Talk:Principle of inertia (physics)

Sec. 2.1 "Early understanding of motion": Momentum being caused by motion? WRONG!

I think that it must not be stated in the encyclopedia such a description that diverge from the modern physical knowledge. In classical physics there is no mention of cause at all: it is said that momentum and motion are just connected to eash other, such that they always come together. But in quantum mechanics the operator of momentum is gradient of the wave function; and according to the Schroedinger equation, the spatial motion is caused by the gradient. So actually it comes that momentum is causing motion; and Buridan said almost the same: that impetus is causing motion. I don't know any branch of physics where it would be stated that momentum is caused by motion, except the case of poorly understood beginner's textbook. Fir-tree 00:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novel?

I've shortened the "novel interpretations" section -- perhaps complete deletion would be an alternative. For the purpose of further discussion, I'll quote the removed stuff here:

A recent paper by the Swedish-American physisist Johan Masreliez proposes that the phenomenon of inertia may be explained, if the metrical coefficients in the Minkowskian line element were to change as a consequence of acceleration. A certain scale factor was found, which models inertia as a gravitational-type effect.^[1] A following paper for Physica Scripta explains how special relativity can be compatible with a cosmos with a fixed and unique cosmological reference frame^[2]. The Lorentz transformation might model "morphing" of moving particles, which might preserve their properties by changing their local spacetime geometries. With this the geometry becomes dynamic and an integral part of motion. He claims this changing geometry to be the source of inertia; it is said to generate the inertial force. If accepted, this would neatly connect special relativity with general relativity via inertia. However, although inertial frames still are physically equivalent in that the laws of physics apply equally, they do not model the same spacetime.

Another approach has been suggested by Emil Marinchev (2002)^[3]. These ideas still have a way to go before leaving protoscience.

This falls well below the notability threshold, pls also compare WP:SCIENCE. If I'm mistaken and one of these approaches has progressed to be seriously debated by multiple researches, pls enlighten me.

Pjacobi 22:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Pls see Talk:Inertia#Merge. --Pjacobi 22:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Masreliez C. J., On the origin of inertial force, Apeiron (2006)
^ Masreliez, C.J., Motion, Inertia and Special Relativity – a Novel Perspective, Physica Scripta, (Dec 2006)
^ Emil Marinchev (2002) UNIVERSALITY, i.a. a new generalized principle of inertia

[1] Masreliez C. J., On the origin of inertial force, Apeiron (2006)

[2] Masreliez, C.J., Motion, Inertia and Special Relativity – a Novel Perspective, Physica Scripta, (Dec 2006)

[3] Emil Marinchev (2002) UNIVERSALITY, i.a. a new generalized principle of inertia

[1]

[2]

[3]