[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 57 KB, 666x1000, inertia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15699989 No.15699989 [Reply] [Original]

Has there been any recent serious study into the mechanism of inertia, or are things still basically where Einstein left them? As far as I can tell a handful of physicists have accepted it's caused by the distant mass of the universe, a few more say that theory's been disproven, and the rest of them apart from a handful of kooks have just shrugged and given up.

>> No.15700119

Quantized Inertia defines a sort of frame-dependent "inertial aether" based on Unruh radiation. It fits certain astronomical problems better than GR without dark matter/energy or any adjustable parameters. A propellantless thruster based on the theory has been tested in vacuum chambers on the ground and will be flight tested on one of the SpaceX Transporter-9 payloads in October.

https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/

>> No.15700563

>>15700119
Bump for interest. This is a good read.

>> No.15700605

>>15699989
What do you mean by "mechanism of inertia"? Practically speaking inertia is just shorthand for conservation of momentum. Do you want something more fundamental than the fact that momentum can't be created out of nothing?

>> No.15701367

>>15700119
i understood the diagram in that article, but it looks like i need a few years of studying in order to understand what uhruh radiation is

>> No.15701675
File: 86 KB, 926x506, screen.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15701675

>>15700605
Well, a precise definition of the link between the gravitational field and inertia. We've accepted that inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical, but there doesn't seem to be much discussion of anything beyond Sciama's 1952 paper where it's described as the inverse time result of the gravitational waves propagated when an object is accelerated: https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1953MNRAS.113...34S
Here's a more conversational overview: https://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Woodward_inertia.pdf

>> No.15701700
File: 249 KB, 960x1280, TIMESAND___JANUS1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15701700

>>15701675
>inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical

>> No.15701701

>>15701700
Why did you remove the IR filter from your webcam?

>> No.15701704

>>15701701
You should kill yourself.

>> No.15701709

>>15701704
Why are you so angry? I'm not the one who steals your sperm. I'm just the one spying on you through your webcam.

>> No.15701867

>>15701675
He calls it inertia, but that really seems to be more of a discussion on the origin of the self-force caused by radiation. I would call that a fundamentally different (and much more interesting) question

>> No.15701968

>>15701675
>inertia is an effect of gravity
>not the other way around
I've just lost the will to read the rest of the essay because the likelihood to be quackery by some schizo is approaching 1.0

>> No.15702421

>>15699989
Harry King has written about this recently

>> No.15703499

>>15700119
I hope its true, but its not

>> No.15705075

>>15700119
>it has just been assumed that “Things keep going in a straight line, unless you push on them”
What a retard. It's not an assumption. Did he even study undergrad physics at all?

>> No.15705313
File: 752 KB, 2497x2762, 1669650138588608.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15705313

>>15699989
Have a bump

>> No.15705690

It's over
>The theory of quantized inertia has been criticized in articles online as being pseudoscience.[2][28][3] Some of the problems it was initially proposed to solve have since been solved by conventional physics, in particular the Pioneer Anomaly is explained by thermal recoil from the spacecraft's power source. Furthermore experiments to measure the thrust of resonant cavity thrusters have recorded values much lower than originally predicted that are likely explained by interactions with the Earth's magnetic field.[29]
>In 2019, a Romanian particle physicist performed a derivation of quantized inertia in which he claims to have found two errors in McCulloch's original work prior to 2013. He subsequently provides a new derivation showing different predictions.[30]

>> No.15706220

>>15705690
This is what I mean, the only people working on it seem to be cranks, the scientific community treats it as a settled thing, but none of my textbooks make that explicit. They just throw out some relativistic momentum calculations and gloss over the implications.

>> No.15706239

>>15706220
That's true for anything even remotely controversial.

>> No.15706609
File: 462 KB, 1080x2400, Screenshot_20230830-132803.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15706609

>>15699989
Read the posts by Erewhon. If you believe what you read, maybe it's not so kooky after all.
>I'll just leave these here...
https://www.fark.com/comments/1386759/11882728/Behold-The-USAF-Top-Secret-Nuclear-Powered-Flying-Triangle-Thingy-in-all-its-glory-Oh-yes-there-are-pics?sticky_host_f=1#c11882728
(Load all the comments)
https://m.fark.com/comments/4371964/50903132/Scientists-think-warp-driven-starships-may-be-possible-one-day-at-least-until-some-acting-ensign-pulls-o#c50903132
https://m.fark.com/comments/1203844/9725308
(Scroll to the end, then load the next 100 comments before the end)
https://m.fark.com/comments/3508671/The-10-craziest-scientific-experiments-ever-conducted?startid=39341232
There are more on another forum by the same guy. This seems entirely plausible.