# Hypotheses on overcoming inertia and its nature

Every day we are faced with the phenomenon of inertia. Having various high-tech equipment, mankind has not learned how to overcome, at least by a small amount, the influence of inertia. This article analyzes hypotheses about the possible overcoming, elimination of inertia, as well as its nature.

First we get to the concept of inertia: inertia is a property that mass exhibits, trying to maintain its state of motion during accelerations and a change in direction of motion (as is the case with centrifugal force). Moreover, the inertia of the body grows not only with increasing mass, but also with increasing body length in space, we recall the formulas of the moment of inertia:

It can be seen from the formula that, for example, for the disk, the inertia of the disk will increase with increasing both the mass m and its radius the R . Simply put, a cylinder with a mass of 10,000 kg and a radius of 1 meter will be difficult to untwist and stop like a disk weighing 1 kg and a radius of 100 meters.

There are different opinions about the nature of inertia, which in places contradict each other. The paradox is knownMach , which states that inertia (centrifugal force) will never manifest itself for a rotating body if there are no other bodies in the Universe except this rotating body. The reality of such a paradox is supported by A. Einstein's theory of relativity . This theory also claims that the inertia of one mass will depend on the distance to other masses, and the larger this distance, the less will be the inertia of a body remote from other masses (quote: " Therefore, if I remove any mass at a sufficiently large distance from all of other masses of the Universe, the inertia of this mass should tend to zero. " p. 605" Cosmology issues and the general theory of relativity. "A. Einstein Collection of scientific papers. - M .: Nauka, 1965. - T. 1) But such experimental data are unknown that would be consistent with this point of view, and also does not seem feasible on the experience of the implementation, of the Mach paradox, of a lonely rotating body in the Universe. There are points of view that the forces of inertia do not exist at all, and this is a mathematical fiction, in our country this is known under the argument of academicians A.Yu. Ishlinsky and L.I. Sedova (in the photo below, they are just the articles touching on this dispute: here and here ).

Disputes also occurred in later times, the discussion on this subject in the Soviet scientific and technical publications of L.G. Livenson and G.K. Suslov in the years 1936-1937.

One example of a different understanding of the fictitiousness or reality of the forces of inertia can serve as these two citations of famous scientists:

A.N. Matveev, "Mechanics and Theory of Relativity" 1976:

"Are inertia forces real forces? They are real in the same sense in which the accelerations for which they are introduced are real. They are also real in a deeper sense: when considering physical phenomena, one can indicate the specific physical consequences of the action of inertia forces. For example, in a train car, inertia forces can cause injuries to passengers, i.e. to a very real and tangible result . "

N.V. Gulia "Inertia" 1982:

“All the forces of inertia are unreal forces, which are necessary for us only to facilitate certain tasks of mechanics. In no case can they be considered real forces and ascribe to them the properties and actions of physical forces. ”

Similar disputes are also found in modern times, a similar clash of two points of view about the fictitiousness or reality of inertia forces is presented in the topic of this physical forum . And yet, even among those who advocate the reality of the force of inertia and the interpretation of its physical cause - there is no general agreement. However, there are common points of contact, it says that the inertia of the body is caused by the physical medium that exists in the entire material space, which resists acceleration and a change in direction of the moving mass.
One of them argues that such a medium, which is responsible not only for inertia, but also because of the propagation of light, must have its own mass, that is, it is an elastic medium, like some ethereal hypotheses of the 19-20 centuries, an example of such a representation is views, the famous theorist of mass broadcast V.A. Atsyukovsky , in his work (The Ether-Dynamic Basics of Electromagnetism, p. 21 ), he derives the approximate mass of a particle of the ether element " amer " as kg, the number of such particles-amers in a cubic meter of space displays . To summarize such reasoning, we can say that the approach of mass ether does not reveal the reason for observing the inertia of the mass, declaring the reason itself to be mass, even if it is very small. That is, even if we assume that inertia arises due to amers, then the question arises of what causes inertia for the amers themselves since they also have mass and can rotate (forming vortices) and collide with each other? It also gives rise to other paradoxes and inconsistencies with experimental data. For example, Michelson’s well-known experience in detecting the wind of such a massive impermeable medium, the wind was not detected. As an example of one of them, we can give the moment formulas for centrifuges for ventilation losses due to the resistance of the elastic medium (static moment) and for the dynamic (inertial) moment.
Static moment, resistance to movement of an elastic (mass) medium + mechanical losses, is calculated by the formula:



 - coefficient of ventilation losses, depends on the density of the medium
 - friction moment in bearings
- angular velocity
Dynamic (inertial) moment is calculated by the formula:



Where  - moment of inertia
 - angular velocity
- acceleration time

From the formulas we see that the nature of the resistance of the elastic medium has a different nature than what we get during accelerations. An elastic medium resists quadratically, depending on the speed of rotation, that is, the greater the speed, the more “inertia” resists if we take the elastic-ether point of view, but no quadratic dependence on the speed of rotation is observed for bodies where inertia is observed. That is, we get that the elastic ether hypothesis is not able to explain such a phenomenon as inertia. Nevertheless V.A. Atsyukovsky offers ways to reduce inertia if accelerated bodies are " blown with ether ", the author suggests making such blows " by means of annihilation of ether vortices", but no explanation has been found of how to create such vortices.

Another point of view that also supports the idea of ​​the cause of inertia as a manifestation of an impermeable but massless medium is the structure of the vacuum of A. V. Rykov (from the Institute of Physics and Mathematics, RAS). The hypothesis is controversial, although and does not contradict Michelson’s well-known experiment and other experiments in which elastic, mass ether causes inconsistencies with experimental data.The hypothesis received positive reviews, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Dr. V.N. Strakhov (read his review here ) and Lecturer, Leading Scientific Researcher, RSC “Kur atovsky Institute ", one of the developers of the most powerful bomb exploded in the history of mankind Tsar bomb, YN Smirnov(I managed to talk to him personally, you can read his review here ). The hypothesis was deduced on the basis of the fact of the birth of pairs of masses of elementary particles during gamma radiation in a vacuum near an atom of a nucleus or particle, that is, all masses are born from this medium at a certain energy of 1.022 MeV and higher, as well as the fact of bias currents in vacuum, the presence of one charge (C ) for all elementary particles, regardless of mass.

In short, the medium consists of electric massless charges "+" and "-" and magnetic flux between them. During motion, known mass particles and antiparticles move along these charges, thereby acquiring a wavy motion, the wavelength of which is calculated by the de Broglie formula :



The magnetic flux resists the acceleration of particles and a change in the direction of motion of the particles, does not immediately allow the particles to jump from one amplitude of motion in the charge lattice to another, or to make an instant rotation in this lattice.

The author of the theory denies quarks (by the way, quarks have not been obtained in a free state) considers the neutron to be composed of an electron and a proton. Neutrino, considers massless a kind of magnetoelectric radiation (not electromagnetic) whose frequency exceedsHz, it calculates the speed of gravity 3576,055 times higher than the speed of light, does not consider that time rises in a black hole, but the non-propagation of light in it, interprets it as the absence of a medium for it, by analogy as a vacuum does not have a medium for sound propagation. For quarks, neutrinos and the calculation of the speed of gravity with the help of advanced Michelson installations, which in these calculations is equal to the speed of light (the reliability of this experiment is controversial in the scientific community), Nobel Prizes have been received.

Rykov's hypothesis offers ideas on overcoming inertia, hypothetically, gamma radiation deforms the medium responsible for inertia and reduces its value. The video simplifies the following experience:

A simplified video is a free interpretation of the author’s ideas as read in his book, the video was made without the consent of the author, while the article was being written, the author of the hypothesis died.

A few explanations to the video: around the body on which we observe the phenomenon of inertia under normal conditions, a “cocoon” was created from gamma rays of a certain energy, the author pointed out the probability of observing the effect of a decrease in the inertia from the choice of the frequency of gamma radiation. A hypothesis has also been put forward about a decrease in inertia using an alternating magnetic field and rotational accelerations.

A more detailed description with formulas by the author of such assumptions is in his book “Vacuum and Substance of the Universe”, chapter “Possible Practical Technologies”, p. 136 .

I made a film in which Rykov’s hypothesis about the structure of the environment of the Universe and the history of views on such a question are considered, in 2011, at the Lennauchfilm film studio.

Gazeta.ru wrote about the film as a blatant example of pseudoscience, however, while seriously distorting the statements made in the film:

1) Anatoly Rykov’s idea of ​​the structure of vacuum is incorrectly indicated:
“The structure of vacuum is a crystal lattice of elementary particles interconnected by electricity. ”
The film says that the structure of vacuum is massless on the contrary, and this is a very important feature of this theory.

2) The information given in the film is incorrectly presented:
"the vectors of electric and magnetic fields (" magnetic "fluxes) in the vacuum crystal were parallel, and not perpendicular to each other."
This is not mentioned at all and is not shown in the film.

3) "The film" The structure of the vacuum "... caused a lot of angry responses in the scientific community" - not quite so, part of the scientific community approved the film approvingly, and part of the scientific community was "angry."

4) The degree of the sciences of the scientist whose hypothesis is considered in the film is distorted: "This twenty-minute video was devoted to the hypothesis of a candidate of sciences from the Institute of Earth Physics."
The candidate of physical and mathematical sciences is correct.

After a resonance in the media, I became a laureate of the youth prize of the St. Petersburg government for popular science films.

You can’t get around the popular Higgs field here . According to this hypothesis, there is an all-pervasive Higgs vacuum field, and when mass accelerates, this field creates mass inertia. More details about this hypothesis can be found here , here (articles by I.P. Ivanov ) and here (article by E.E. Boos and others). The hypothesis of Peter Higgs, about the all-pervasive field that generates inertia, recalls the statement of Henri Poincaré : “Inertia is possessed not by matter, but by ether; he alone is resisting movement. ” Higgs' ether alone is not luminiferous. In the Higgs hypothesis, it is not seen how this field affects the mass when changing the direction of motionwhen inertia also appears. Also, there have been no hypotheses consistent with the Higgs mechanism about the possibility of overcoming inertia.

Various semi-mystical descriptions about flying saucers overcoming inertial resistance on Tesla’s supposedly secret knowledge are also quite widespread , but in these writings, in my opinion, various physical terms are almost randomly chosen, that is, it is extremely incorrect.

There are also articles in various sources, and even in serious publications such as letters to the ZhTF , in which it is alleged that the installation has been created (for example, the installation: J. Serla, V.S. Grebennikova, V.V. Roshchina and S.M. Godin) on which the testers achieved unprecedented effects in reducing inertia / gravity / weight, but then for some reason the installation was lost, a new one, repeating the achieved effects, for some reason fails / failed to do, there are only a few witnesses of such unprecedented effects, and documentary evidence look unconvincing, suggesting bluffing.

The ability to overcome inertia is important for the fulfillment of mankind's old dreams of interstellar travel, then even if humanity learns to get high speeds of movement, one of the negative factors that inhibits such movements can be very strong overloads that arise due to inertia that affect the material of the spacecraft and its passengers.

Resources from which the images were used:

1. Explain the purpose of seat belts in the car
2. The moment of inertia
3. Alexander Yulievich Ishlinsky