Written by Godinci.
It’s not in the intend of this article to give you a general overview regarding the history of inertia nor to outline you all the problems encircling the concept of mass; however, we do intend to outline you in brief what observational facts and commonsense related reasoning can learn us about the true mechanism behind inertia.
Before we do this let us go back to some basics and explain in brief what is general meant with inertia.
When we try to alter the movement-state (i.e. change of velocity and/or direction of movement) of matter-related things than a force will always be required to do so; we therefore say that matter, be it animate or not, tries to maintain its original movement-state by resisting a change in its movement-state.
In other words, when an object is in rest than it will maintain its rest-state for as long no force is acting upon it; in the same way an object with certain velocity and direction will maintain its movement-state for as long no force is acting upon it.
This is what is referred to in physics as inertia.
What has the Higgs field to do with inertia
In our article the Higgs field according the standard model we have outlined why it’s believed that most of the mass of the universe doesn’t come from the Higgs field. Only the non-composite particles, such as electrons and positrons, get their mass from the Higgs field due to their interaction with the so called Higgs bosons; in all other cases it’s believed that the mass comes mostly from the binding energy (BE) which through use of Einstein’s delusional mass-energy equivalency formula (m=BE/c^2) is converted somehow into mass.
The mass that is said to be imparted by the Higgs bosons is acclaimed responsible for what we call inertial mass.
However, it’s easy to see that the whole idea of the Higgs mechanism that was invented to: (1) account for the mass of fundamental matter-particles, and (2) to sustain the Big Bang model of our universe, is build on dubious grounds.
The Higgs field also fails miserable in its task to explain how (active and passive) gravitational mass follows from it which only adds to confusion that encircles the concept of mass; but then again, this is precisely what secular science set out to do – making things incomprehensible for the commonsense.
Leaving this aside the question boils down to this:
- “If not the Higgs than what is kicking?“
Origin of Inertia:
While we were investigating the background structure of space we came to the understanding that movement transfer imparted upon matter-particles that are subjected to induction forces of the gravitational-, electric- or magnetic-field is subject to loss.
The reason hereof is that movement-transfer requires a work-mechanism, and since all mechanisms are subject to loss implies that the movement transfer imparted upon an object through the induction forces of the field has some kind of movement-transfer efficiency.
In a sense we could say that induction movement transfer in a field, just as color, can be saturated. It doesn’t matter how much of a particular red-paint you keepon adding to a canvas when the canvas has become saturated of this particular color; the only thing we do by adding more and more of the same red-paint to the canvas is adding more and more weight to the canvas but its redness will remain the same.
Given that induction movement-transfer requires a commonsense work-mechanism we within ‘Godinci’ were immediately thinking of M. Faraday’s concept of strings of force lines that filled all space and where generated by all matter-particles (just as the strings making up a fishnet).
The main problem we faced during the visualization of Faraday’s string force lines was that the continuous string force lines:
- emanated from the matter-particles themselves
- are filling all space
- can intersect each other
Such picture could only be functional on the abstract level but not on the concrete level.
After intensive research on the worldwide-web we stumbled upon the website of retired associate professor Menahem Simhony that based on his:
- understanding of sodium chloride (table salt) crystals
- insight of Carl David Anderson’s ‘experiments with’ and ‘discovery of’ the positron
- ability to see behavioral similarities between sodium chloride crystals and the so called electron-positron annihilation
…proposed that the background structure of space is a giant electron-positron lattice (shortly ‘ epola’).
Profesor Simhony’s Epola model is not only impressive because it allows us with relative ease to explain most of relativity and quantum mechanics without having to rely on quantum rumble and obscure mathematical fittings, but above all because it was derived from observational facts and commonsense related reasoning.
In this article we’ll reduce ourselves in outlining you how inertia result from the interaction with the epola or simular background structure of space.
To ease your understanding with the origin of inertia we’ll make use of the wisdom of a Chinese proverb that states, I quote:
“One picture is worth ten thousand words.”
Godinci, is convinced that prof. M. Simhony is on the good track and that inertia indeed arrives through such, or similar, means.
Thank you Prof. M. Simhony for helpng us out!