## Space, Inertia, Mass and Gravity (Part 2)

### Reference: Space, Inertia, Mass and Gravity (Part 1)

Note (3/6/16): Here inertia is confused with resistance due to inertia. My current understanding is as follows:

• Inertia is the fact that there is resistance to change.
• Force is the resistance due to inertia.

.

### Reference: Space, Inertia, Mass and Gravity (Part 3)

.

• vinaire  On August 29, 2013 at 7:11 AM

1. Mass will remain constant as long as the applied force is able to generate an acceleration in speed.

2. The maximum acceleration that can be generated would correspond to an increase in speed from 0 to ‘c’ instantaneously. The corresponding inertia generated would dissipate as the increase in speed.

3. If the force is greater than what is required to generate this maximum acceleration then part of intertia generated would not be able to dissipate itself as increase in speed. This inertia shall appear as an increase in mass.

4. Therefore, any force differential which tends to push the velocity differential beyond ‘c’ shall be converted into mass.

5. Now I need to understand the nature of force.

.

• vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 5:51 AM

1. If the universe is defined as “all that exists”, then there is nothing else to compare the universe to.

2. Every bit of the universe may continually be in flux; but as a whole the universe is there as a constant or absolute.

3. The speed of light is a universal phenomenon related to universe as a whole.

4. Mass does not come into play as long as a body is moving uniformly. Mass comes into picture only when effort is made to change that uniform motion.

5. When the uniform velocity of a body is shifted, existing mass generates inertia to be overcome. For a massless disturbance, inertia is generated when the velocity is shifted beyond ‘c’. The shift beyond ‘c’ appears as mass and gravity.

6. Thus, mass is generated by shifting the motion of photons beyond the speed of light ‘c’.

7. A body having mass and gravity has already been shifted beyond the speed of light ‘c’.

.

• vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 6:06 AM

1. Acceleration beyond ‘c’ is stored as gravity, and it appears as mass.

2. A planet with gravity has been shifted beyond ‘c’ to acquire that mass. It is not the current acceleration that determines it’s mass. Its mass is determined by how much it has been accelerated beyond ‘c’ in the past.

3. Light has zero mass being simply a disturbance in space that has not crossed the limit of ‘c’. A disturbance in space that has crossed the limit ‘c’ appears as a fundamental particle.

4. Space itself has no motion and no mass.

5. A particle with mass has to be decelerated below the speed ‘c’ somehow to reduce it back to being light and then simply space.

6. The mystery is how such things as space, disturbance, acceleration and deceleration come about.

.

• Chris Thompson  On August 31, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Vin: 6. The mystery is how space, disturbance, acceleration or deceleration come about.

Chris: Natural clock?

• vinaire  On August 31, 2013 at 8:10 PM

I am now trying to think in terms of spacetime and not in terms of space or in terms of time.

.

• vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 6:51 AM

GRAVITY is “stored” accelertaion.

Any acceleration beyond ‘c’ gets stored as gravity.

.

• vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Space is sort of a matrix. Time is sort of a change or sequence of states. Spacetime is something bigger, which has space and time as subsets. The speed of light, acceleration and inertia are directly the characteristics of spacetime and not of any frame of reference within it.

Planck’s constant shows the linear variation of Energy with frequency. The greater is the frequency, greater is the energy of the disturbance in space though the speed of disturbance remains the same. As energy is poured into the disturbance, the frequency increases and the wave-length shorten. Beyond a certain point the wavelength is so short that the modulations of electric and magnetic fields start to “stack up” on each other. This is like being accelerated or pushed beyond ‘c’. Additional energy poured beyond this limit seems to get stored as mass with the property of gravity.

.

• vinaire  On August 31, 2013 at 7:59 AM

Mass is created only when a disturbance in space is pushed beyond the limit of ‘c’. Since this is not a common event on earth, we can entertain the principle of Conservation of Mass.

However, in outer space things are different. A black hole represents the vanishment of light (electromagnetic wave). This will happen when light is being converted into something else. That something else must have mass.

In my opinion, black holes will be incubators of mass.

.

• vinaire  On August 31, 2013 at 1:00 PM

From the relation, E = hν = mc^2

Mass / frequency = h / c^2 = 7.37 × 10^-51 kg.s

For electron, m = 9.11 ×10^−31 kg

Frequency corresponding to the mass of electron = 1.236 ×10^20 Hz

.

• Chris Thompson  On September 2, 2013 at 6:36 PM

That is a very small substance.

• vinaire  On September 2, 2013 at 9:33 PM

It is a pretty high frequency meaning it is very high energy accelerating the spacetime disturance much beyond ‘c’. That acceleration beyond ‘c’ is now stored as the mass of the electron. The charge of the electron is another mystery.

.

• vinaire  On August 31, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Ether versus Spacetime

Ether was postulated but then put to rest by Theory of relativity, which then postulated spacetime. The basic characteristic of spacetime would logically be a wave, which is dynamic compared to ether which was assumed to be simply filling the space.

The motion of Earth could not be measured relative to ether. Can the motion of earth be measured relative to spacetime? What is the motion of earth relative to ‘c’?

.

• vinaire  On August 31, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Can we determine the Matter wave of earth and compare it to light?

.

• Chris Thompson  On August 31, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Possibly. I am working on that.

• vinaire  On August 31, 2013 at 9:24 PM

If we can, then that would validate spacetime as an absolute frame of reference from the perspective of relativity, while ether could not be so validated.

.

• Chris Thompson  On September 1, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I am looking at a mathematical way to validate this. I have to get back to you on this.

• vinaire  On September 1, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Wave Packets
According to the famous Nobel prize winner Louis de Broglie

1. All particles with a specific value of momentum p have a wavelength λ = h/p, where h is the Planck’s constant.

2. This wavelength is called the de Broglie wavelength. For example, the electrons in a CRT display have a De Broglie wavelength of about 10^−13 m.

3. Particles localized in space may be represented by wave packets, which are “bursts” of wave action that travel as a unit.

4. The wave packet has an envelope that describes the overall amplitude of the wave.

5. In general, the envelope of the wave packet moves at a different speed than the constituent waves.

6. The spatial spread of the wave packet, correspond to the uncertainties in the particle’s position and momentum, the product of which is bounded by Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

.

• vinaire  On September 1, 2013 at 1:47 PM

What is the momentum of a photon?

.

• vinaire  On September 2, 2013 at 5:21 PM

I have modified the last three points of the OP as follows:

8. The idea of mass is tied with acceleration and not with uniform speed. No mass will come into play when a particle is moving at the uniform velocity of ‘c’.*

9. According to the postulate of the theory of relativity, the velocity of a particle cannot be accelerated beyond ‘c’ as that would violate the absoluteness of SPACETIME.

10. Therefore, it is a reasonable conjecture that any acceleration beyond ‘c’ shall not increase the speed of the particle; instead that acceleration shall be stored as mass. The stored acceleration shall appear as gravity associated with the mass.

.

• vinaire  On September 2, 2013 at 9:20 PM

1. According to classical electromagnetism, both the power at a given frequency and the total radiated power are supposed to be unlimited as higher and higher frequencies are considered.

2. However, this was found to be inconsistent with the experimental evidence obtained from the study of blackbody radiation.

3. Max Planck obtained results consistent with blackbody radiation by postulating that, at higher frequencies, energy could only be emitted in discrete packets (photons) proportional to the frequency.

4. This indicates that at higher energies the waveform of EM radiation undergoes discretization.

5. If this happens because higher energies are accelerating the EM radiation (disturbance in spacetime) beyond the limit of ‘c’ then this acceleration is being stored in the form of discrete photons.

6. Thus, photons are the earliest form of mass.

.

• vinaire  On September 2, 2013 at 9:27 PM

It will be interesting to look at the structure of photons because it tends to be stable. Maybe it is a self-contained standing wave. That will explain the discretization.

.

• vinaire  On September 3, 2013 at 5:32 AM

(1) The disturbance in spacetime takes the form of an electromagnetic wave traveling at speed ‘c’. It cannot be accelerated beyond this limit of ‘c’.

(2) Increased energy adds push. This push cannot increase the speed. So, it increases the frequency (reduces wavelength).

(3) As energy increases, the frequency increases due to push against the limit ‘c’, and, as a reaction, a backward pressure also starts to build up.

(4) After a certain point this backward pressure creates a wave traveling backwards, which modulates the wave going forward into wave packets. These wave packets appear as discrete photons

(5) The above is a reasonable conjecture.

.

• Chris Thompson  On September 4, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Vin: The above is a reasonable conjecture.

Chris: Yes. They all are to the conjecturer!

• vinaire  On September 4, 2013 at 7:10 PM

That comment is not helpful. What inconsistency do you see?

.

• Chris Thompson  On September 4, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Not referring to your overall statement but to your own unhelpful comment that your conjecture was reasonable. It is not inconsistent, it is tautological.

I am joking. You are putting out some tremendous ideas and I have no criticism for that. Be mindful that you do not desire too much to be right about these conjectures that desire will f*** with you and get in our road… My schedule is very full and I am having a hard time keeping up with your tremendous outpouring of analyses.

• vinaire  On September 4, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Maybe what seems reasonable or unreasonable is subjective.

.

• Chris Thompson  On September 5, 2013 at 12:00 AM

Always! haha

• vinaire  On September 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM

I am surprised that there has been no comments from 2ndxmr.

.

• vinaire  On September 3, 2013 at 5:41 AM

It appears that spacetime is manifested only when the disturbance takes place. Otherwise there is no spacetime.

It is this disturbance which becomes a particle as energy is pumped into it.

The particle acquires mass as more energy is pumped into it.

These particles with mass then interact with each other in different ways.

What is this vast expanse in which disturbance takes place? What creates the disturbance and pushes it forward?

.

• Chris Thompson  On September 4, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Vin: It appears that spacetime is manifested only when the disturbance takes place. Otherwise there is no spacetime.

Chris: Now that is a reasonable conjecture… *like*

• Chris Thompson  On September 4, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Vin: It is this disturbance which becomes a particle as energy is pumped into it.

Chris: We’re saying the disturbance and the disturbed are one and the same?

• vinaire  On September 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM

I don’t know the source of energy.

.

• Chris Thompson  On September 4, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Vin: I don’t know the source of energy.

Chris: No we don’t but that is not my question to your statement. There is no sign of any disturbance until something manifests disturbed. Therefore it seems that in this bit of experience of the universe that the disturbance and the disturbed are the same thing.

It also seems that “universe” is an oxymoron as we have no way of separating out what might be universe whether “all that we know and experience” or “all that there is including all that is outside our ability to know” which is kindof an oxymoron depending on how we are viewing manifestation and personal experience.

• vinaire  On September 4, 2013 at 8:34 PM

All I know is that this universe is much more than me, and it is definitely not created by me. “Me” is just one of the phenomena of this universe.

.

• Chris Thompson  On September 4, 2013 at 7:17 PM

VIn: What is this vast expanse in which disturbance takes place? What creates the disturbance and pushes it forward?

Chris: That is the deepest question I can conceive. We seem to exist within a vast disturbance, in which disorder seems to classically and continually adjust itself toward the most entropy possible and then yet finding disorder, adjusts itself some more. This is also what you and I seem to be doing.

• vinaire  On September 3, 2013 at 5:43 AM

Now we are getting into particle physics, and whatever is behind the creation of these particles.

• Chris Thompson  On September 4, 2013 at 7:19 PM

It will unravel for that seems to be both our purpose and its purpose as well.

• vinaire  On September 3, 2013 at 5:47 AM

An elementary particle is a wave packet of disturbance in spacetime.

.

• vinaire  On April 3, 2017 at 8:25 AM

Mass is probably comparable to a permanent “shock wave”.