The discussion revolves around the concept of an object with zero rotational inertia and the implications of such a scenario on its spinning behavior. Participants explore theoretical aspects of rotational inertia, the definition of spinning for point masses, and the physical meaning of inertia in relation to mass.
Participants generally disagree on the feasibility of discussing an object with zero rotational inertia, with some asserting that such a scenario is not physically meaningful. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of this concept.
Limitations include the ambiguity in the initial question and the reliance on definitions of inertia and spinning, which are not universally agreed upon in this context.
I don't understand the point of this (and most of the questions you've posted here). They usually start with a half-described situtation, then you ask what amounts to "what would happen if what we know about physics (or reality) wasn't true?". It's hard to tell if you are serious or just goofing around; if serious, what kind of answer are you expecting?Mt. Nixion said:Let's say that something is spinning and it spins in a certian direction. The object has rotational inertia. Now say that the object has no inertia. How many times will the object change its direction of rotation in under a second?
How can the spinning of a point which has no dimension be defined.DavidK said:A point mass would have no rotational inertia. However, spinning of a point is not very well defined.
vaishakh said:How can the spinning of a point which has no dimension be defined.
DavidK said:However, spinning of a point is not very well defined.