Inertia is directly proportional to mass

AI Thread Summary
Inertia is fundamentally a property of mass, while Frank argues it relates to charge. The discussion centers on conducting an experiment to demonstrate this, with questions about how to manipulate electron charge in materials. Suggestions include using a vacuum for adding or stripping electrons and employing gas to sustain charge. The conversation highlights a misunderstanding of inertia, emphasizing the need to differentiate it from momentum. Overall, the debate reflects a mix of scientific concepts and misconceptions regarding the relationship between mass and charge.
H8wm4m
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
I say inertia is directly proportional to mass
Frank says inertia is directly proportional to charge

Of course we alll know I am right, but I would like to prove Frank wrong anyways. Instead of going to wikipedia and laughing in his face, (as is standard procedure) I would like to conduct an experiment.

Im not too keen on this science business, but I assume this would involve stripping a body of electrons, leaving an overall posotive charge; or adding electrons to a body, giving it a negative charge

In short, these are the questions I need answering:
How would I add electrons to matter
How would I strip electrons from matter
How would I sustain this charge
How would I measure inertia
What sort of material should I use

Im not asking if this is worth my time, I am asking how I would do it
 
Physics news on Phys.org
this is so ludicrous. inertia is a property of mass, plain and simple. you don't need wikipedia, you need an 8th grade science book.
 
Right - it isn't a property of mass, it is mass.

This idea about testing charge vs inertia is just trivial. Particle accelerators fire charged particles all the time and the behavior is well documented an understood.

And by the way, the net charge of a regular molecule is zero, so it would have no inertia by that logic. This is just gibberish.
 
Last edited:
You add electrons to something by bombarding it with electrons. The mean free path of a electron in air is very short so this is usually done in a vacuum. You can strip electrons from something by placing it in a strong electric field, heating in an electric field, bombarding it with positive ions (like argon+), etc... All these are performed in a vacuum (~10-6 Torr). I would definitely use a gas. The ions you make will self-sustain if the charged species doesn't decompose spontaneously. Another good reason to use a gas...

You should start by reviewing the difference between inertia and momentum.

Are you two arguing about the curved path an ion takes in a magnetic field?

(mass spec problem?)
 
Last edited:
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...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top