Does This Sound Unreasonable?

Inertia is a property of matter which opposes changes in velocity, and relativistic mass is a change in energy as matter increases with velocity, so there may indeed be a relation.

I state, that the inertia of a system is the resistance to an increase of energy due to the acceleration of a system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Incomplete.
It's also resistance to deceleration.

And it's already been stated in pretty much that form.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've not heard it the way i have stated it. Unless i am missing something?

I know Einstein once postulated ''does the inertia of a system depend on it's energy content,'' but i've never heard him state directly that an increase in relativistic mass would be the proposed candidate... Or is this what he meant?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's been a while but I think it was in one of Feynman's books where he said it pretty much that way.

 

Besides, i said ''which opposes changes in velocity,'' this means deceleration too.

 

He did? Can you find it for me?

 

Only by re-reading all of my Feynman books looking for a specific sentence.
And the problem with that is
A) last time I re-read something looking for a specific wording I failed to find it three times and gave up
B) I'm away from my book collection for another fortnight
but when I get back I will have a quick look.
Promising nothing though.

 

I'd appreciate it, because then any work i do, do on it, i can say it was independant.

 

I was thinking about this more, and i would assume this following equation would describe the resistant force in relation to added relativistic mass:

\(F_{r}= (\gamma m + \gamma m_{added})a=-bv\)

Where the force of resistance \(F_{r}\) is equal to the mass and added mass times acceleration. And b is a variable that depends on the mass content of the body, and \(v\) is velocity.

 

Inconsistent units and zero justification for the equation you provide, which is itself inconsistent.

 

I suppose you've answered the original question

 

Don't beat about the bush. Just tell me why you think it is inconsistent.

 

You see, this is why sometimes i take the piss out of math on this site, mind you, i haven't done so in a while. But it's this very attitude of (certain individuals), just one in this case, jumping in, saying it isn't right, by just saying so, and then not even explaining themselves.

He's very quick to say people don't want to learn, but when it comes down to it, he has no desire to talk the talk. And no one can blame me for not taking this site seriously sometimes. Because no one ever takes you seriously.

 

It wasn't always like this. I remember a time when people actually had discussions about ideas in the physics forum. Now it's just a place to 'debunk crackpots' and shovel their posts into the Pseudoscience forum. The only glimmer of interest is the occasional question that could have been answered by looking at a few articles on wikipedia.

 

You mean like the one presented in this thread?

 

I don't see a question that could be answered on wikipedia. Unless you can ask wikipedia "Does this sound unreasonable?"

 

if b is a constant that depends on mass, then the two sides of the equation have different units.

 

You're right, there is no question.

First sentence in Wikipedia entry :

which is pretty much the exact same as

The two statements are the same.

So, yes, the question could have been answered by simply reading the first line of the wikipedia entry on "inertia".

 

I know that, that is why i never said it was a constant. It was a variable that depended on the mass content of a system, which has a tendency to change.

“ Inertia is the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion. ”

which is pretty much the exact same as

“ I state, that the inertia of a system is the resistance to an increase of energy due to the acceleration of a system. ”

The two statements are the same.

....

Not the way i was stating it at all. I've never seen any work stating that the resistence itself is caused by the change of energy, which is due to a change in acceleration. The idea, was simple. In relativity, we know a moving body experiences a gain in mass, than to that of a stationary one. I said it was the resistence to the gaining of mass in this case, caused by an acceleration of the body in question.

I asked if this was reasonable, and i still don't see why it can't be. No where in any literature, have i found precisely inertia being stated to be due to the resistence of a change in an energy of a system. For starters, it was Newton who posited Inertia, and Einstein attributed inertia to the careful position of masses throughout the whole universe.

My answer was totally different.

 

Yes, and even at that, Ben was sure it was answerable.

I'll ask this again, for everyone's interest...


''Is it possible, that the inertia a rest mass experiences, can be caused by the resistence of having a change in energy, which is caused by a change in velocity?''

Obviously a change in velocity isn't enough. There must be some physical attribute that refuses the acceleration. Just like an idea that floated about, and still does, that the zero-point field acted on the inner chare of moving objects.