WHAT IS THE INERTIA?
- From: Stamenin <tasko.s@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 May 2007 16:25:17 -0700
because there are a lot of misunderstandigs related to the notion
inertia, i publish the following article. THE INERTIAL
FORCES AND THE LAW OF THE CONSRVATION OF THE ENERGY
Speaking about the relations that exist between the first law of the
mechanics, the principle of the relativity, the Galilei's
transformation, and the behavior of the inertial forces and the
gravitational forces to act upon every atom of the matter, I had
omitted there to put in a first position the importance that has the
law of the conservation of the energy in these relations. Now I'd like
to remedy this omission.
The first law of the mechanics I could say is a consequence of the
law of the conservation of the energy and especially in this case of
the kinetic energy of the material bodies. So we can conclude that the
material bodies tend to keep their kinetic energy if there are not
acting upon them external forces. To change this level of kinetic
energy is needed to act upon them an external force. Then the material
body,
respecting the law of the conservation of the kinetic energy opposes
to that action with the inertial force that is produced by the
material body. This phenomenon could be compared with the phenomenon
of the production of electrical current in a generator in a power
station producer of electrical energy. To the mechanical torque
produced by the turbine, the generator opposes a torque that is
produced by the induced electrical current in the generator. In this
case we have a transformation of the mechanical energy in electrical
energy. In the case of the inertial forces we have a change of the
level of the kinetic energy of the material body and this results as
a change of the speed of the material body accordingly to the known
relation:
Ec=m.v^2/2
In such a way we can conclude that a material body posed far away in
a portion of the space where doesn't exist gravitational forces will
keep its state of staying or moving in a right line and with constant
speed. Of course the material body acts in this way taking in
consideration his previous state of motion, but minded people like
Newton imagined the absolute coordinate system that describes
perfectly the behavior of the material body. Evidently we with this
interpretation of the first law of the mechanics doesn't change
anything in respect to the efforts done by scientists in the past,
trying to explain why the laws of the mechanics are valid and for a
coordinate system rigidly attached to the center of the earth.
To my opinion everything that is said in my article about the
principle of the relativity is valid and is not a need of modifying
anything. What we could conclude as a consequence of this explanation
by the use of the kinetic energy is the fact that the inertial forces
can't be overborne or annulled. The same thing could be said about the
gravitational forces. The notion of gravitational field is an abstract
notion. We suppose that there must be a field, but we have in
disposition only the Newton's law of the universal attraction as a
practical mean for the detection of the gravitational field. Thanks to
these two forces, the inertial and the gravitational, we have our
planet so wonderfully constructed, permitting the existence of the
life on it. So we can say that Einstein replacing the inertial forces
with a gravitational field has done a big mistake. He putting an
observer in a cosmic cabin and arguing that the observer didn't know
that the cabin was pulled up by an imaginary force, he didn't do
anything else but to trick the reader. But both of them Einstein and
the reader knew very well that there was only an enigmatic force and
not a gravitational field.
On the other hand the fact that the first law of the mechanics is a
consequence of the law of the conservation of the energy, allows us to
conclude that Newton was right when he made the supposition that
exists an absolute system of coordinates.
This is explainable by the fact that the material bodies try to
maintain their state of motion or staying, just in the same way as
says the first law of the mechanics. The Foucauld pendulous maintains
the direction of swinging in respect to the far stars and not in
respect to the gravitational field that is supposed to be attached to
the earth. Einstein trying to avoid the absolute system of
coordinates, changing his name ones in Galileian system of coordinates
and another time in inertial system of coordinates, is saying by this
nothing new, because we can't determine all of them by practical
means. So what is the difference?
What is important to be concluded is the fact that because the
inertial forces are a consequence of the law of the conservation of
the energy, there does not exist a possibility these forces to be
overpowered by man. We can discover the laws of the nature but we are
not capable to change them. The same, we can conclude that, if the
inertial forces are a consequence of the law of conservation of the
energy, there does not exist any possibility to replace them with a
gravitational field.
On the other hand one another problem is very important to be
mentioned. It is the question, how many relativities are content in
Einstein theory of the relativity? There are two of them:
1) The first is the relativity that is a result by the use of the
Loren transformation.
2) The second is the relativity when Einstein compares the motions of
the material bodies between them. These two understandings are
complete different notion and are not taken in consideration seriously
by people who defend Einstein theory.
In the first kind of relativity can be included: the conclusions
that the time, the space and the mass, are relative sizes, as well,
and the law about the transformation of the mass in energy and
inverse.
This relativity is a false theory because the Lorenz
transformation is a false mathematical relation.
In the second group could be included the cases when we compare two
systems of coordinates K1 and K2, the first law of the mechanics, the
principle of the relativity, and other comparisons. When we say for
example that the train is in motion relatively to the earth, or the
earth is in motion relatively to the train is the same thing that
means that the mathematical results about this motion will be the
same. I should mention that this affirmation is not correct at all. We
have to take in account that the earth is a bigger material body and
has a naturally bigger inertia and stable motion of rotation around
his axis. Because of that the earth has a stable level of kinetic
energy. The train is that who starts and stops relatively to the
earth's surface and changes his level of kinetic energy. If we say
that the earth is in a motion relatively to the train and if it is
true this motion should provoke a cataclysm at the earth by the
apparition of the inertial forces that should act upon the oceanic
waters for example. And I have to mention that the Einstein relativity
can't describe these starts and stops of the train just if they are
moving in a right line because of the apparition of accelerating and
braking motions. Because of that we have to consider that the train is
in motion relatively to the earth. The same we can't say that the
earth is in motion relatively to an earth's satellite and we can't say
that the sun is in a motion relatively to the earth, but the earth is
in a relative annual rotation relatively to the sun. All these
conclusions are in contradiction with the Einstein theory of the
relativity but are in accord with the law of conservation of the
energy and can be described with the aid of the Galilei and Newton
relativity. With this we can realize ones again the inconsistency of
the Einstein theory of the relativity. So the slogan that says that
every thing is relative is a false conclusion and we can conclude that
everything is absolute that means that for everything exits only one
truth the absolute truth.
Vancouver
March 2005
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The mystery of Inertia
- Next by Date: Re: The mystery of Inertia
- Previous by thread: Is spacetime curvature the source of inertia?
- Next by thread: Re: MICHELSON-MORLEY NULL RESULT AND EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
