A New Relativity?

Well, it has taken me a lot longer than it should have to finally arrive at an understanding of the real root of the difference between Relativity and Newton’s laws… it is INERTIA!

If you’ve been following my attempts to understand the relationship between inertia and curving you will have noticed that it led to the relationship between an orbiting body and its ’sun’ being a constant which takes its value from the chosen units and is proportional to the distance between the planet and its ‘sun’.

The equation is very simple R * OV^2 = K where K is constant for all planets of that system.
That is the Radius times the square of an orbiting planet's velocity (speed) is a constant value for all the planets.

R, the radius, can be in whatever units you care to use - I have used Light minutes, AU’s and metres and kilometres) and I expect it is the same for the Orbital Velocity (although I have always used metres or kilometres per second).

Thinking about this relationship made me wonder what role gravity played and if you check you find that if you calculate the spread of values for the planets (including Pluto) then while the range for the Orbital Velocity differs by a factor of 10, the acceleration due to gravity has a range of 10.000 (irrespective of the units you chose to express it),

This fact made me wonder if gravity was in fact the driving force behind orbits and I wondered if in fact the Solar System might be spinning and the planets spinning with it.

If that should be the case then we know that the velocity of the spin of the Solar System at any point must be related to the distance from its centre (the sun) and that the square of the velocity at that point when multiplied by the distance to the sun will always give the same value - at least within the range of space covered by the planets.

Okay, but why are the planets moving at the same speed as the velocity of the spin?
The only obvious answer would be Inertia but an Inertia that moved, that rotated with the Solar system.

Now I believe in an Aether but I don’t see that as being necessary because Einstein has already set out the ‘mechanism’ for the system to work with his Relativity!

Let’s consider the claim of relativity that nothing can exceed the speed of light (in a vacuum) because its mass will increase toward infinity as the objects speed approaches that of light.

If we consider this from a different relativity we can say that an object carries its Inertia along with it and that the relative resistance between the Inertia’s of the object and the medium it is travelling through increases with their relative velocity (I say Velocity because I believe that direction plays a part too).
So, instead of having a Relative Mass we have a Relative Inertia.

Thinking about this it offers a simple explanation of why things thrown in the air in a fast moving vehicle will travel in a straight line Relative to the moving Inertial Frame of the vehicle (and thus you).

A little more thought leads to the conclusion that, even in space, there must be some resistance between the Inertias when anything moves through a medium that has a different velocity, that this resistance must be proportional to the magnitude of the relative difference and that this resistance tends to infinity as the relative speed tends toward that of light.

Let’s start by considering what Inertia is.
I think everyone would agree that it is something that opposes change and so inertia in a system strives to maintain the status quo.

In physics it is usually seen as being synonymous with mass but I argue that although mass magnifies the effects of inertia they are quite separate properties.

Okay, we can consider a terrorist in a super sonic plane flying at over 1000 miles an hour.
This terrorist is at the rear of the plane and has managed to smuggle a gun on board the plane and decides he wants to shoot an Air Marshal at the front of the plane.

Now the gun is homemade and bullets fired from it only travel at about 1000 miles per hour…
If the terrorist fires his gun will the bullet be travelling fast enough to wound the target?

Yes it will because the plane has its own Inertial frame and so everything within it acts as though it is not moving (well, relatively speaking) and so the bullet will hit the Air Marshal but be deflected by the Kevlar vest he had decided to wear that day.

So, we know that Inertia moves with objects and that the bullet would actually be travelling at 2000 miles an hour to an observer on the ground.
Okay, let’s consider Newton’s assertion that Force = Mass x Acceleration

This suggests that if two forces are identical and one accelerates a mass of 1 unit and the other a mass of 2 units that the mass 1 will accelerate twice as fast as the mass 2.

Now I don’t argue that this is wrong so much as it is an oversimplication and doesn’t take into account the fact that the relationship between mass and acceleration is not really linear.

I suppose I ought to explain that better. I’m not talking about Relativistic effects, although they are obvious exceptions to Newton’s law, but to the idea that there may be flowing Inertia ‘streams’ that might not be apparent but will effect the result of the acceleration of the mass by a force.

For instance, if the two identical forces were accelerating the two masses against an Inertial stream (say, gravity) then although the masses would probably accelerate proportionally if you hadn’t taken gravity into consideration then your calculation of the forces would be quite wrong.

So it is with orbits. Unless you realise that ‘space’ itself is rotating, and so its Inertia is rotating too, then you get the wrong answers to all your calculations but since they are proportional then they still work reasonably well because you method of calculation is essentially based on observation and so is adjusted to fit the observed data.

Perhaps we ought to consider what acceleration is.
In my opinion it is the a force which attempts to adjust the relative velocity between different Inertial fields. The larger the magnitude of the difference the less effect the force has in any direction that would increase the difference.

In simple terms a force changes the relative speed of an object with respect another and is more effective when it decreases the relative difference. I argue that an object moving through a Inertial field is resisted by that field be it a solid, liquid, gas or space - but, obviously, the magnitude of that resistance is greatly effected by the medium that exists within the field.

The consequence of all this is that a force is necessary to adjust the relative velocity between two separate Inertial frames and if one is moving through the other than there will be a resistance that opposes the movement which is proportional to the magnitude of the difference.

A simple example is of a car accelerating down a road because the Earth’s Inertial field is rotating with it then any movement by the car in any direction but down will generate a resistance proportional to its Acceleration but it will also generate a much smaller resistance when it stops accelerating and coasts - this is so small at car velocities that it is usually masked by friction etc.

Okay, so let’s now consider the difference between a stationary and a rotating Inertia.
If you are in a space craft and you enter the Solar System you encounter the rotating Inertial field.
Now, at first it will be rotating fairly slowly but even so it will encourage your craft to curve from its original trajectory with a force that is proportional to the difference in velocity.
This might seem unimportant but it is the start of a curve which may well lead to an orbit and, perhaps more importantly, helps to ensure that objects do not dive straight into the sun.
Well, I don’t know if any of that has helped you to see what I’m getting at… I hope it has.
The simplest way to see the important difference is to consider a model plane in a wind tunnel.
The movement of the air, and its Inertia, is just as effective as the movement of the plane, and its inertia, through the air would be.
Hence, a planet moving through space is no different to space moving past the planet.
However, the resistance between the two has long since found a balance and essentially the planets are moving WITH the rotating Inertia of their local Space!

Okay, so, we have a spinning Inertia field and something moving through it - what forces are present?

Well, first we must consider Mass because mass multiplies the effects of Inertia.
If we have a fairly massive object moving through space which has little or no mass we would expect the object to speed up the medium more than the medium slowed the object… this could well be the case but it doesn’t really matter in the end because Space can be considered to be infinite and like a gigantic pond with a brick lobbed into it would simply ripple for a while until it returned to its equilibrium.

The object itself would however be ‘persuaded’ to adjust its velocity toward that of the medium and, inevitably, if the object continued to travel through the same medium it would eventually acquire the same velocity as the medium it was in and so, in effect, travel WITH the medium rather than through it.

Of course we also need to bear in mind that Inertia always contains the energy it has absorbed from any changes and will ‘repay’ that energy in an effort to maintain its own equilibrium.

This is apparent in objects that are not yet in orbit. Their Inertia, which we can probably envision more easily if we call it momentum, will allow them to ‘defy’ the rotating Inertia of space but space, in turn, will make the object curve in the direction of its spin.

Since the resistance is proportional to the difference in Relative velocity then the resistance will reduce as the body is deflected toward the direction of spin and the body will probably speed up, or slow down, by the action of the Relative resistance between the Inertias until the body finds equilibrium with the rotating Inertia of the Solar System (in its locality).

Now, as mentioned earlier, Inertia stores energy (Newton didn’t see it that way and so no energy is lost in the equation Force = Mass times Acceleration, but as Einstein pointed out since energy = mass times the speed of light squared then the amount of energy gained, or lost, is hardly noticeable to any form of conventional measurement since, essentially, you measure a force by its effect on a mass) and this stored energy can be seen in orbits where it is constantly fluctuating, taking then repaying, and causing the orbit to deform into an ellipse.

More thought about elliptical orbits has made me realise that such orbits are in balance, just as the circular orbits are, it is just that they are orbiting at an angle to the spin and so slow down as they move away from the sun and speed up as they move closer… essentially they are just travelling with the orbital inertia which rotates more slowly as the radius increases and so the elliptical orbits must be related to the square of the velocity just as the circular orbits are.