The nature of inertia is a subject the science of physics has done little to explain. The problem is inertia pretty much literally means perpetual motion and perpetual motion implies a source of perpetual energy, which physics as currently understood cannot conceive as possible. In this paper I will propose a simple and fairly complete theory of inertia that will only require a fair willingness to accept that current physics may have a few things wrong.
An average physicist might say that inertia is velocity, and velocity begins with acceleration. While I agree this is true, it's not a complete truth. Inertia really begins with E=mc^2, where mass is rightly defined as energy (bits) with the “potential” to go somewhere at the speed of light.
A simple analogous example:
Imagine a large school of fish, individually swimming at a fairly constant speed in random directions. Imagine that as a collective the school has no dimensional motion and that it just appears as a direction-less blob of swarming bits. Now imagining that all the fish are provoked to move in one dimensional direction. The school is now seen as “a mass in motion” and your intuition might sense more energy --especially if they're heading right for you. But there is no more energy, the fish are swimming the same speed they're just not swimming in “conservative” circles anymore. Going a bit farther with this analogy, imagine that the fish travel at the constant speed of light, nothing less, nothing more. Now add the circumstance that some of the fish go back to swimming in circles. Perhaps you can understand that this would retard the absolute speed of the school as now some portion of the collective, is spending some portion of time, going in the wrong direction. Effectively any time spent by any of the fish, swimming in any other direction, will have to be subtracted (proportional to its individually small but real contribution) from the absolute speed of the Collective school .
Although this example may seem crudely simple, the truth of real "quantum mechanics" is just this basic. If you have a velocity you have it because more of your quantum bits are moving in the direction of your velocity then are moving in the opposite direction. Velocity is merely the byproduct of an imbalance in total directionality in the three dimensions. The trick is, the imbalance must be directly spread to, and through, every quanta in the moving mass. In other words, no individual quanta spends much time individually moving in the direction of your velocity, and do in fact spend most of the time maintaining their nuclear orbits, but in the end, every bit, spends a little more time moving in the direction of your velocity. Adding a little mathematical perspective, you achieving a velocity of 20,000 miles an hour would only require your light-speed quanta to spend just 1/300,000th of every second in imbalanced movement in the direction of your velocity.
Restated in steps:
The first premise isn't that E=M the fact is Matter IS Energy. Your matter isn't energy converted into some kind of different thing called mass, it is still energy (photons and such) still moving the speed of light.
For the purpose of clarity in this explanation, consider a "quantum of energy" as a standard arrow moving in a direction at the speed of light.
Now consider the components of matter, the protons, neutrons, electrons, and ultimately the atoms. For the sake of this argument understand these things to be "orbital swirls" of perhaps many millions or billions of quanta arrows. When in a balanced non moving state these individual swirls contain just as many arrows going up as down, left as right, forward as back.
What happens when some new source of energy is introduced? If it's absorbed by some element of the matter, it will essentially cause it to roll through space in the direction of that added arrow.
In a real material ecosystem this element of energy would be passed on from element to element through the entire material form. Material objects are effectively a closed system. Only certain kinds of energy can go in, and only certain kinds of energy can escape or be produced as output.
Implications and predictions:
Recognizing that velocity is a quantizable “hard” attribute of matter creates good reason to doubt many of the rules defined by Einstein's relativity. Velocity can be relative, but it also IS absolute. In any given moment of time the net imbalances of all the orbits of all the atomic structures have you moving some quantity of distance in all three of the real dimensions. If you move your maximum speed in a single direction (dimension) you will be traveling the speed of light but you won't be a “you” anymore, you will just be a beam of photons.
Understanding that velocity in a very real way will degrade the integrity of matter, by distracting it from the maintenance of its orbits, can create interesting insights. Consider the speeding bullet, we think it easily falls apart upon impact with weaker objects because of its speed, the more insightful perspective would have you understand that the bullet falls apart because its matter has lost some portion of its integrity by having unbalanced atomic orbits. Speeding satellites can be destroyed by a grain of dust, not because velocity is energy, but because in some sense atoms are turned from matter into weaker bound energy, for at least some portion of the time, by velocity.
Seeing matter as having a kind of atomic metabolism that is slowed down by velocity can provide a very reasonable explanation for phenomena like Time Dilation. [A subject I cover in another paper.]
The fact that very small changes in the balance of atoms can create what we consider very high velocities makes testing for this phenomenon difficult. An added impediment to acquiring physical proof is the fact that it is very difficult to put testing equipment outside the the same contextual circumstance of the thing being tested. On the other hand, as technology improves, and once it is commonly understood that real velocity happens in three separate dimensions-- that you can't use a diagonal across two dimensions, it will be possible to see Real Velocity and its effects on atomic structure.
In this paper I have not referenced Inertia outside of some concept of velocity. While I would concede there is a theoretical possibility that there is such a thing as non moving inertial state, like a perfectly circular orbit in the solar system, it's not likely you're going to find it in the real world. In the real world. everything is moving because everything is made of moving bits. As the smallest of these bits interact, they exchange direction, and when they do that with the bits inside of atoms they effectively shape the atoms into velocity.
To comment on this paper go to This video
On the correct theory of everything.
On the subject of reasonable interpretation of the two slit experiment.
Just right click, and 'bookmark' this Link --
(or drag the link into your bookmark toolbar)
To load the tool just click the bookmark you created.
To add the toolbar to your website post this code inside the BODY tages: