Which object has more inertia and why? The one that has more mass or

  • Thread starter Thread starter Osviux
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inertia Mass
AI Thread Summary
Inertia is directly proportional to mass, meaning that an object with more mass has greater inertia. This implies that the larger the mass, the more it resists changes to its state of motion. While the effects of inertia are well understood, the fundamental reasons behind it remain unclear. Ongoing experiments at facilities like the LHC may provide further insights into this phenomenon. Overall, the initial assumption that more mass equates to more inertia is correct.
Osviux
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Which object has more inertia and why? The one that has more mass or less mass? I am asking this because I am not sure about this, but if I had to guess I'd say that the object with more mass has more inertia because its affected less by other objects than the object with less mass, well that's mine opinion so please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


Inertia is proportional to mass.
 


So the bigger the mass the bigger inertia is? Does that mean that i am right?
 


Osviux said:
So the bigger the mass the bigger inertia is? Does that mean that i am right?

If you were to say "more" mass, you would be correct.
 


However, be aware that inertia is a phenomenon that is NOT understood with respect to it's foundation.
That is: We fully understand it's effects, but not the cause.

Perhaps the experiments at LHC and other facilities can help.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

Why does mass/energy have inertia?
Replies
22
Views
3K
How can I calculate the moment of inertia of any object?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Why is mass dependent on inertia and not vice versa?
Replies
7
Views
6K
Torque and Moment of Inertia of a Lever Arm
Replies
2
Views
3K
Does inertia have anything to do with bodies falling at the same rate?
Replies
14
Views
2K
B The physics of flywheel launchers (like tennis ball shooters)
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Is inertia the total gravitational forces of the Universe?
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Question about Momentum vs. Kinetic Energy vs. Deforming In Collisions
Replies
2
Views
2K
A thought I had about inertia, and derivatives of acceleration
Replies
1
Views
2K
Does the force applied to an object depend on its mass and velocity?
Replies
10
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top