If not Higgs than what’s kicking? – Understanding Inertia

Written by Godinci.

Kicking balll

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:

  1. understanding of sodium chloride (table salt) crystals
  2. insight of Carl David Anderson’s ‘experiments with’ and ‘discovery of’ the positron
  3. 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’). 

Epola background structure of space

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!

Also read: The Higgs…a bag of bricks
The Higgs according to standard model


    DEAR GODINCI: many thanks for GET-ing that dr.simhony is “on the good track” !! as an amateur physics-enthusiast, i discover’d simhony’s model several years ago and was immediate-ly convinced of its correct-ness … the first part of your post (above) is confuse-ing and un-focus’d, because you make references to so-call’d “higgs bosons” —(and other parts of the in-correct “standard-model”)— which just-simply do not exist in reality … as soon as you mention simhony’s model, yr post becomes clear and common-sense-full … MANY THANKs for make-ing a VIDEO (above) to illustrate dr.simhony’s model !! sincere-ly, MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO

    • http://godinci.org/ Godinci

      Dear Mark (if you don’t mind calling you so),

      in the beginning of the post we just wanted to outline the public in large how today’s science tries to explain the origin of inertia by means of the Higgs mechanism.

      We have written an article explaining why the standard model of materialistic and secular science requires the Higgs and its relationals (see: http://godinci.org/articles/the-higgs-field-according-to-the-standard-model/).
      Our own views regarding the whole edifice of materialistic science (Higgs field included) are reflected in this article (see: http://godinci.org/articles/the-higgs-a-bag-of-bricks/).

      Thanks for being so moved by our animation!

      N.B. in the future we hope to render a more accurate model of Prof. Simhony EPOLA model.


        WOWIE — ZOWIE !! MANY THANKs for reply-ing so quick-ly !! i total-ly GET that yr video is only an approximation of dr.simhony’s model: it’s just enough to inform the general-public …
        in fact, i’v modify’d simhony’s model a bit, in my quest to understand the how nature real-ly works … the first thing one needs to do is to realize that the so-call’d “higgs-boson” or “higgs-particle” is just-simply the LAST-GASP OF AN IN-CORRECT + DIE-ING MODEL … based-on what you’v told me, i reckon that you already GET this !! good for you !!
        there’s a book titled THE HIGGS FAKE, by a german guy, which made a big splash when it came out about 1.5 years ago … i’m sure that u can find it by google-ing …
        plus, there’s one titled A FAREWELL TO REALITY, in which the author observes how sad-ly many of the current physicists have lost touch with reality, and continue to promote the in-correct “standard-model” for a variety of question-able reasons …
        my feeling is that, instead of bash-ing the standard-model, one needs to FIND A CORRECT MODEL … because some of the folks who understand that the s.m. is wrong are promote-ing OTHER models which are just as wrong …
        I’ll close here, and send MORE DETAILs in my next comment …

        BTW: may i call u “vincent” ??
        sincere-ly, MARK


        dear godinci [vincent??]: several years ago i started an internet discussion-group to dicuss physics … our MAIN topic was dr.simhony’s model … not every-body agrees re the details: we had some VERY-interest-ing conversations, in which people were so passionate that, if we were not so polite, we wud’v been “flame-ing” + name-call-ing …
        one modification which i have made to dr.simhony’s model, in my quest to understand the TRUTH, is this: instead of individual electrons + positrons form-ing the EPOLA-LATTICE, i reckon that it’s PAIRs of the little-rascals: as u can well imagine, this opens-up a whole new world of theoretical-ideas, which even simhony has prob’ly not thought about … so i’m in un-charted territory here …

        to do this, i’v used the model of an OTHER theorist, whose work i discover’d approx. 1.5 years before i discover’d simhony’s: DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS wrote a book titled BEFORE THE BIG BANG (1997), in which he presents, among other things, a NEW PROTON-MODEL …

        i can assure you that i’v study’d both sternglass + simhony so intense-ly during the past 5 years that i’m convinced that neither is a “crack-pot” — tho some think that they are, especial-ly if they believe-in the standard-model …

        sternglass’s book is avail. at AMAZON, where there r > a dozen reviews of it, MOST-ly favorable, one of which i wrote … i hope that u will go there + check it out …
        interest-ing-ly, both sternglass + simhony have determined, in their own way, that electron-positron PAIRs comprise all MATTER (sternglass) and all of SPACE (simhony) …
        prove-ing that great minds real-ly DO think alike: tho the 2 gentlemen (ages 91 and 92) never collaborated, stern. calls his model “THE ep-PAIR MODEL OF MATTER”, while sim. calls his “THE ep-LATTICE MODEL OF SPACE” … i’m sure that u GET that the idea that electrons + positrons comprise EVERY THING IN OUR UNIVERSE is breath-take-ing-ly refresh-ing + awe-some !!

        the part of sternglass’s model which i used, to determine that the elements-which-comprise-the-EPOLA might be ep-PAIRs, instead-of individual electrons + positrons, is as follows: sternglass says that the e and p in an ep-pair in his model rotate [“orbit”] around each other, and also SPIN as they move … he says that they spin in opposite-directions, so that their MAGNETIC-fields point in the SAME direction, and in fact ADD … this is my reason to suspect that simhony’s epola might consist of PAIRs, instead-of individual electrons + positrons …
        if each epola-element has a strong MAGNETIC-field, then it might-be these magnetic-forces which hold the epola together, not electric-forces, as simhony says …

        please let me know how u feel about all this …..
        sincere-ly, MARK


    DEAR GIDINCI: the VIDEO is excellent !! i’ll send more info to your web-site re dr.simhony’s model: i actual-ly have been in e-mail conversation, for several years, with some of the PhD-physicists who also are aware of the model, and we’v had some VERY interest-ing discussions re it: not every-body agrees as to the details, and simhony him-self is now so elder-ly that he doesn’t do physics … of course, he doesn’t NEED to, because he’s posted ALL of his ideas on the internet, and in the 3 books which he’s writ ….. sincere-ly, MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO

    • http://godinci.org/ Godinci

      Dear Mark Creek-Water DORAZIO,

      we appreciate that you liked our representation of some aspects of Prof. Simhony EPOLA model; and yes, the books are revealing we bought them.

      Nevertheless, the model, as rendered here, isn’t so accurate, because the EPOLA waves move in reality with the speed of light (not with the speed of the matter-particle), neither are the Broglie-waves and relativistic effects shown.

      The whole purpose of the video was just showing and revealing, in simple visual terms, and based on observable facts, known things, and commonsense related reasoning, why matter-particles are subject to inertia.