Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671221
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin* |
| Date | 2026-06-15 21:41 -0700 |
| Organization | The Starmaker Organization |
| Message-ID | <6A30D409.7C60@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
| References | <110q7ni$p76b$1@dont-email.me> |
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.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin* Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-16 11:08 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin* The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-15 21:33 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin* The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-15 21:41 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-16 14:42 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-16 14:50 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-17 10:30 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-17 12:23 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-17 13:07 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-17 19:24 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-17 21:07 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-17 22:13 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-17 23:46 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-18 15:28 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-18 15:37 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-19 12:18 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-19 21:55 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-21 13:28 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 14:14 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-21 19:02 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 20:39 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-22 20:41 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 00:01 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-23 11:19 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 12:30 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-23 22:53 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 23:20 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 22:06 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 22:19 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-24 15:55 +0000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-24 12:49 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 08:17 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-18 10:56 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-18 10:21 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-18 12:17 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-18 01:15 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-17 22:04 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-18 10:47 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-18 14:38 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-19 06:55 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-18 21:22 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-20 15:32 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 05:31 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-21 13:39 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 14:15 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 14:17 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-21 19:40 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 20:38 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-22 19:10 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-22 23:56 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-23 21:54 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 22:20 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 14:43 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 15:38 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 20:16 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 20:24 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 21:15 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 12:20 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 21:38 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-23 22:01 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 22:30 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 20:49 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 20:52 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 21:29 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 21:34 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-17 16:36 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-18 10:38 -0700
csiph-web