Coming closer to the end of the present I feel the need to say two words on inertia, the twin mystery of nature ever, together with gravity, involved also in many myths.
After all that, inertia has absolutely no connection with gravity and it simply relates with the increasing mechanism of an accelerating particle’s mass. The inertia powers do not come from any power field (like the gravity one, namely the field magnetic mass we discovered), but it comes from the activity of energy amounts appearing or disappearing at certain time intervals, which we are going to explain. As it is known, the energy acts through its power factor. Thats why we burn gasoline in the car, to produce energy, which is going to give us moving power.
As we’ve already seen at a previous point, the mass increase of an accelerating particle is done through materializing part of its provided kinetic energy. However the stealing of energy is not without consequences. It has consequences at the kinetic behavior of the particle. In reality that moves with a fraction only of the provided energy, which is comprehended by the particle and it makes it hesitating at its movement. It doesnt obtain immediately its final speed, but moves with accelerating movement, giving the impression that it resists its transfer. In reality it has no reason to resist its transfer. To us only it gives the illusion, that it resists, because we believe that the particle has at its disposal to move, all the provided kinetic energy and had to obtain instantaneously the final speed. Illusion that drives to error. Stealing a part however (well see how much) of the kinetic energy is created the inertia phenomenon indicated by the body motion with smoothly accelerating movement.
So one photon, because of mass shortage does not materialize kinetic energy, does not show inertia, not even accelerating movement, but it moves from the moment of its production with its characteristic speed c.
Please notice a newfound, finding: If the matter doesnt have the ability to materialize kinetic energy, the material particles immediately after they provide an amount of kinetic energy, would move instantaneously with some very large speed, highest of c, which would not be any more its highest limit. The enormous movements with the inconceivable speeds would be confined only from frictional forces, collision and gravity. Agonizing world if of course existed!!
At the case of a particle’s deceleration, the previous materialized added mass, dematerializes to energy, and produces forces, which tend to hold the kinetic condition of the particle.
Again forces, without field, even if the General Theory of Relativity says that the gravity forces are equivalent to inertia forces.
The gravity forces in my car, are distinctly designated and depend steadily from its mass, while on each occasion the inertia forces, from how intense and persisted I would step every time the accelerator or the brake!
But we are not interested in the General Theory of Relativity, it already passed in the history of Physics, simply I mentioned it, because that was the beginning of equivalence on which it was supported and because I made a hint about myths.
Lets see now from which percentage starts the stealing of the kinetic energy when a particle starts from the rest condition.
As it is known the kinetic energy of an accelerating particle moving with small speeds (close
If now the particle does not materializes kinetic energy, it would move with speed u, from the beginning of its movement and then the produced work and the kinetic energy would be E=FS=
(Of course there would be no intermediate price u, but I repeat some very large that it could not be calculated, because there is no more upper limit, at which therefore we wouldnt have a mass increase of the particle, I mentioned it only for reasons corresponding to the speeds).
We see however that the inertia (which it appears at the materialization of part of the kinetic energy and it is indicated with smoothly accelerating movement) it steals exactly half the amount of the provided kinetic energy to the particle, when that starts to move. Therefore the percentage of the materialized kinetic energy starts from the 50% of the speed 0 (zero) and reaches 100% at speed c.
One photon therefore, which does not materializes kinetic energy and moves from the beginning at speed c, has kinetic energy E = mc2 = pc (because the photon has no mass).
This price of the photon’s energy has been confirmed experimentally, so our calculations and the analysis at which they were based, are also confirmed experimentally.
At this point we could use the two very important and new information mentioned above, to correct one of the well-known equations of physics, calculating the kinetic energy of a moving
which is visibly and inexcusably wrong.
I remind you that the mentioned information is: First that the provided kinetic energy of a moving particle, immediately after it starts moving is equal to m0u2 and second that exactly half the
appears as the kinetic energy of the mobile, while the other half transforms automatically and steadily to added mass of the particle. From then on the gradual development of the particle’s speed increases further (according to the known Law) the particles mass and next is tied up an added amount of the provided kinetic energy for that increase, of course at the expense of the remaining kinetic energy, with limit its elimination. The physic’s equation above is: a) wrong, by definition, because it refers to the part of the kinetic energy which gradually materializes (mu-mo) c2 and not to the remaining part of the kinetic energy, we are interested in and b) does not confirm the different prices of u and I wonder why someone did not think of verifying especially the marginal prices of u.
A university professor to whom I started to give hints on the inertia mechanism interrupted me immediately and told me that inertia was interpreted with the use of complex numbers. Is there a chance of that professor and his students to comprehend the physical mechanism of inertia, and to know the above equation?