If time was stopped, is inertia conserved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inertia Time
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the hypothetical scenario of stopping time and its implications for inertia. It is argued that if time were stopped, inertia would not be conserved because no changes could occur, as inertia is tied to motion and acceleration. The concept of time is linked to the change of state in systems, meaning that stopping time would prevent any physical events from happening, including the falling of bullets. Additionally, the laws of physics, including the nature of time, dictate that such a scenario is impossible, making the question largely meaningless. Overall, the conversation emphasizes that time's continuous flow is fundamental to the existence of inertia and physical events.
Mk
Messages
2,039
Reaction score
4
Ok, if I stopped time, and started it again. Would all the inertia of everything be "forgotten?" Or "remembered?" Would bullets suddenly fall to the ground from mid-air? Do you understand me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As much as I hate to admit it, I do understand you. :-p
Unfortunately, we can't stop time. If we could, I'd still be 25 years old. By relativity, all inertial frames have their own time. The only way to stop it is to travel at light speed. Since only massless particles can do that, there is no inertia to conserve. Time is more or less measured by the change of state of some system or other, so stopping it would by definition prevent any change at all from occurring. The closest that you can get is to take a picture of something. That's one instant of time frozen in place.
 
If you think about it, when you 'see' something, it's all about light hitting your eyes. So if time stopped, light would no longer travel and you would (of course, this can't happen as time's stopped for you as well) see nothing. I'm probably horrible wrong, but oh well.
 
Inertia is resistance to acceleration and its units do not include time - so what does that have to do with bullets falling to the ground?
 
Yes, if time stopped, laws of physics would indeed be violated. But this sentence is devoid of any meaning. Time not stopping IS one of the laws of nature, so it's like asking "If the Earth were flat, what would it be resting on?".
 
Falling of bullets back to the ground from mid-air is again an order of events ... whihc is titled 'time' again! ... STopping time would simply limit increase/decrease the fourth coordinate of the proposed space-time structure.Gained inertia maybe from a force or a collision , because the result of inertia is another 'set of ordered events appropriately responding to the action as per the laws of physics' , all these ordered events can perform each step of the order ONLY when the fourth coordinate time moves forward . Thus stopping time would simply restrict motion , bringing the object to a standstill.

BJ
 

Thread 'Average velocity as a weighted mean'

Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
View full post »

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »

Similar threads

About gymnastic spins (moment of inertia related)
Replies
15
Views
3K
How can I calculate the moment of inertia of any object?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Torque and Moment of Inertia of a Lever Arm
Replies
2
Views
3K
Does mass distribution affect an object's ease of rotation?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Would acceleration under water affect the person?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Would a Very Large Mass (e.g. the Moon) Fall with g?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Inertia - two objects falling
Replies
4
Views
2K
What is the maximum velocity of a bullet at the instant it leaves the barrel?
Replies
5
Views
4K
B The physics of flywheel launchers (like tennis ball shooters)
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Conservation of momentum and Moment of Inertia
Replies
3
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top