Negative inertia

[sciman55]

I know that an object with inertia would resist acceleration; while an object with zero mass would not resist acceleration. Would an object with negative mass cause acceleration (accelerate without force)?

 

Please do not say that negative inertia would make an object come towards a push (and away from a pull). I have read about that several hundred times already. Just answer whether negative inertia would cause acceleration and if not, give another explanation.

[arkain101]

I dont think that inertia is necessaraly a force. but rather a name for a phenomina not very well understood.

 

So what I mean is, negetive inertia is no longer inertia in the definition of the word.

 

The opposite of inertia I suppose would be massless action, such as like light.

[InfiniteNow]

Inertia is a resistance to change.

 

Perchance negative inertia would be an inclination toward change.

 

Just a thought without attack, since you're clearly frustrated with the condenscending humor of others when you ask this.

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[sciman55]

Inertia is a resistance to change.

 

Perchance negative inertia would be an inclination toward change.

 

Just a thought without attack, since you're clearly frustrated with the condenscending humor of others when you ask this.

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

 

 

I like your answer alot. I like it better than what I expected. Just one question though;

 

If acceleration is proportional to force, and negative inertia is the inclination towards change, would negative inertia be proportional to the acceleration of the object and if so, would negative inertia accelerate when a force is applied? Also, how would an object accelerate when it as negative inertia when a force is applied?

 

Once again, do not tell me that it would accelerate in the opposite dorection of the force.

[arkain101]

it would accelerate in the opposite dorection of the force.

[ronthepon]

Negative inertia. In my opinion this is a concept which is not physically defined yet. So its-like-up to us to imagine how its gonna be.

 

Theoretically: F=ma :Newton's equation giving what things should be.

As you know, If F (force) and a acceleration are vectors.

But mass? Mass is not a vector (yet). And mass is the newtonian representative of linear motion inertia. So if we consider one dimensional motion, mass can't be negative.

And if it does become (somehow) we will get the result you are bored of: acceleration opposite to force.

 

But as we all know, newtonian mechanics is outdated. So lets just guess what negative mass is. If we want to do so, we gotta know what mass is in the first case.

 

SO WHAT IS MASS?

 

Claim1: Tendency of an object to oppose change in motion.

 

Result: Negative mass will bring about spontaneous motion(Prohibited by hundreds of theories already in existence) Or the acc opposite to force thing.

 

 

Claim2: Something to do with the higgs boson

 

Result: Thats for you to fill up as I have no idea what is happening in this feild of research:confused:

[InfiniteNow]

I like your answer alot. I like it better than what I expected. Just one question though;

Considering the above, maybe negative inertia IS force. :naughty:

 

 

Just because you cannot see it does not mean it doesn't exist. :evil:

[arkain101]

Negative inertia. In my opinion this is a concept which is not physically defined yet. So its-like-up to us to imagine how its gonna be.

 

Theoretically: F=ma :Newton's equation giving what things should be.

As you know, If F (force) and a acceleration are vectors.

But mass? Mass is not a vector (yet). And mass is the newtonian representative of linear motion inertia. So if we consider one dimensional motion, mass can't be negative.

And if it does become (somehow) we will get the result you are bored of: acceleration opposite to force.

 

But as we all know, newtonian mechanics is outdated. So lets just guess what negative mass is. If we want to do so, we gotta know what mass is in the first case.

 

SO WHAT IS MASS?

 

Claim1: Tendency of an object to oppose change in motion.

 

Result: Negative mass will bring about spontaneous motion(Prohibited by hundreds of theories already in existence) Or the acc opposite to force thing.

 

 

Claim2: Something to do with the higgs boson

 

Result: Thats for you to fill up as I have no idea what is happening in this feild of research:lol:

 

I enjoyed the observations and points made in this post. It is true, motion has a 1 dimensional capability. An accelerating rocket can turn but it is only turned by a series of 1 dimensional motions. Inertia is tied to motion. I knew this already but had not thought about the 1 dimension point you made.

[sciman55]

Negative inertia. In my opinion this is a concept which is not physically defined yet. So its-like-up to us to imagine how its gonna be.

 

Theoretically: F=ma :Newton's equation giving what things should be.

As you know, If F (force) and a acceleration are vectors.

But mass? Mass is not a vector (yet). And mass is the newtonian representative of linear motion inertia. So if we consider one dimensional motion, mass can't be negative.

And if it does become (somehow) we will get the result you are bored of: acceleration opposite to force.

 

But as we all know, newtonian mechanics is outdated. So lets just guess what negative mass is. If we want to do so, we gotta know what mass is in the first case.

 

SO WHAT IS MASS?

 

Claim1: Tendency of an object to oppose change in motion.

 

Result: Negative mass will bring about spontaneous motion(Prohibited by hundreds of theories already in existence) Or the acc opposite to force thing.

 

 

Claim2: Something to do with the higgs boson

 

Result: Thats for you to fill up as I have no idea what is happening in this feild of research:confused:

 

 

What does spontaneous motion mean, exactly?

[Farsight]

Gravity is thought of as negative energy:

 

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/kaku.asp

 

Mass deforms spacetime. Like a bowling ball depresses a trampoline, whereupon a flicked marble travels a curved course and orbits the bowling ball. A negative mass would deform spacetime to make a peak rather than a depression, and the result would be repulsion and antigravity, which would be thought of as positive energy. You probably wouldn't be able to see it, so it would be dark, and it would push the Universe apart rather than pulling it together.

[arkain101]

The bowling ball and trampoline idea is an okay example. It does not delve into the complexity though. It is basic topology imagery.

 

Curve space-time is different.

 

If the world was flat (true 2d flat) and thin and continually repeated itself to the beginning once you got to the end and you were to throw a ball strait out what would happen to it? It would travel in a strait line, pulled by the mass infront of it and pulled by the mass behind it and almost no pull towards the ground.

 

Where as when you throw a ball on the earth it falls at a curve constant. The only way to stop it from falling is to get it going fast enough, giving it energy, moving it out of time, to break the gravity curve.

 

It has to go faster to crawl out of the space time curve, and stop being affected by the curve.

 

Yet even when it stops falling, it is not traveling in a strait line. It is caught in the curve with a value of energy and time in respect to it. Newtons law that a body in motion will continue in a strait line untill affected by an outside force is what the ball is doing, but its doing it in curved space-time, so we see it orbiting but its actually going strait in curved space.

 

In flat space-time an object travels strait when its in a strait line. It covers distance instead of covering cycles around the curve. It resists to take a curved path and freely takes a strait path. Where as an object in curved space-time refuses to take a strait path and freely takes a curved path.

 

Flat space-time is where inertia becomes a product.

Curved space-time on the other hand is what I suppose you could say is where negetive inertia becomes a product. However the two can mingle as one at the same moment. The result is objects presenting their own force to another (a gravity force) and objects refusing to curve in space and in time. Inertia and gravity.

But when objects get out of the curve of space-time they stop acting forceful they fall into newtons law and continue in a flat space-time line.

[arkain101]

I found out how to write an equation that contains negetive inertia.

 

Its a non-absolute equation (if there is such a thing) for a non-absolute universe.

 

It shows motions action in math.

 

I is inertia.

 

Where there is red, it states that term for that object is excluded, because it is not viewed in the relative observation.

 

Mass is shown to be relative and a have a unbreakable relationship. The relationship also has in it what we call the act of gravity.

 

Observation frame a: (-I1) + (V*M) = (-M2*V) + (I)

 

Which then can derive into,

(-I)/-I + (V*M)/(-M*V) = (-M*V)/(-M*V) + (I) / (-I)

 

then, its opposite,

 

Observation frame b: (I) + (-V*M1) = (M*V) + (-I2)

 

The equation shows a picture of motion with numbers and is dualistic and relative. It needs -I to show the inverse capability. Negetive inertia is not inertia so we cant 'use' it in the equation. Same with negetive mass, it cant be 'used' and gets excluded.

 

Objects that move together to collide are (object1)M*V=I(object2) saying that two objects that hit, will explain the inertia and mass of objects. Since mass does not exist. It cant, alone, as one fundamental self, in the sense that no calculations will occur. Nothing happens untill 'things' move. So Mass IS relative interactions of things governed by this law.

 

Where can this apply?. When you spin in a circle, you can make the universe spin around your head. How does this happen? Mass is relative, the mass of the universe is you and the mass of you becomes all of the universe.

 

Why apply this? This is what gives matter, mass its MASS. Non absolute (product of infinity realm) universe.

[ronthepon]

What does spontaneous motion mean, exactly?

Kinda like motion on it's own, without external force.

[ronthepon]

I found out how to write an equation that contains negetive inertia.

 

Its a non-absolute equation (if there is such a thing) for a non-absolute universe.

 

It shows motions action in math.

 

I is inertia.

 

Where there is red, it states that term for that object is excluded, because it is not viewed in the relative observation.

 

Mass is shown to be relative and a have a unbreakable relationship. The relationship also has in it what we call the act of gravity.

 

Observation frame a: (-I1) + (V*M) = (-M2*V) + (I)

 

Which then can derive into,

(-I)/-I + (V*M)/(-M*V) = (-M*V)/(-M*V) + (I) / (-I)

 

then, its opposite,

 

Observation frame b: (I) + (-V*M1) = (M*V) + (-I2)

 

The equation shows a picture of motion with numbers and is dualistic and relative. It needs -I to show the inverse capability. Negetive inertia is not inertia so we cant 'use' it in the equation. Same with negetive mass, it cant be 'used' and gets excluded.

 

Objects that move together to collide are (object1)M*V=I(object2) saying that two objects that hit, will explain the inertia and mass of objects. Since mass does not exist. It cant, alone, as one fundamental self, in the sense that no calculations will occur. Nothing happens untill 'things' move. So Mass IS relative interactions of things governed by this law.

 

Where can this apply?. When you spin in a circle, you can make the universe spin around your head. How does this happen? Mass is relative, the mass of the universe is you and the mass of you becomes all of the universe.

 

Why apply this? This is what gives matter, mass its MASS. Non absolute (product of infinity realm) universe.

This does seem interesting, but I am missing the points of power. Can you please rewrite the equations, naming all symbols and explaining each step?

[arkain101]

The RED numbers are not powers. They are showing the side of the equation observation frame 1 and observation frame 2 are.

In simplifed form it looks like this.

(V*M) = (I)

and

(I) = (V*M)

However one side remains concirned with one of the two interacting 'objects'. The negetive characters are there to show the Either or possibility at the same time. Also, derivability of the equation, but they can be there as so and be dubbed (not concirned at this respect of observation.)

 

I do work better with logic and action than I do with numbers, but I'll soon do what I can.

 

I realised an application of this already. It has to do with thought, matter, and motion. However, that will also have to wait, its time to sleep.

[arkain101]

I have the time to post a bit about the appliction of this concept. It most likely belongs in the "What is a thought" topic, but I am sure it will get there.

 

We need the number two, or two reference frames, or two observation frames, or two objects for ANYTHING to happen. Imagine a fundemental partical in its own universe 100% alone. It cant be moving, it cant have anything really calculated.

 

So we can apply this to another area of consideration. THOUGHT.

 

We have two options to choose at the basics of consciousness and/or thought. Is it a pattern? or is it a creation of information!?

 

We have cells. They are made of molecules, which are made of atoms. A thought excites cells in our brain. Their can be a measured electrical current. That is to say that electrons are passing to other cells to give them energy. So we look where it originated, we can continue stepping back to the source. If is a mere chemical reaction that sets off signals around the brain than thought can be more or less considered a pattern in natures. However. If you are given a choice, you can will it in yourself what you will choose. With the evidence of ourselves it does seem logical to assume our thoughts are not patterns. So if they are not, then where does this lead us? Lets go back further now to the cell that fired the origination signal, to the molecules, to the atoms that let go of electrons. Lets find the first atom that shot the first electron in that moment of time. Lets seclude this atom and apply the notion of things needing two. If this atom is alone at this moment, what could cause it to send out an electron/recieve an electron if it did not function under a pattern? The atom alone can not BE, it can not originate the cycle of a thought, or creation of information. So at this stage of brain function, where does our conciousness 'fit' and where does the action originate. This atom, all atoms, this cell, all cells, need a second relative source for something to happen if information is created. So this would suggest, that there is a part of us, that is on the opposite side of the equation for the beginning of the thought. A part of us that can more or less make an atom fire an electron or a cell fire a current.

 

So even though this is not very well explained, we have to consider, is all that makes us be, a pattern of physics? atoms that eat to make themselves do work. Or are we capable of propelling an unbalance in the structure of space-time to cause an information creation.

 

I do wonder what breaks the seclusion of the start of a thought. No one thing can do one thing with out two.

[ughaibu]

Could things be resolved if nature consists of (at least) two differently functioning but interdependent systems superimposed on one another?