[foonlesse]

Neither and yet all Zarkov.

In what way is inertia equivalent to friction (if that's what you were replying to)?

[Muesrasrs]

Oh sorry, I didnt realise we were meant to be serious.

[ergyuu]

oh I am very serious, I am a very serious person.

Thanks for all your comments..... however I think this thread needs to develop a bit before I enter again

[gennnniiikk]

oh I am very serious, I am a very serious person.

Thanks for all your comments..... however I think this thread needs to develop a bit before I enter again

Absolutely Zarkov. Your time is much too valuable to waste on the ungrateful ignoramuses here.

[Keendwainge]

oh I am very serious, I am a very serious person.

Thanks for all your comments..... however I think this thread needs to develop a bit before I enter again

Can I make a suggestion then Zarkov, you have a forum of your own, why not start a thread there and allow access to people to answer questions/

[LoisCampon]

What causes Inertia? Mass.
Mass warps space/time causing gravity.
Light has no mass, yet it does by a very very small amount warp space/time due to its momentum.
So is there any similarity between Inertia, gravity and momentum?

Maybe our knowledge of one or the three is not yet complete.

[AbeldeldepBug]

What causes Inertia? Mass.

Moreover, inertia is a property of mass

[imictiorume]

Moreover, inertia is a property of mass

Or possibilly the space/time curvature caused by the mass, and as a result gravity.

[vodaPlaps]

If no force is acting on a body, it is in an inertial frame of reference. Best test, I guess, is whether you can feel any acceleration. If no, inertial?

[TriammaMade]

> Moreover, inertia is a property of mass

That's an interesting distinction. Could inertia be the definition of mass? The mass of a subatomic particle is defined by its inertia at zero velocity, rather than by any other measured property such as gravitational attraction.

The science fiction author E.E. Smith in "Triplanetary" has an interesting take on inertia in:

"... purely theoretical possibilities such as the neutralisation of the inertia of matter." "Hold on!. Inertia is - must be - a basic attribute of matter, and surely can't be done away with without destroying the matter itself." "If you will tell me what matter is, fundamentally, I may agree with you. No? Well, then, don't be surprised at anything that happens".

The above was written in 1948, and science has moved on quite a bit since then. For instance we no longer expect seal-shaped humanoids to be swimming in the oceans of Venus. Now we know what mass is. And inertia really is a basic attribute of matter that can't be done away with without destroying the matter itself.

[BoBoMasterDesign]

Is inertia a figment of the imagination ?

suspend a weight on a string... no friction
even the smallest force will be detected

place an object in space with no magnetic/electric fields.... and it will do the same

Now no object in the Universe is stationary.... so that removes half the definition

Inertia is an anthropogenic resistance concept here on Earth... and only because of gravity/friction

OK ?

[etdgxcnc]

suspend a weight on a string... no friction well whatever the string is tied to there will be friction. plus the weight of the string adds to the weight on the string.

[SingleMan]

You seem to have left out a few steps between:

"even the smallest force will be detected"

and

"Inertia is an anthropogenic resistance concept here on Earth... and only because of gravity/friction"

OK ?

[h0ldem]

Is inertia a figment of the imagination ?

suspend a weight on a string... no friction
even the smallest force will be detected

place an object in space with no magnetic/electric fields.... and it will do the same

Now no object in the Universe is stationary.... so that removes half the definition

Inertia is an anthropogenic resistance concept here on Earth... and only because of gravity/friction

OK ?

I think this falls into the category of "Not Even Wrong". If something has mass, it has inertia, no matter where it is.Application of a force is required to change its state of motion. IMO

[Promalada]

please expand

[ddwayspd]

Also

"even the smallest force will be detected"

is not true.

In fact:

Smallest force that will be detected = mass x smallest accelleration that can be detected

[payporanymn]

please expand you're telling this story.

[extessarere]

Application of a force is required to change its state of motion. IMO I agree... but one would expect that
add force, change position/state etc

[GreefeWrereon]

stop spelling acceleration wrong rev.

;-)

[Liskaspexia]

you're telling this story. I have told my story, please criticise

establishment has told its story.... very confused IMO..... and contorted