one" was fee falling!
>
> First one is free falling, the other is not. It's
> keeping the distance to the first object, and I
> meant 600000 km.
In that case body B must be a spaceship with rocket engine.
It will have to adjust its coordinate acceleration so that
it all the time is equal to the coordinate acceleration
of object A. (Which is practically impossible.)
So body A and body B are co-moving because their
coordinate accelerations are equal.
What was your point?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 20:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <18bc191f51b24fe8$242374$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #671316 |
On 6/24/2026 8:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 23.06.2026 22:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 6/23/2026 10:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 22.06.2026 23:56, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> And how about another case? 2 object are closing >>>> Earth, directly on its axis. One is free-falling >>>> at the distance of 2000km from North Pole - according >>>> to your moronic religion it means it has no >>>> acceleration. >>> >>> OK. Let object A be free-falling at altitude 2000 km. >>> >>> The coordinate acceleration of A is 5.7 m/s². >> >> What a moronic try of changing the subject. >> Feeling cornered, poor trash? >> What "coordinate acceleration"? Your claim was >> about acceleration. And acceleration of a >> free falling object is - according to your >> moronic Shit - 0. > > It is a fact that according to both NM and GR > the coordinate acceleration of an object at > altitude 2000 km is 5.7 m/s² towards the Earth. What a moronic try of changing the subject. Feeling cornered, poor trash? Your hilarious claim was about acceleration, not about coordinate acceleration. Being a shameless lying piece of shit, of course, you may pretend you didn't mean what you meant. But when you waved your arms and screamed that there can be no acceleration when I feel no force - did you also mean your coordinate acceleration? >>>> The second one is co-moving at the >>>> distance of 600000 from the North Pole and >>>> keeping constant distance from the first one. >>>> Also free falling - no acceleration? > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You said "the second one" was fee falling! No, poor trash, I was asking you whether according to you it is also free-falling with no acceleration. Are you too dumb even to know what a "?" sign is? > >> >> First one is free falling, the other is not. It's >> keeping the distance to the first object, and I >> meant 600000 km. > > In that case body B must be a spaceship with rocket engine. Why not. > It will have to adjust its coordinate acceleration so that > it all the time is equal to the coordinate acceleration > of object A. (Which is practically impossible.) What a moronic try of changing the subject. Feeling cornered, poor trash? Your hilarious claim was about acceleration, not about coordinate acceleration. Being a shameless lying piece of shit, of course, you may pretend you didn't mean what you meant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 21:29 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <111hap0$3823d$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #671317 |
Den 24.06.2026 20:52, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 6/24/2026 8:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 23.06.2026 22:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 6/23/2026 10:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 22.06.2026 23:56, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>> And how about another case? 2 object are closing >>>>> Earth, directly on its axis. One is free-falling >>>>> at the distance of 2000km from North Pole - according >>>>> to your moronic religion it means it has no >>>>> acceleration. >>>> >>>> OK. Let object A be free-falling at altitude 2000 km. >>>> >>>> The coordinate acceleration of A is 5.7 m/s². >>> >>> What a moronic try of changing the subject. >>> Feeling cornered, poor trash? >>> What "coordinate acceleration"? Your claim was >>> about acceleration. And acceleration of a >>> free falling object is - according to your >>> moronic Shit - 0. >> >> It is a fact that according to both NM and GR >> the coordinate acceleration of an object at >> altitude 2000 km is 5.7 m/s² towards the Earth. > > What a moronic try of changing the subject. > Feeling cornered, poor trash? > Your hilarious claim was about acceleration, > not about coordinate acceleration. Being a > shameless lying piece of shit, of course, > you may pretend you didn't mean what you meant. > But when you waved your arms and screamed > that there can be no acceleration when I > feel no force - did you also mean your coordinate > acceleration? > > > >>>>> The second one is co-moving at the >>>>> distance of 600000 from the North Pole and >>>>> keeping constant distance from the first one. >>>>> Also free falling - no acceleration? >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> You said "the second one" was fee falling! > > No, poor trash, I was asking you whether according > to you it is also free-falling with no acceleration. > Are you too dumb even to know what a "?" sign is? > > > >> >>> >>> First one is free falling, the other is not. It's >>> keeping the distance to the first object, and I >>> meant 600000 km. >> >> In that case body B must be a spaceship with rocket engine. > > Why not. > >> It will have to adjust its coordinate acceleration so that >> it all the time is equal to the coordinate acceleration >> of object A. (Which is practically impossible.) > > > What a moronic try of changing the subject. > Feeling cornered, poor trash? > Your hilarious claim was about acceleration, > not about coordinate acceleration. Being a > shameless lying piece of shit, of course, > you may pretend you didn't mean what you meant. > > >> So body A and body B are co-moving because their >> coordinate accelerations are equal. >> >> What was your point? No answer, Maciej ? Your point was to prove that co-moving objects can absolutely have different accelerations, wasn't it? Did you succeed ? :-D Enough now. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 21:34 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <18bc1b61ebe8fd67$249769$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #671320 |
On 6/24/2026 9:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 24.06.2026 20:52, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 6/24/2026 8:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 23.06.2026 22:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 6/23/2026 10:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 22.06.2026 23:56, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>> And how about another case? 2 object are closing >>>>>> Earth, directly on its axis. One is free-falling >>>>>> at the distance of 2000km from North Pole - according >>>>>> to your moronic religion it means it has no >>>>>> acceleration. >>>>> >>>>> OK. Let object A be free-falling at altitude 2000 km. >>>>> >>>>> The coordinate acceleration of A is 5.7 m/s². >>>> >>>> What a moronic try of changing the subject. >>>> Feeling cornered, poor trash? >>>> What "coordinate acceleration"? Your claim was >>>> about acceleration. And acceleration of a >>>> free falling object is - according to your >>>> moronic Shit - 0. >>> >>> It is a fact that according to both NM and GR >>> the coordinate acceleration of an object at >>> altitude 2000 km is 5.7 m/s² towards the Earth. >> >> What a moronic try of changing the subject. >> Feeling cornered, poor trash? >> Your hilarious claim was about acceleration, >> not about coordinate acceleration. Being a >> shameless lying piece of shit, of course, >> you may pretend you didn't mean what you meant. >> But when you waved your arms and screamed >> that there can be no acceleration when I >> feel no force - did you also mean your coordinate >> acceleration? >> >> >> >>>>>> The second one is co-moving at the >>>>>> distance of 600000 from the North Pole and >>>>>> keeping constant distance from the first one. >>>>>> Also free falling - no acceleration? >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> You said "the second one" was fee falling! >> >> No, poor trash, I was asking you whether according >> to you it is also free-falling with no acceleration. >> Are you too dumb even to know what a "?" sign is? >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> First one is free falling, the other is not. It's >>>> keeping the distance to the first object, and I >>>> meant 600000 km. >>> >>> In that case body B must be a spaceship with rocket engine. >> >> Why not. >> >>> It will have to adjust its coordinate acceleration so that >>> it all the time is equal to the coordinate acceleration >>> of object A. (Which is practically impossible.) >> >> >> What a moronic try of changing the subject. >> Feeling cornered, poor trash? >> Your hilarious claim was about acceleration, >> not about coordinate acceleration. Being a >> shameless lying piece of shit, of course, >> you may pretend you didn't mean what you meant. >> >> > >>> So body A and body B are co-moving because their >>> coordinate accelerations are equal. >>> >>> What was your point? > > No answer, Maciej ? > > Your point was to prove that co-moving objects can > absolutely have different accelerations, wasn't it? Not quite. I was just correcting your ignorant idiocies. Wasn't intending to prove you anything, no point in trying to prove anything to a brainwashed idiot lacking any logic, honesty or consequence. > > Did you succeed ? :-D > > Enough now. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-17 16:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <6A332F69.7FE6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #671243 |
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. > >>>   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 = Aaâ‹…Ma = 0.1667â‹…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. > > > > > > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-18 10:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <6A342D0E.6395@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #671236 |
Y wrote: > > 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 This is sloppy freshman-level physics cosplaying as a profound “framework,” built on a category error so basic it would get laughed out of any intro mechanics classroom. “Shared acceleration” is flatly false You assert that during contact the two bodies “constitute a single dynamical system with a shared acceleration.” Bullshit. Unless the contact is perfectly rigid, sticky, or otherwise constraining their relative motion (which you never specify), the bodies have different accelerations determined by their individual masses and the net force on each. The 500 N pair is equal and opposite, but a1 = F_net_on_A / mA and a2 = F_net_on_B / mB. They are emphatically not the same unless mA = mB and external forces are symmetric in a very specific way. Your “shared acceleration” claim is not a consequence of Newton 3; it’s an extra assumption you smuggled in. Treating the contact pair as automatically making them “one dynamical system” for kinematics The system of A+B is useful for center-of-mass motion because internal forces cancel in the total momentum equation. That does not mean the two bodies share the same acceleration vector. This is the classic mistake students make when they want action-reaction forces to “cancel” inside one object. You’re doing the mirror-image error: pretending the pair magically glues their kinematics together. It doesn’t. “The interaction itself produces the pair by definition” dodges the actual dynamics Yes, Newton 3 gives you the pair for whatever contact force exists. That is tautological and useless. The real physics question is: what determines the magnitude of that 500 N? Is it elastic deformation, friction, electromagnetic repulsion at the atomic scale, etc.? Your framework offers zero predictive power for that magnitude or the resulting motion. It’s just relabeling the interaction while pretending the labeling solves the problem. Simultaneity doesn’t rescue you “Simultaneous mutual interaction” is true but irrelevant. Relativity of simultaneity is a non-issue at classical speeds, and even then it doesn’t grant the bodies identical acceleration. You’re confusing the existence of the pair with the consequences for each body’s equation of motion. You assume contact magically enforces kinematic compatibility (same velocity and acceleration at the boundary) without modeling deformation, rigidity, or constraints. You assume no relative motion at the contact point persists. You assume “the framework” adds something beyond standard free-body diagrams and system analysis. It doesn’t. This is just verbose hand-waving around F=ma applied to each body separately plus the third-law pair. Incentive & Human-Behavior Landmines Physicists and engineers will ignore this because it adds complexity and zero explanatory or predictive power. Students who adopt it will fail exams when they have to calculate actual accelerations or collision outcomes. Reviewers will shred any paper attempting to dress this up as novel. The only audience that survives is people who enjoy philosophical reinterpretations over calculation—exactly the crowd that produces crank physics. At the scale of two billiard balls colliding, your “shared acceleration” lasts zero time in the elastic case and requires you to solve the actual compression dynamics. At macroscopic rigid-body approximations, we already have better tools (impulse, coefficient of restitution, constraint forces). At atomic scale your picture collapses because contact is electromagnetic and your “boundary” is fuzzy. Nowhere does this survive quantitative scrutiny beyond the trivial statement “forces come in pairs.” The entire “single dynamical system with shared acceleration” claim. Any suggestion this is a novel or deeper insight into Newton 3. The conflation of force-pair symmetry with kinematic unity. Replace it with standard treatment: draw separate FBDs for each body, apply F=ma to each, use Newton 3 to relate the interaction forces, and add constitutive relations (Hooke’s law, friction model, etc.) if you need the force magnitude. The basic reminder that action-reaction forces act on different bodies and the contact force is mutual is correct—but that’s 17th-century textbook material, not “the framework.” It survives only as the most banal part. You didn’t defend a framework; you performed an interpretive dance around a standard law while inventing consequences it doesn’t have. This isn’t solid ground—it’s quicksand with better vocabulary. -- 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] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web