A Report on the Experimental Results of Inertial Effects

[e2m2a]

TL;DR Summary

The results of experiments are reported in this
paper that tested if induced external inertial forces
have the ability to impact the speed of the center of
mass of a system.

I have attached [Mentors note: the attachment has been deleted] a paper (patent application number was 63/191,323 confirmation number 2211 filing date 5/20/21) that reports on an experiment that I did that strongly suggests that inertial effects can impact the speed of the center of mass of a system. This experiment represents over 10 years of work that I have done on this project. I am posting the results of the experiment for a number of reasons. One, I believe it will generate a good debate on this forum on the causes of this effect. I am more of an experimentalist and I do not have the qualifications to give an in depth explanation of how the inertial effects arise in light of current theories on the causes of inertia: Machian or non-Machian. I have studied physics at the University of Utah years ago and am fully aware of the fundamentals of physics, conservation laws, etc. I have taken pains to make sure the measurements are accurate. Two, this experiment does not take any position on what causes inertia but only reports the effects of inertia and I am posting so that if anyone is interested they can do the experiment to verify if the results can be replicated. I am ready to answer any questions about the experiment.

 

[Dale]

If I understand correctly you believe that the experimental device you developed tests Mach’s principle, correct?

 

[e2m2a]

If I understand correctly you believe that the experimental device you developed tests Mach’s principle, correct?

If you read my paper I said in the beginning that I do not take any position on the how or why of the causes of inertia. It is too controversial of a subject. The only position I take is that inertia is an extrinsic property of matter. I do lean toward a position but I chose not to discuss or include it in my paper. My paper was only focused with what inertia can do not what causes inertia. The main hypothesis of the final experiment was that inertial forces can impact the center of mass of a system.

The testable hypothesis which was derived from the friction equation stated that the time the platform moves in one direction as the spheres rounded their curves would be less then the time the platform moves in the opposite direction after the spheres make their inelastic collision with the platform. If you look at the graphs of the time differences it does seem to confirm the testable hypothesis.

Granted my experimental methods were crude and do not rise to the level of a rigorous scientific experiment. That is why I explicitly stated in my paper that more accurate experiments need to be conducted that would replicate and confirm the effect. The ideal experiment would be done in a zero-gravity environment.

Now, do I personally believe in Mach's principle? I probably lean in that direction because Einstein was initially interested in it. Here are some citations:
“Gravitation”, Misner, Thorne, Wheeler, page 543: “To make a long story short, one can say at once that Einstein’s theory (1) identifies gravitation as the mechanism by which matter there influences inertia here…”

“The Meaning of Relativity”, Lecture IV, Princeton University, Einstein, page 106: “1. The inertia of a body must increase when ponderable masses are piled up in its neighborhood.
2. A body must experience an accelerating force (italics mine) when neighboring masses are accelerated, and, in fact, the force must be in the same direction as the acceleration.
3. A rotating hollow body must generate inside of itself a “Coriolis field”, (note the word field) which deflects moving bodies in the sense of the rotation, and a radial centrifugal field as well.” (Again note the word field used.)

“The Fabric of the Cosmos”, Brian Greene, page 416-417: “To see the connection to Mach, think about a version of frame dragging in which the massive, rotating object is a huge, hollow sphere. Calculations initiated in 1912 by Einstein (even before he completed general relativity), which were significantly extended in 1965 by Dieter Brill and Jeffrey Cohen, and finally completed in 1985 by the German physicists Herbert Pfister and K Braun, showed that space inside the hollow sphere would be dragged by the rotational motion and set into a whirlpool-like spin. If a stationary bucket filled with water – stationary as viewed from a distant vantage point- were placed inside such a rotating sphere , the calculations show that the spinning space would exert a force (italics mine) on the stationary water , causing it to rise up the bucket walls and take on a concave shape.

…In fact, for a shell that contains enough mass, an amount on a par with that contained in the entire universe, the calculations show that it doesn’t matter one bit whether you think the hollow sphere is spinning around the bucket , or the bucket spinning within the hollow sphere.” (Italics mine.)

 

[Dale]

The only position I take is that inertia is an extrinsic property of matter.

I am not sure what that means if not explicitly and directly Mach's principle.

 

[e2m2a]

Yes. What I am saying is there are two broad categories of inertia. In the first, one assumes inertia is some kind of intrinsic property of matter. Newton stated this in his third definition of the Principia: "The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, continues in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forwards in a right line." He used the phrase "innate force of matter."

In the second category inertia is defined to have an extrinsic cause outside of the matter in question. It is a relational approach to inertia. (This is the category I align with.) Inertia relates to something outside of it, such as the cosmic mass of the universe in the Machian approach or it relates to the vacuum energy for those who believe it has something to do with acceleration with respect to vacuum fluctuations.

I do not discuss any of this in depth in my paper and I will not discuss anything relating to vacuum energy as a cause of inertia since it is too controversial and considered by many as unscientific. I personally lean towards the Machian explanations but I am not qualified to give any deep insights into it.

And I am not saying which approach is wrong or right either. Who can really say for certain?
For my purposes in my paper I take the position it is irrelevant what causes inertia. What is relevant is establishing if inertia causes a change in the center of mass of a system. What is irrelevant is what causes the inertia in the first place.

The experimental data discussed in the paper attached strongly suggests that inertial forces do impact the speed of the center of mass of a system.

 

[berkeman]

(patent application number was 63/191,323 confirmation number 2211 filing date 5/20/21

Can you please give a direct link to this patent application? Was it filed with the USPTO? I'm not able to find anything about it, and your "paper" that you want us to peer-review is not in the format of a patent application obviously. Thanks.

 

[berkeman]

The OP is in a PM conversation with me about his Patent Application, and this thread is temporarily closed while the Mentors discuss all of this.

 

[berkeman]

After a very long Mentor discussion and review of the OP's Provisional Patent Application, the premise of this thread has been judged to be an unacceptable reference, and the thread will remain closed. Sincere thanks for all that contributed to the thread.