Re: Centrifugal force - real or fictitious

From: JM Albuquerque (jm.aREMOV.E_at_sapo.pt)
Date: 07/21/04 

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:31:05 +0100

"Donald G. Shead" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > The problem is that nobody can explain what inertia is.
>
> I've been explaining it for quite a while: It's simply the measure of
> a quantity of matter: The ratio of the impulse [ft] exerted on and/or
> by that quantity of matter, divided by the rate of displacement [s/t]
> that it causes: Most concisely written as [ft^2/s]; which is equal to
> the product of two times the weight [w] of the quantity of matter,
> divided by the rate at which it will freefall [g = s/t^2 - 16'/sec^2
> on Earth] at the location of the scale on which it is weighed: ft^2/s
> = 2w/g.

That's the usual definition that is solely based on the equivalence
principle.
When you say that inertia = 2w/g (it must be w/g only, but...) you are
assuming the equivalence principle, saying that inertia is equivalent to
gravity, hence it is an acceleration in the field that produces the weight.

The underlying question is against what actually mass causes inertia.
According to Newton’s first law, bodies at rest tend to stay at rest, and
bodies in motion tend to stay in motion. The question that arises is with
respect to what? At rest with respect to what? In motion with respect to
what? Newton advocate the answer was space itself. He thought that space
itself formed an absolute frame of reference. Einstein showed that there is
no preferred reference frame, and that all things are relative, as it were.
Even before Einstein, many people were uncomfortable with the idea that
empty space itself could serve as a frame of reference. You can’t exactly
hammer a nail into empty space and measure from that.

Things become much more confusing when strange forces like centrifugal
force, the Coriolis effect and the gyroscope precession need to be
explained.
About the gyroscope precession notice there is a new variable into play,
which is the sense of rotation and the right hand rule is required.
http://physics.nad.ru/Physics/English/gyro_tmp.htm
http://physics.nad.ru/Physics/English/gyro_txt.htm
Notice that in the above link the weight doesn't fall. It is antigravity.
Newton's Laws goes down the drain (no reaction force exists to balance the
weight) and GRT also goes down the drain (since the equivalence principle
goes too - the weight doesn't fall).
So, the actual theories don't explain inertia on its basic mechanism.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Centrifugal force - real or fictitious
    ... >> The problem is that nobody can explain what inertia is. ... empty space itself could serve as a frame of reference. ... Notice that in the above link the weight doesn't fall. ... weight) and GRT also goes down the drain (since the equivalence principle ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity
    ... come CLOSE to matching the observed behavior of gravity. ... what is the source of inertia? ... How come the equivalence principle ... > And here I thought it relied on momentum as a primitive quantity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: chain saw v. trimmer - urgent!
    ... Even the torsion of a big saw (like the 36" Pioneer I learned ... The ratio of the weight of a chainsaw to the inertia of the ... using some reasonable estimates of moments of inertia ... into the top of the blade moving at about 10 feet/sec (EXCLUDING ...
    (uk.rec.gardening)
  • Re: Only perpetual motion describes dark matter
    ... toward speed and inertia, or vice versa to weight. ... Where there is weight energy, matter traps easier in that area, there ... The legs are narrow and the very heavy weight does not ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Only perpetual motion describes dark matter
    ... The thing is that weight shifts, meaning the balance point shifts and ... toward speed and inertia, ... Where there is weight energy, matter traps easier in that area, there ...
    (sci.astro)