One issue in modern physics regards an acceptable mathematical definition for inertia. Commonly, the idea of inertia is taken to mean resistance to motion change and in this regard inertia is sometimes conflated with mass. In both Newtonian mechanics and Special relativity an inertial reference is taken to mean a body with no reaction forces applied to it (or the resultant of all force vectors equals zero). The lack of an equation explaining inertia has been something of a puzzle in physics which I hope to put to rest here. At the very least I will provide a new way to understand what inertial means, in a very simplistic and already well understood mathematical way. Often, it is understood that asides from mass, inertia does not have a successfully corresponding measure. Perhaps, in part, this is due to the historical conflation of mass and weight. For, I find, if we turn to the equation for weight W=m.g , then a mathematical description of inertia is possible. To explain. Firstly, when describing inertia, what must be included is the contribution of mass to something inertial. Lastly, the contribution of force must show. This will also show that mass alone says nothing about inertia. Remember, something inertial will have zero resultant forces applied to it. Therefore F=0, and where m.g= F, m.g=0 So, the inertial quality of a body can be defined mathematically as m.g=0. In simple terms this means that to be inertial is to be weightless. We know that something weightless can have positive mass. In short, to calculate whether something is inertial, you have to throw in the resultant forces applied as a product with the mass, and this product must equal zero. :)
Posted on: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:59:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015