## Is inertia correlated to mass?

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Considering the observed randomness at the quantum scale, I was expecting this experiment on mass to raise more interest. What if the way the small steps behave would help us to better understand quantum entanglement for instance?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Two explanations for the price of one

I was rereading our discussion and I had this idea: let's isolate the right part of that wiki's animation about aberration, and lets imagine a second observer moving in the same direction and at the same speed as the star, passing by chance in front of the earth at the moment the light ray leaves the star. Since he is in the same reference frame as the star, relativity says that the light ray will hit him later on, but surprisingly, the drawing shows that the same light ray will hit the observer on the earth. Considering that, obliviously, the same light ray cannot hit two different observers at a time, which one will it hit?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Too late, I wrote obliviously when I meant, of course, obviously!

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Absorbing Issue

Inchworm wrote:a second observer moving in the same direction and at the same speed as the star, passing by chance in front of the earth at the moment the light ray leaves the star.

An absorption event always occurs on the future light cone of the emitter. That cone can be distorted somewhat by acceleration.

If the observer "precedes" the earth in both space and time, light with an earthward trajectory would be intercepted.

However, if the moving observer is "in front of the earth" at the time of absorption, it would not be there at the time of light emission ("the moment the light ray leaves the star").

Active Member

Posts: 1793
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

I suspected that my mind experiment would need a drawing to be understood, so here it is:

It is two interpretations in one, so take care not to mix them up! First, we have the same configuration as on the wiki animation: a star (at the right) that sends its light (black line) in the direction of an observer on the earth (in blue) and that happens to be at the left when its light strikes the earth. Second, we have an observer at X that travels (empty arrow) in the same reference frame as the star and that happens to be very close and in front of the earth when the star sends its light. If we refer to wiki animation, the ray will strike the earth at the right, but if we refer to the reference frame principle, the ray will strike the observer which is in the same reference frame as the star at the left. Which interpretation do you prefer? :^)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Well, this is how I see it:

Everyone (the earth observer and the 'X' observer, plus any theoretical observer on the star, and any other observer anywhere else) will agree that the earth observer and the 'X' observer are in different locations when the ray strikes the earth. Therefore, they will agree that those two observers are hit (at some time) by different rays, which (since they are different) must have been emitted from the star at different times.
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1087
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Positor » 04 May 2016, 01:46 wrote:Therefore, they will agree that those two observers are hit (at some time) by different rays, which (since they are different) must have been emitted from the star at different times.

As I read Inchworm's thought experiment, it must be two different rays, emitted at the same time, but in different directions by the star and then received at different times and places by Earth and X respectively.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

As we can see with the two lines that lead to the two observers, the ray is emitted in the same direction for both cases, and since the two observers happen to be at the same place when the ray is emitted, namely the earth, it is emitted at the same time, so it can be the same ray providing it is large enough to strike the earth and the traveling observer. The problem is with the reference frame principle: it is intuitive, but it doesn't seem to work. As I pointed out earlier in the discussion, there would be no way to detect aberration for two bodies in the same reference frame, but as my drawings show, it would be only because it automatically straightens the rays, and thus give the illusion that they come from the actual position of the bodies, not because it doesn't apply, because we can really draw it. The real definition of aberration would then be that the direction of a ray is changed when the observer strikes it transversally, and it is precisely what happens in the case of reference frames if we consider that the rays travel straight line once they leave the emitting body.
Last edited by Inchworm on May 4th, 2016, 10:58 am, edited 3 times in total.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Positor » May 3rd, 2016, 7:46 pm wrote:Well, this is how I see it:

Everyone (the earth observer and the 'X' observer, plus any theoretical observer on the star, and any other observer anywhere else) will agree that the earth observer and the 'X' observer are in different locations when the ray strikes the earth. Therefore, they will agree that those two observers are hit (at some time) by different rays, which (since they are different) must have been emitted from the star at different times.
My interpretation is simply that, to strike the observer at X, the ray has to be sent towards his future position, so that when it will hit this observer, it will suffer aberration and will appear to come from the actual position of the star. This way, it would take two rays to hit the two observers, but the reference frame principle would be false, which means that the light clock mind experiment would also be false, and its conclusion that time can slow down for bodies on inertial motion too, of course.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » 04 May 2016, 15:21 wrote:This way, it would take two rays to hit the two observers, but the reference frame principle would be false, which means that the light clock mind experiment would also be false, and its conclusion that time can slow down for bodies on inertial motion too, of course.

What 'reference frame principle' are you referring to?
Your graphic is for only one reference frame (Earth's), but at two different times, hence two rays. The Wiki animation is for two reference frames, but one ray. So it is not the same scenario.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

My drawing shows two interpretations at a time; it thus shows a physical impossibility, and it is not an animation, so it is a bit difficult to read:

1) It shows the system of the star and the observer at X, which are considered moving to the left in the same reference frame.

2) And it shows the system of the star and the observer on earth, which are not considered in the same reference frame as on wiki's animation.

My solution is to accept that aberration is not about two bodies' relativity, but about only one body and a transverse light ray. In red, and even if they are in the same reference frame, here is the direction that the ray from the star would have to take in my drawing to hit the observer at X. This way, aberration would give this observer the false information that the ray points to the actual position of the star, as shown by the black line, which is incidentally the intuitive reason at the origin of our concept of reference frames:

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » 04 May 2016, 18:46 wrote:This way, aberration would give this observer the false information that the ray points to the actual position of the star, as shown by the black line, which is incidentally the intuitive reason at the origin of our concept of reference frames

I think you are mixing two inertial frames into one spatial drawing, which inevitably leads to false deductions.
Earth would observe aberration (in Earth's inertial frame of course), but your observer, being in the star's relatively moving inertial frame, would observe no aberration.

It is easy to put two inertial frames on one Minkowski spacetime diagram without fear of confusion...

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

The observer on earth would observe aberration only if the earth was considered to be moving, but in my drawing, it is not. I took the right part of the animation about aberration only to illustrate my point, not to illustrate the relativity of aberration as the animation does. In my drawing, the earth is considered at rest and the star moving, so there is no aberration for the observer on earth. But the conclusion of my interpretation is that, if two bodies are in the same moving reference frame, both would suffer aberration, but that motion would be undetectable since aberration would simply rectify the light rays, which incidentally coincides with the mass principle of inertial motion: no resistance to acceleration, no way to detect our own absolute motion.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

I do not quite follow what you are after here, but from the discussions, it appears as if you argue that the use of inertial frames somehow leads to false or contradictory conclusions?

With "mass principle of inertial motion", do you mean free falling in the presence of a large mass?

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

I mean the impossibility to detect our own inertial motion if our eyes are closed. Of course, it's the same with orbital motion: without portholes, there is no way to detect a ship's orbital motion either. I was only enlightening the link between light and inertia, what my small steps are already about.

I do not quite follow what you are after here, but from the discussions, it appears as if you argue that the use of inertial frames somehow leads to false or contradictory conclusions?
It seems to lead to contradictory conclusions about transversal motion, and the use of aberration seems to solve the problem. Remember that I also use doppler effect to explain inertial motion, which finally also explains mass. Next step would be to use aberration to explain orbital motion, because no massive body is completely separated from others, so any transversal motion is automatically an orbital one.

Do you still have a problem understanding my drawing? I looked for a gif animation software, but I did not find any that could do the job. Do you know the kind of software needed to produce the wiki animation?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » 05 May 2016, 00:18 wrote:It seems to lead to contradictory conclusions about transversal motion, and the use of aberration seems to solve the problem.
...
Do you still have a problem understanding my drawing?

I think I understand your drawing, but spot no contradictions to be explained. It shows the spatial paths of two directional light pulses observed in Earth's inertial frame, leaving a relatively moving source simultaneously, but in different directions . The two receivers detect the two pulses at different times, locations and angles.

The left-side black pulse coming down at the same angle than the right-side one, is a third pulse, emitted at a later time and your X observer will no longer be there to observe it. If it was an omni-directional pulse, he would have detected it later, more to the left.

Inchworm wrote:Remember that I also use doppler effect to explain inertial motion, which finally also explains mass.

Yes, inertial motion explains inertial mass and momentum, but it does not explain rest mass, which is not dependent on motion and is considered invariant under change of reference frames.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

With my small steps, rest is simply the result of the steps from two different systems of atoms being of the same frequency. Rest mass is then obtained the classical way: while putting a known massive body besides an unknown one, exerting a force between the two bodies, and measuring the different speeds that the two bodies have acquired from their origin, which is incidentally quite different from SR principle. With the steps, mass arises because they automatically resist to change frequency, and it is so because they depend on an information that travels at a limited speed. As you pointed out, mass is not present either during motion, it develops only during acceleration, and it is also invariant since the steps never change frequencies, and that mass is about them resisting to change frequency during acceleration.

I think I understand your drawing, but spot no contradictions to be explained. It shows the spatial paths of two directional light pulses observed in Earth's inertial frame, leaving a relatively moving source simultaneously, but in different directions . The two receivers detect the two pulses at different times, locations and angles.
Correction: in the original drawing, the one without the red line, the two receivers were detecting the pulses at the same time, because with SR, it could be the same light ray, which caused the contradiction I was pointing to. I added the red line to show my own interpretation, which is that aberration happening on that red ray would give the wrong information that it comes from the actual position of the star, thus that the star and the observer at X are in the same inertial frame. Of course, my interpretation means that the rays will not have the same length, and that both rays won't travel at the same place either. I wonder if that conclusion may have something to do with the double slit experiment, because it is also a two path problem. If we could block the red ray for instance, the black one should never show since it is only apparent, which may look mysterious without any logical explanation.

The left-side black pulse coming down at the same angle than the right-side one, is a third pulse, emitted at a later time and your X observer will no longer be there to observe it. If it was an omni-directional pulse, he would have detected it later, more to the left.
The star and the observer at X are considered to be in the same reference frame, so the ray is considered to stay at the same angle all the time while they are traveling to the left. Before I had this idea of aberration, that possibility seemed weird to me, but since then, it only means that the inertial frame principle is probably wrong. Of course it would mean that SR is wrong too, but afaik, SR is only useful to explain the Muon experiment.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » 05 May 2016, 15:40 wrote: Before I had this idea of aberration, that possibility seemed weird to me, but since then, it only means that the inertial frame principle is probably wrong. Of course it would mean that SR is wrong too, but afaik, SR is only useful to explain the Muon experiment.

I don't know if you realize it, but statements like these might disqualify your idea from being taken seriously. Scientific progress requires that any new theory must recover (or reproduce) all the prior scientific knowledge and then (preferably) extend it. This means that all validated observations of the past must be fully explained by the new idea and then it must offer something new that has either never been tested successfully, or where observations are in conflict with accepted theories.

Now, SR is one of the most tested theories in history and it has never failed any observation within its area of applicability. So to suggest a theory that is in conflict with SR has a very small chance of success, if any. If I can offer any further advice, see if you can make your 'steps' idea compatible with SR and perhaps then think about enhancing it...

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

If I present this idea to a scientific forum, it's only because I think it doesn't contradict the observations, otherwise I would have said it did. Saying that I think SR might be wrong doesn't mean that I think the observations are wrong. In the mind experiment that I present, the observer who is in the same reference frame as the star still conclude that he is, because with aberration, the red light ray will appear to come directly from the star, and the observer on earth will also get the same data because the light ray comes from the same place. Do you know any observation that contradicts this principle? Does that principle change the way light is supposed to behave?

The steps are easier to understand, and unless you find a flaw, I think they do not contradict the data either. They mean that inertial motion has an underlying mechanism, a mechanism which also explains mass, so I think we can consider that they offer something new, no?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » May 5th, 2016, 10:13 pm wrote:In the mind experiment that I present, the observer who is in the same reference frame as the star still conclude that he is, because with aberration, the red light ray will appear to come directly from the star, and the observer on earth will also get the same data because the light ray comes from the same place.

Why should the 'aberration' explanation always give exactly the same observations as the 'SR' explanation? Isn't that implausible? Can your experiment be designed so that the two explanations would give different observations, in order to find out which one is correct?

Can you prove that SR is wrong?
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1087
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » May 5th, 2016, 10:13 pm wrote:... the red light ray will appear to come directly from the star, and the observer on earth will also get the same data because the light ray comes from the same place.

Well, you do not have to accept what I'm saying (that this is a false, or at least confusing statement). It is refuted by thousands of astronomical observations done every day. You do not even need SR for it, just proper treatment of the relative movement of inertial frames. Here is the non-relativistic definition for the aberration of starlight.

where $v$ is the relative speed between the star and Earth, $\phi$ the (observed) angle of the star's light in Earth's inertial frame and $\theta$ the angle in the Sun's inertial frame. The angle $\theta$ is assumed to be constant for distant stars, which is not strictly constant over millions of years, but in our lifetimes it is near enough to constant.

SR only adds the gamma factor below the line, for when the relative speed is a significant fraction of c.
Adapt your explanations to fit this equation and nobody around here will argue.

Arguments on aberration started in the 1720s and only subsided in the early 1900s, when Lorentz and Einstein explained it irrefutably.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Wiki wrote:In aberration, the observer is considered to be moving relative to a (for the sake of simplicity[7]) stationary light source, while in light-time correction and relativistic beaming the light source is considered to be moving relative to a stationary observer.
This is precisely the idea that I am discussing. I think that we do not need to know the direction or the position of the source for aberration to happen to a light beam. It is to the light beam that the change in direction happens, not to the source. A ship could very well send a beam towards the earth, and change its direction right away, or explode and disappear from the radar, and the beam would still travel to the earth, and suffer aberration if the earth happens to strike it transversally, no? You say, and wiki also, that it is the non-relativistic explanation, but it is only with regard to the relativistic calculations, because as far as the relativity principle is concerned, it is about not being able to tell whether it is the observer or the source that is moving, it is about reference frames, which is precisely what the wiki animation is about.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Positor » May 5th, 2016, 8:07 pm wrote:
Inchworm » May 5th, 2016, 10:13 pm wrote:In the mind experiment that I present, the observer who is in the same reference frame as the star still conclude that he is, because with aberration, the red light ray will appear to come directly from the star, and the observer on earth will also get the same data because the light ray comes from the same place.

Why should the 'aberration' explanation always give exactly the same observations as the 'SR' explanation? Isn't that implausible?
It has to simply because for two bodies in the same reference frame, observations show that the exchange of light have to appear to come directly from their actual position.

Can your experiment be designed so that the two explanations would give different observations, in order to find out which one is correct?
I think so, for instance by blocking all directions except the one that corresponds to the line of sight for two bodies traveling side by side, or more simply by exchanging light beams between the two bodies.

Can you prove that SR is wrong?
If I am right, the light clock mind experiment would suffer aberration if it was really traveling, so the light ray would really travel the way it is presented weather there is an observer or not, but there would still be no way to detect the motion. Do you think that the clock would detect it? And if not, how could it know it has to slow down?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » 06 May 2016, 17:48 wrote:This is precisely the idea that I am discussing. I think that we do not need to know the direction or the position of the source for aberration to happen to a light beam.

Aberration is an observational effect and as such only happens at a receiver of a electromagnetic signal; and it depends on the relative transverse speed between source and receiver, not on who is 'moving'. For popular explanations, one or the other is usually chosen as reference and in the days before SR, the same effect was given different names. This terminology is still used sometimes, which is at least partially responsible for the confusion that seems to be present in this thread.

If Earth sends a flash perpendicular to our orbital motion, any distant star's observer would see our position with the same angular offset as what we would observe for the star. That's what relativity says and that's what we observe, not only for stars, but also for spacecraft, where we communicate both ways. I'm not sure if this also what you say, perhaps just in a roundabout way. However, your issue with the light clock seems to indicate that you have some misinterpretation somewhere. The light clock is explained by straight 'vanilla' SR and is experimentally proven every time a laser signal is bounced off the Moon.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

The earth surface and the moon surface are not in the same inertial frame, so to me, it's not a light clock experiment. Can you tell me what you mean exactly?

Aberration is an observational effect and as such only happens at a receiver of an electromagnetic signal; and it depends on the relative transverse speed between source and receiver,
Yes I know, but what I suggest, it's that it wouldn't depend on the speed of the source, but only on the speed of the observer with regard of the direction of the light ray, as it is for the analogy with the rain by the way. As you pointed out, the speed of the earth doesn't produce a relativistic effect, so why link it to SR? Apart from these objections concerning the principle of relativity, do you have any other conceptual objection to my proposition? I guess you noticed that, if we applied aberration to the light clock, the calculations would always give a right angle to the mirror for the light ray whatever the speed of the clock. Can it only be a coincidence?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » 07 May 2016, 00:04 wrote:The earth surface and the moon surface are not in the same inertial frame, so to me, it's not a light clock experiment. Can you tell me what you mean exactly?

Einstein's original thought experiment, on which the light clock is based, was for a long mirror moving transversely at some distance past an inertial observer. So the light clock works perfectly well with a relatively moving reflector. And it does not matter which frame (observer's or mirror's) we use as a reference.

As you pointed out, the speed of the earth doesn't produce a relativistic effect, so why link it to SR?

Well, it is still Galilean relativity and the principles of inertial reference frames is as valid (as in SR), and in fact required. The equation that I gave above is for Galilean relativity because it does not include the SR gamma factor.

I guess you noticed that, if we applied aberration to the light clock, the calculations would always give a right angle to the mirror for the light ray whatever the speed of the clock. Can it only be a coincidence?

Not a coincidence, just a choice of experimental setup (for simplicity of explanation). We can position the mirror at any angle relative to the relative motion of the clock and have a perfectly working light clock. For the moon ranging laser pulses, they are never shot out, reflected or received at right angles. They use corner reflectors on the Moon.

To be honest, I still fail to see what you point on aberration actually is. Are you predicting the same results as SR, just explained differently? If so, it's the philosophy of science. If you predict different results, you must be very clear on the exact setup and observation. Also, then you have a lot of old experiments to go and explain in terms of your theory.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Of course it must predict the same data, but the way light behaves in an inertial reference frame is not really a data, it's a premise. If we take as a premise that aberration is present in the light clock, then it may be analyzed differently. If aberration was present with no relative speed between source and observer, then that kind of effect should also be present when there is. For instance, if earth and moon were distant enough and rotating fast enough around the galaxy, the beam sent to the moon would have to account for that kind of aberration, and it would also have to account for the aberration produced by the motion of the galaxy through the universe.

At sufficiently low speed and close enough though, the effect would be negligible. Earth and moon are close and slow wrt the speed of light, but at 1,022 km/s, and at a 400,000 km distance, the moon travels more than 1,000 km before the beam strikes the mirror: does it have to be aimed at the future position of the mirror? If not, I think it means that it widens too much to serve as a test for SR. If it does, and if it widens sufficiently, then I think it would be difficult to tell if this particular firing angle accounts for the particular aberration due to the motion of the solar system around the galaxy, but it wouldn't be difficult for atoms to use this information if they were meant for that, and I think they are. In my mind, aberration and doppler effect are not only motion effects, they also produce it: inertial motion for doppler effect, orbital one for aberration.

With that idea, there seems to be an absolute reference frame, but since reference frames are not a premise, since we can extend the universe to infinity, and since we would have to account for all the orbital motions at a time, I think that there would be no way to measure it. To account for a particular motion while aiming a light beam, we would still have to know about it.

Well, it is still Galilean relativity and the principles of inertial reference frames is as valid (as in SR), and in fact required. The equation that I gave above is for Galilean relativity because it does not include the SR gamma factor.
If it was pure Galilean relativity, it seems to me that the animation from wiki wouldn't have to account for the limited speed of light, and it does. To me, the necessity of SR calculations depends only on the speeds involved for the bodies, not for light.

The other day, I found a prediction for my small steps that might be verified if our spectrometers were precise enough, which is about observing different masses for the same atoms measured one by one. The only prediction that I can imagine for aberration takes large speeds and large distances, so I'm afraid that this principle will not be verified soon if I don't find a better experiment. On the other hand, if I can show that it can account for orbital motion using light as information for atoms, then it might help to better understand gravitation. It's hard to take so large an advance without those two basic principles being admitted as a possibility though: I'm afraid the readers could not follow the reasoning while still thinking in SR terms.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Inchworm » 07 May 2016, 16:39 wrote: If aberration was present with no relative speed between source and observer, then that kind of effect should also be present when there is.

But we have never said that there is any aberration when relative speed is zero. Look at the equation again:

If $v=0$ the $\phi=\theta$.

... the moon travels more than 1,000 km before the beam strikes the mirror: does it have to be aimed at the future position of the mirror?

It travels just 2.6 km (at 3,683 km/h) relative to Earth in the time for a two-way pulse (2.5 sec). So they aim the laser beam 2.5 km to the east of where the corner reflector position is seen on the moon (a 'lead angle').

If it was pure Galilean relativity, it seems to me that the animation from wiki wouldn't have to account for the limited speed of light, and it does. To me, the necessity of SR calculations depends only on the speeds involved for the bodies, not for light.

No, Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics are defined in an absolute space where the speed of light is c, but it already insists that Newton's laws of motion be the same in every inertial frame. This gives the above equation for Galilean aberration, which only misses the factor $\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$ of SR below the line. The result depends on the relative speed only, not their individual speeds relative to the absolute frame.

It's hard to take so large an advance without those two basic principles being admitted as a possibility though: I'm afraid the readers could not follow the reasoning while still thinking in SR terms.

Yes, just like it is hard to follow SR while thinking some sort of (undetectable) absolute frame.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

BurtJordaan » May 8th, 2016, 12:40 am wrote:
Inchworm » 07 May 2016, 16:39 wrote: If aberration was present with no relative speed between source and observer, then that kind of effect should also be present when there is.

But we have never said that there is any aberration when relative speed is zero. Look at the equation again:

If $v=0$ the $\phi=\theta$.
You did not agree, but that's actually what I was suggesting. Without the red line, thus while using relativity, how do you explain my drawing? You did not answer that question yet. Even with relativity, a ray sent in one direction cannot hit two distant targets at a time, can it?

BJ wrote:
... the moon travels more than 1,000 km before the beam strikes the mirror: does it have to be aimed at the future position of the mirror?

It travels just 2.6 km (at 3,683 km/h) relative to Earth in the time for a two-way pulse (2.5 sec). So they aim the laser beam 2.5 km to the east of where the corner reflector position is seen on the moon (a 'lead angle').
OK, then following my proposition, it means that, if the earth surface was traveling at the same speed and in the same direction as the moon when the beam is fired, thus if both could be considered in the same inertial frame, that beam would nevertheless have to be aimed at the same "leading" angle to hit the target. By the way, the earth surface already travels at 1,700 km/h, so a simple supersonic flight could be used to test my proposition.

No, Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics are defined in an absolute space where the speed of light is c, but it already insists that Newton's laws of motion be the same in every inertial frame. This gives the above equation for Galilean aberration, which only misses the factor $\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$ of SR below the line. The result depends on the relative speed only, not their individual speeds relative to the absolute frame.
What I am trying to introduce is not a reference frame, but a reference to light, which is actually defined as an absolute in the sense that there is no superior reference that we can use to measure its own direct motion, so the step is not that big to consider that it would also be an absolute reference when we strike it transversely.

Yes, just like it is hard to follow SR while thinking some sort of (undetectable) absolute frame.
You're absolutely right as far as our absolute resistance to change is concerned :^) . But since I'm not introducing such a frame, I'm still not sure you're right concerning the way light behaves!

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?

Iw wrote:Without the red line, thus while using relativity, how do you explain my drawing? You did not answer that question yet. Even with relativity, a ray sent in one direction cannot hit two distant targets at a time, can it?

I think my http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29980&sid=d920c9bfcf97d719a8082fe1ee0db61d&p=298678#p298394 answered that question; red line or not, my comment still stands.

if the earth surface was traveling at the same speed and in the same direction as the moon when the beam is fired, thus if both could be considered in the same inertial frame, that beam would nevertheless have to be aimed at the same "leading" angle to hit the target.

No, if the relative speed between transmiiter and target is zero, no lead angle offset is required.

By the way, the earth surface already travels at 1,700 km/h, so a simple supersonic flight could be used to test my proposition.

Every time we communicate with a geostationary satellite, your proposition is refuted. We point the antenna exactly at the satellite...

In the light of this and the preceding posts, I think to continue this discussion is fairly pointless, but I'll leave it to the other members to make up their own minds. Also consider point 4 of the Personal Theories Subforum Guidelines, by which this thread is probably violating the guidelines.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

PreviousNext