Kapanadze and other FE discussion

[stivep]

Classified military testing often requires entire testing device to be destroyed.
It is Switzerland made jewel, and I  was lucky
It was approved to be saved. look at picture
Wesley

[stivep]

Here you have explanation what is what
Wesley

[onepower]

stivep

Often, science is presented as trafficking in absolute truths.
On the contrary, science is a framework for interpreting, systematizing, and predicting nature based on empirical observations.
That is to say, a well accepted 'theory' (framework for understanding/predicting nature)
can always be upended with sufficiently compelling contrary evidence.

I would agree and we still have a lot to learn...

For example, the property of inertia is usually missing in most models and generally lumped together with mass as if they were the same thing.
It's problematic because there are only two logical results...
1)the mass was acted on by an external influence and space cannot be empty as supposed.
2)the mass has acted on itself in some way violating multiple laws of science.

I came to this conclusion in a way similar to Richard Feynman's first principals...
https://blog.dtssydney.com/richard-feynmans-principles-of-scientific-thinking

As Feynman implies, not so much science but common sense and describing the evidence without regard to the way we feel it should be.
As such the logic involved in explaining inertia is littered with contradictions.
We cannot call "inertia" a property (a quality of something) and have no explanation of what it is or how it came to be.
The term "property" implies said quality must be due to some influence in which we have two choices, 1)internal or 2)external.

Which comes full circle back to the two initial options...
1)the mass was acted on by an external influence and space cannot be empty as supposed.
2)the mass has acted on itself in some way violating multiple laws in science.

Generally speaking whenever an argument becomes circular, ie. the supposed answer contradicts the actual question, were in trouble. That's the wonderful thing about science because there's never a shortage of questions to be asked...

Regards
AC

[stivep]

For example, the property of inertia is usually missing in most models and generally lumped together with mass as if they were the same thing.
As Feynman implies, not so much science but common sense and describing the evidence without regard to the way we feel it should be.
AC

Talking about inertia:
In  mostly classical physics  it is common opinion: _{(common sense )}
"that there is no "problem of inertia", on the grounds that either
-no explanation is needed for such phenomena or
- the explanation is already at hand."
just because e.g law of inertia, in one form or another, was already used before them by such people as Galileo , Descartes.
_-but common opinion _{is just common in relation to elements making it, so it can't be taken as an axiomatic value.}
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Huygens and Leibniz, seen inertial motion as uniform and on a straight line, whatever direction we like it to be in the universe.

When something is at rest, it tends to stay that way.
In physics inertia is described as "a property of matter
by which it continues in its existing state of motion
in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force."

Barbour's seen inertial motion as "cosmic drift," but we do not know whence it comes and what determines its course and it was  year 2001.
-relativity of motion, which makes everything relative to something else.
Some others see a problem between Inertia and Relativity?

Einstein utilized  Gaussian coordinates and differential geometry,  for
"A A B B relativity of revolution relativity, generalized? A B B A
constructing his theory of gravity (usually called "general relativity," but a caution is necessary for this word). "
https://1library.net/article/what-is-the-problem-with-inertia-and-relativity.y4erlxrq

But because we are interested with energy and inertia
we coming to all kind of rotational machines made by all kinds and all levels experimenters:
Jeff St. John  August 07, 2020:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/squared/dispatches-from-the-grid-edge/solving-the-renewable-powered-grids-inertia-problem-with-advanced-inverters
postulating :

Setting up inverters to augment or mimic that inertial stability.

referring  to virtual inertia  inertia damping generation

South Australia. The 30-megawatt/8-megawatt-hour battery system sits at a substation
serving several towns on a peninsula that also hosts about 90 megawatts of wind farms,
with only a single connection to the mainland.

but it turns out that this is:

the megawatt-scale inverter operating the ESCRI system and the much smaller inverters
connecting rooftop solar systems to the distribution grid aren't that different,

So large scale vs small scale at your home obeys the same rules including Inertial motion at individual or summary level.
Aren't we coming back by that to:  "common opinion" _{(common sense )}  from very top of my comment?

That's the wonderful thing about science because there's never a shortage of questions to be asked...
Regards
AC

Wesley

[onepower]

stivep
I prefer Richard Feynman's take on the matter...
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, 'Is it reasonable?'". I think Feynman said this because he worked with some of the most intelligent people on the planet, the real authorities, and none of them could agree on anything either. So were in good company...

This is a neat video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjm8JeDKvdc, Feynman's Father and Inertia.

However I don't believe Feynman was asking the right question in the video which should have been why does the ball remain at rest in the first place?. Here most put the cart before the horse and claim it's the conservation on energy but that's not a valid explanation of the event only a concept. The only relevant question is what's inhibiting the motion of the ball in reality, it's inertia and it has no valid explanation which holds up to scrutiny. Either the ball was influenced by something external to itself or it acted on itself.

In any case I'm happy to see we disagree, it means were making progress...

Regards
AC