- #1
timetraveldude
- 42
- 0
Consider this thought experiment. If only one object existed in all the universe and it was moving would it have inertia?
If it was just one object, you would not be able to define movement. So the question is improper. A more interesting question is If there was one object plus yourself as observer, would both of you have inertia?timetraveldude said:Consider this thought experiment. If only one object existed in all the universe and it was moving would it have inertia?
The question is more about what is the cause of inertia.JohnDubYa said:It has inertia regardless of whether or not it was moving. Inertia is not a function of speed.
That is true but given the fact that you can't define motion does an object completely isolated have inertia?krab said:If it was just one object, you would not be able to define movement. So the question is improper. A more interesting question is If there was one object plus yourself as observer, would both of you have inertia?
Pergatory said:Inertia requires a frame of reference. If your frame of reference includes this object at rest, then the object will have no inertia in that frame. If your frame of reference has the object in motion, then the object has inertia in that frame.
The question remains does the object I described have inertia?Pergatory said:I'm sorry, you're right, for some reason I always have those two switched in my mind. The object will always have inertia regardless of whether it is in motion or not. Of course, without an understanding of our own universe, we would never know it has inertia because no external forces would act upon it. However, we know it would still have inertia because if some force WERE to suddenly act upon it, it would exert equal and opposite forces to oppose its acceleration.
timetraveldude said:The question remains does the object I described have inertia?
timetraveldude said:If your object has mass, then it has inertia, whether it is at rest or not.
If motion is not defined [for the object] how can inertia be defined?Gokul43201 said:If it has mass, it has inertia.
Stick to the topic there is nothing mentioned about dividing. Just answer the question.Gokul43201 said:If some internal reaction within the object causes it to divide into two or more parts, then the velocities of these parts (in the frame of the mother object - the bomb) is inversely related to their inertias. These parts could recombine (because they are oppositely charged ?) and re-form into the mother object, which then has velocity in the frame of one of the sub-parts.
I understand and agree with your point. What I am trying to do is build up an idea based on this hypothetical situation that will eventually have some physical meaning.Integral said:It is not clear to me that Physics, which was created to model our multi-particle universe, has anything meaningful to say about such a non physical universe. Non Physical assumptions lead to no meaningful results.
timetraveldude said:If motion is not defined [for the object] how can inertia be defined?
I'm not trying to lead you somewhere. I am trying to get a discussion going.Pergatory said:Why is motion a requisite for inertia? You said yourself that if the object has mass, it has inertia. This is the only requisite. Motion is merely a matter of the frame of reference. Inertia exists independant of a frame of reference. To say that an isolated object would not have inertia is to say that an isolated object would not have mass.
I can tell you are trying to lead us somewhere with this and not having much luck. Why don't you just come out and say what you're trying to say?
You examples do not apply. You have confused current not being present in a particular place with the non-existence of current anywhere. Resistance still exists in the wire because you could apply a current to it. As far as the second example goes that is just a stupid question. If you are not going to ask adult questions then leave.Pergatory said:If no current is going through a wire, does it still have resistance?
If a tree falls in the woods, and on one is around to hear it...
timetraveldude said:You examples do not apply. You have confused current not being present in a particular place with the non-existence of current anywhere. Resistance still exists in the wire because you could apply a current to it. As far as the second example goes that is just a stupid question. If you are not going to ask adult questions then leave.
His question makes as much sense as yours.timetraveldude said:If you are not going to ask adult questions then leave.
pallidin said:...If you have an infinite yardstick, such that both ends continue to infinity, can one mark two segments separate from each another? One might think yes, but infinity cannot be divided, thus discreet separation is not possible.
Gokul43201 said:What is the set of integers if not such a yardstick. So do you not have distict integers in this set ? Is this infinite yardstick not divided into finite segments ?
If you speak a word "universe" then it means existence of all attributes inherent in it.timetraveldude said:Consider this thought experiment. If only one object existed in all the universe and it was moving would it have inertia?
timetraveldude said:Stick to the topic there is nothing mentioned about dividing. Just answer the question.
Does this elementary particle you talk about have size?Dina-Moe Hum said:I think Timetraveldude question is not well set. The only "unique object" possible is an elementar particle. In this case the question has no sense because there could never be inertial effects. To have it, we should demonstrate that it is not adimensional and it can rotate (not the quantistic spin, of course).
All other objects are formed by more than one particle, so there can be inertial effects.
I think I would probably used the following question instead: "Given a universe with just one elementar particle, the total energy of this universe is greater than zero?" and I think the anwer is "no"
Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. It is important in our universe because it makes up everything we see and interact with, from the smallest particles to the largest celestial bodies. Matter is also essential for the existence of life as we know it.
Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist changes in its state of motion. It is directly related to matter because an object's inertia is determined by its mass, which is a measure of the amount of matter it contains. The more mass an object has, the greater its inertia.
By studying matter and inertia, scientists are able to better understand the fundamental laws of physics that govern the behavior of our universe. This knowledge allows us to make predictions about the behavior of matter and objects in motion, and has led to many advancements in technology and our understanding of the cosmos.
Yes, matter and inertia can be observed and measured through various experiments and observations. Scientists use tools such as scales, rulers, and accelerometers to measure the mass and inertia of objects. They also use advanced technologies like particle accelerators and telescopes to study matter and its behavior on a larger scale.
The concept of a "singular universe" refers to the idea that all matter and energy in the universe originated from a single point, known as the Big Bang. The study of matter and inertia helps us understand how this initial singularity gave rise to the diverse and complex universe we see today. It also helps us understand the forces and processes that continue to shape our universe and the objects within it.