Inertial Mass

[xmo1]

Is inertial mass real or a mathematical contrivance?<br /><br />Gravitational mass is what is commonly known as mass, as in a mass of clay, for example. That mass is the sum of the weight of its components. The atomic components (a little more difficult to describe) of elements are actual matter (atoms) bound together by electricity (or would electromotive force be more accurate?). Am I right?<br /><br />So what are the constituent parts of inertial mass?<br />Note: I know a little about F=ma. If I understand it correctly it depends on whether or not the object is moving. If it is moving then the gravational mass takes on the additional values attributed to inertial mass. That is, the inertial mass (mass available for acceleration) changes with acceleration. If the object is at rest (locally) then only the gravational mass (mass available to gravity) exists. Do I understand this correctly?<br /><br />Is there anything about the physical body that is increased or decreased by changes in acceleration? I think it is said that it takes more force to move a stationary (or slower moving body) body than a (quicker) moving body all things being equal. Why? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

You've got it right up to <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>it is said that it takes more force to move a stationary (or slower moving body) body than a (quicker) moving body all things being equal<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>. And you've only got it backwards.<br /><br />It arises from integrating the speed of light limit into kinetic energy (and momentum). You are not allowed to exceed that speed, and as you go faster and faster, more and more energy has to be put into the system to get the same amount of change in speed. This amount of energy approaches infinity as you approach the speed of light.<br /><br />The only explaination for this increase in energy, is that inertia (normally labeled m, for mass, in newtonian mechanics) increases as you go faster. If this increases, the force required to exert a given acceleration (or change in speed) must be higher, via f=ma. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[xmo1]

Thank you Saiph.<br /><br />Inertial mass tends toward infinity as velocity approaches the speed of light. I wouldn't expect that, and I wonder where it has been confirmed, not that the mathematics is wrong, but why is the limit at the speed of light? Could it be that the electrical bonds of matter would break down due to entropy with the surrounding energetic force at that speed, so that the matter could no longer hold its form?<br /><br />Imagine I'm in the vacuum of space riding my little tricycle, and it begins to get heavier and harder to pedal. Why? I'm in a vacuum.<br /><br />I guess I don't understand it well enough yet. I have had other beliefs, such that mass turns into energy at the speed of light due to entropy and this was the meaning of E=MC^2, and that was the cause of high energy atomic reactions. In other words, when you force highly unstable (gravitational mass) atoms toward each other, enough of them collide in a positive direction to start a resonant cascade which releases the bound energy contained in the mass.<br /><br />I understood E=MC^2 to mean energy results from mass at the speed of light. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[siarad]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I think it is said that it takes more force to move a stationary (or slower moving body) body than a (quicker) moving body all things being equal. Why? <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I think that refers to a friction problem not astronomical. It takes more effort to push your car from standstill than when it is moving. It's called stiction & was apparently discovered by Isambard Kingdom Brunnel who failed to launch a ship due to it although he'd correctly calculated the friction. Took several months to launch the ship using hydraulic jacks.