The Concept Of Mass

[Vmedvil2]

No, I didn't.  I saw what you said, but I didn't see you "prove" anything about SR.  How do you think you accomplished that feat?

 

The CERN Protons don't travel faster than light even though Newtonian mechanics say they would travel at 130 times C.

Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Did you even read this post (#114) or ones I made before it about the same issue?

 

You didn't even consider the posts I made after that, did you?

 

Again, let's assume that c cannot be exceeded IN A GIVEN REST FRAME.  That assumption would not "prove" SR.  But, yes, that assumption would preclude you from seeing a particle exceed c in your own frame.

 

They're two different things.

 

If you do read it, can you understand what I'm even saying?

[Moronium]

The CERN Protons don't travel faster than light even though Newtonian mechanics say they would travel at 130 times C.

 

Well, without going into all of that, the idea here is to prove SR, not prove (or disprove) classical mechanics.  Of course Newtonian mechanics MUST be modified to account for such things as the (then unknown) fact that clocks slow down with increased speed.  But that does not prove SR.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Done Moronium now, you can't change observed evidence and experimental data, my patience is lacking go play with ralfcis.

Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Done Moronium now, you can't change observed evidence and experimental data, my patience is lacking go play with ralfcis.

 

Nor can I prevent you from drawing "necessary" conclusions from premises which in no way warrant those conclusions.  Like I said, everyone is free to believe anything they want, based on whatever "evidence" they choose to regard as "true" and irrefutable.  Faith doesn't require evidence.

 

Try telling some 4 year old kid that there aint no Santa Claus, sometime, if you don't believe me. Or a fundy that there aint no God.

 

Ask a kid if he's ever actually seen Santa Cllaus. He'll say "Hell, yeah, he's in every department store I go to." He's certainly "proved his point."  To his own satisfaction, anyway, which is all that counts for him.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Ask a kid if he's ever actually seen Santa Cllaus. He'll say "Hell, yeah, he's in every department store I go to." He's certainly "proved his point."  To his own satisfaction, anyway, which is all that counts for him.

 

You told a story about fighting a friend over some climate matter and math, Vic.

 

I've had similar experiences.  I once had to beat a 4 year old half to death to get him to say "There aint no Santa Claus."

 

But, ya know what?  The sorry little bastard still didn't believe it, even then.  He was just saying it, I come to find out later.

 

So I had to beat him some more, ya know?

Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

Just in case the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass is not confusing enough; thanks to quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, we now know that even rest mass is due to “the churning of particles within the proton”

 

 

(I was holding off on posting this until a quiet moment) :Crunk:

 

[Moronium]

Just in case the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass is not confusing enough; thanks to quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, we now know that even rest mass is due to “the churning of particles within the proton”

 

 

Well, it's an interesting article, Popeye, but I have to confess that I'm reallly not capable of understanding it.  As I read it, it only relates to the mass of a proton, and not mass generally.  It "explains" that:

 

The remaining 23 percent arises due to quantum effects that occur when quarks and gluons interact in complicated ways within the proton. Those interactions cause QCD to flout a principle called scale invariance. In scale invariant theories, stretching or shrinking space and time makes no difference to the theories’ results. Massive particles provide the theory with a scale, so when QCD defies scale invariance, protons also gain mass. 

 

So, it's "due to quantum effects that occur when quarks and gluons interact in complicated ways within the proton,", eh?  And that's somehow because the "principle" of "scale invariance" is violated, eh?  I'm afraid that's  a little vague, and over my head to begin with.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to view inertia (mass) as an independent "force" as opposed to just simply being a passive "property" of matter.  Conceptually it seems more consistent.

 

Perhaps "counter-force" expresses it better.  If the moon, for example, is not motivated by an "inertial force," then how do you explain its orbiting pattern?  And, again, it is much easier to understand a "force" as being energy (the ability to do work) than it is some obscure "resistance to acceleration."  

 

As a rule, physicists tend to state that "inertia is NOT a force."  I decided to see if anyone else shared the view stated above.  There is.  This guy is a professor of both physics and math. He says:

 

an inertial force is a force that resists a change in velocity of an object. It is equal to—and in the opposite direction of—an applied force, as well as a resistive force.

 

The concept is based on Newton's Laws of Motion, including the Law of Inertia and the Action-Reaction Law....That equal and opposite reaction is called the inertial force. It is equal to −F = ma....

 

Note that some sources call these forces fictitious, virtual, or pseudo forces, because there is no apparent force pushing on you. However, inertial force do not need physical contact to oppose applied forces.

 

Summary

 

An inertial force resists a change in velocity of an object and equal to and in the opposite direction of an applied force, as well as a resistive force.

 

The concept is based on Newton's Laws of Motion. Inertial force can be examined both when you apply a force on an object and when a force is applied on you

 

.

https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/force_inertial.htm#.XLJxBzBKjX5

 

This guy has no problem calling inertia (mass) a force based on Newton's 3rd ("equal and opposite reaction) Law of Motion. That's something I was going to bring up before, but never got around to. He appears to be saying that any "applied" (positive or external force) will be opposed by the "negative" (or internal--what he calls "resistive") force of inertia.  When you subtract the negative from the positive, you end up with the "net" force which results in acceleration. In the absence of a positive force, it is a "force" which serves to keep an object in motion from "getting tired" and slowing down. So the F in F=MA is really just a net force.  Makes sense to me (I think).

 

How about you?

Edited April 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Actually, Newton himself described inertia as a force:

 

Isaac Newton defined inertia as his first law in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which states: 

 

The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

 

But wiki goes on to say:

 

However, Newton's original ideas of "innate resistive force" were ultimately problematic for a variety of reasons, and thus most physicists no longer think in these terms.

 

 

 

Why was this view "ultimately problematic?"

Edited April 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Dubbelosix]

As a rule, physicists tend to state that "inertia is NOT a force."  I decided to see if anyone else shared the view stated above.  There is.  This guy is a professor of both physics and math. He says:

 

.

https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/force_inertial.htm#.XLJxBzBKjX5

 

This guy has no problem calling inertia (mass) a force based on Newton's 3rd ("equal and opposite reaction) Law of Motion. That's something I was going to bring up before, but never got around to. He appears to be saying that any "applied" (positive or external force) will be opposed by the "negative" (or internal--what he calls "resistive") force of inertia.  When you subtract the negative from the positive, you end up with the "net" force which results in acceleration. In the absence of a positive force, it is a "force" which serves to keep an object in motion from "getting tired" and slowing down. So the F in F=MA is really just a net force.  Makes sense to me (I think).

 

How about you?

 

 

 

Yes, inertia = mass does not mean inertia = force. Simply because, gravitational mass does not exert quantum forces, it is a manifestation of spacetime. Even Lorentz transformations does not mean some intrinsic energy increases in the particle, but instead a phenomeneon of the geometric space it inhabits.

Edited April 14, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Moronium]

Yes, inertia = mass does not mean inertia = force. Simply because, gravitational mass does not exert quantum forces, it is a manifestation of spacetime. Even Lorentz transformations does not mean some intrinsic energy increases in the particle, but instead a phenomeneon of the geometric space it inhabits.

 

I'm not clear about why anything you've said there is relevant, Dubbo.  No one said inertia is a force because it is mass.  I've elaborated on this train of thought in several posts (mainly back around page 3 or 4).  None of them mentioned "spacetime" or "quantum forces."

 

I don't even know what you're saying "yes" to.

Edited April 14, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/frequently-made-errors-pseudo-resultant-forces/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

[Moronium]

Is there some point you're trying to make, Ralf?

[Vmedvil2]

Interia is just a resistance to movement like mass, however like friction is not necessarily a force as it does not cause things to accelerate but rather resists acceleration. It always opposes movement like friction, interia does. For Instance, If I have a object with a large rotational interia it will resist the movement to turn where as if it has a low interia it will not resist the turning motion as much just as with high friction and slow friction. They are not real forces but pseudo-forces that resist something based on conditions, if it were a real force it would cause acceleration of the object in a direction but friction and interia only resist and take away not the confuse the two being friction and interia which are nothing alike besides in their resistance to movement. Try attempting to use friction sometime to accelerate, it will hurt alot and you will just get burned no matter what direction you move against the surface with friction.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Interia is just a resistance to movement like mass, however like friction is not necessarily a force as it does not cause things to accelerate but rather resists acceleration. It always opposes movement like friction, interia does.

 

Doesn't accelerate?   Drive a car into into a concrete wall sometime, eh, Vic?  The inertia of that wall will accelerate the hell out of the car, even if it does nothing more than stop it dead in its tracks.  That is acceleration.  And it is the car, not the wall, which gets accelerated.  

 

I don't see any significant difference between "moving" and "resisting movement" in this case..  A force doesn't have to consist of kinetic energy.

Edited April 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Doesn't accelerate?   Drive a car into into a concrete wall sometime, eh, Vic?  The inertia of that wall will accelerate the hell out of the car, even if it does nothing more than stop it dead in its tracks.  That is acceleration.  And it is the car, not the wall, which gets accelerated.  

 

I don't see any significant difference between "moving" and "resisting movement" in this case..  A force doesn't have to consist of kinetic energy.

 

You are talking about the normal force not friction or interia, that is something different that is the object's motion being redirected by a solid object. It doesn't accelerate the object it actually slows and moves in another direction even though you may barely notice it. If the object was being accelerated it would move faster rather the crash.

 

Car crashing into a wall

 

  Edited April 14, 2019 by VictorMedvil