Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Inertia of the soul

Inertia of the soul - Physics Forum

Inertia of the soul - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-22-2004, 04:38 PM
SDR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inertia of the soul



No, sorry: Inertia is not caused
by mass having a soul. And not even if
Jesus told you so.

S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-22-2004, 05:05 PM
Volker Hetzer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inertia of the soul


"SDR" <[Only registered users see links. ]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:58087ec7.0404220838.11e415b5@posting.google.c om...
Just out of curiosity, *what* does cause the inertia in mass?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-22-2004, 11:58 PM
eddie jw
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inertia of the soul

> > No, sorry: Inertia is not caused

A (light) wave stuck in an inward spiral? You can see it on sea shells.

eddie



Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-23-2004, 12:11 AM
SDR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inertia of the soul

"Volker Hetzer" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<c68u00$77l$[Only registered users see links. ]>...

It is the inevitable consequence of the nature
of the universe. Soon I shall give you an answer
which should leave no doubt whatever of this.
(Although I have already spoken about this here
I am now editing the solution in context so that
everyone, regardless of his/her background, may
be able to easily see it as if with one's own eyes.)

S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-23-2004, 06:21 AM
Ralph Hertle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inertia of the soul

Volker:

Volker Hetzer wrote:

[snip]
[snip]

Simply, the inertia of an object is a property of the object. The term
identifies the amounts of force needed to cause a certain acceleration
of an object relative to a second standard object. That force is a
measure of the mass of the object when measured under controlled
conditions, i.e., by means of a laboratory balance.

By way of a general explanation a physical object is an existent in the
universe. The universe is a continuing plurality of existents, and each
existent has several properties. These properties are the substance of
the object, its mass, composition, the potential of becoming what the
object can become according to its properties, and the relationships to
other existents. Other, properties, i.e., temperature, may exist, and
they are not relevant to this discussion.

One of the properties the object has, in the instantaneous sense, is its
location. Other objects also have locations, and these locations are,
for the purposes of this discussion, separate. Two objects cannot
simultaneously exist in the same time, place, and respect (paraphrased,
from Aristotle). A relationship of locations, sizes and distances may be
established.

It may be found that one object may be changing in location in respect
of another object's location that may be selected as a standard
reference. We can say that object one is in dimensional motion with
regard to the second, or standard, object, which may be considered to be
stationary. The second object is simply named as the stationary object,
and all changes of locations, changes of linear distances and angular
rotations of the first object are identified in a relationship to the
second standard object's location.

Accordingly, time may be defined as the ratio of dimensional or angular
motions of two separate objects, and the ratio is stated as a
mathematical value. For example, an object may travel a straight line
distance of one kilometer in one complete rotation of the Earth. Its
velocity is 1Km/1day. Time in physical reality is a relationship of
physical existents that have specific properties. In the realm of ideas
time may be defined using mathematical ratios, and, and a scientific
context, those ratios may be measurements of the dimensional or
rotational motions of actual physical objects.

The stationary object is stationary by definition, and the moving object
is discovered to have a change of location. The moving object also has
mass. Mass is the amount of the substance of an existent, and mass is
measured as a ratio of the amount of one object to the amount of the
second object. Density has nothing to do with mass, except that in the
context of the chemistry of the object, there are, for example, atomic
causes of density. Mass is a simple concept of the amount of the
substance of an object or the quantity of its material.

The force required to change or stop the motion of the first object in a
certain time, and to make it stationary with respect to the second and
stationary object is given a numerical value. That force is the measure
of the amount of substance of the first object or of its mass.

Similarly, the force required to change or to accelerate the motion of
the second (was stationary) object in a certain selected amount of time,
and to give it the same rate of change of location as the first moving
object, is given a numerical value. That force is the measure of the
amount of substance of the second object or of its mass.

The ratio of the two forces given number is equal to the mathematical
ratio of the masses of the objects. To validate or demonstrate the
principle of forces operating in selected amounts of time on substances
an experiment would be done outside the effects of gravity, or the
experimental design would make the acceleration forces of gravity or
mutual attraction irrelevant.

Technically speaking, there is no such thing as inertia for existents in
the universe. The fundamental properties of existents is substance,
location, relationships of locations, and the amounts of energy that is
needed to be expended to cause a change of the location, or a change of
the rate of change of location, which is the measure of the substance or
mass of the existent.

Inertia is a synonym for a certain mathematical identity that measures
the amount of mass, and also the force that is applied to the mass of an
object in a selected amount of time.

Measurements are ratios of the properties and relationships of physical
existents, and the measurements are defined as mathematical quantities
within identities. Inertia is a measure of force, however, if the terms,
F, M, A, T, are used in the simplest terms in an equation the term,
inertia, is not necessary.

Inertia, generally speaking, is a measurement of the continuing mass
property of an object, and of the amount of force necessary to cause a
specific change of location of the certain object, or to change the rate
of change of the object, in a certain amount of time. Depending on the
context or the purpose of the identity, the concept of inertia may be
used to either identify the mass of the object or its equal numerical
quantity in terms of the force of acceleration applied to the object.
Standard objects, locations and time are the necessary context for all
definitions and measurements of mass, location, velocity, time, and force.

Now, to answer your question. There is no "inertia in mass".

Inertia is the measurement of the amount of mass in the context of a
force of acceleration. In another contextual sense inertia is the amount
of mass that has the property of continued dimensional motion and that
may be resisted by a certain force and duration of acceleration.

That's more philosophy of science than science, and a scientist would
provide the proper formulas that identify the relationships and amounts
of the certain properties of the existents being discussed. The
mathematical formulas would demonstrate and illustrate the broad
conceptual identifications of the properties of the existents, and would
provide a means of discovering still other properties of the existents
being studied.

Ralph Hertle

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-23-2004, 11:58 AM
SDR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inertia of the soul

Ralph Hertle <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...

I think what Mr. Hetzer wanted to know was something
rather simple: Why is it an astronaut can wave about
an inflated balloon but he can't do the same with a
ton of steel... and not even if he's well-anchored?
This simple question begs an equally simple answer.*

S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]

*And Newton already provided it... even though Newton
(at the time) could not have realized he had done this.
So he was forced to leave the explanation for inertia,
simple as it is, undefined.

RE:

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-23-2004, 04:26 PM
Volker Hetzer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inertia of the soul


"Ralph Hertle" <[Only registered users see links. ]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
Ok, I understood that inertia and mass are more or less the same.
Now, to rephrase my question:
Why does matter resist a force?
Or, rather why do forces exist? (I assume you can't have a force without a resistance.)
Or, why do objects have mass?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-23-2004, 05:17 PM
Ralph Hertle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inertia of the soul

S D Rodrian:


SDR wrote:


Why don't you let Mr. Hetzer speak for himself?
I think that he asked a clearly stated question.

His question used the concept "cause". Now that is a hugely important
question in science. Actually, his question could break down into two
separate and hierarchical questions: for example: What is the cause of
mass?, and secondly, What is the cause of inertia?


Mr. Hetzer DID NOT write regarding balloons. That is your lie.

A one ton inflated balloon may be not too easy to wave about, either.

If you know the proper scientific "simple answer" to Mr. Hetzer's and
your own questions please post that answer for all to read.

Ralph Hertle

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-23-2004, 06:49 PM
Ralph Hertle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inertia of the soul

Volker Hetzer wrote:


[snip]

[snip]

Now you are getting your act together insofar as asking questions.
Questions are the indicator of intelligence, and they are the hallmark
of craftsmanship of science.

These are excellent questions.

There are two general principles that are most commonly omitted by
scientists, and that is sometimes due to a lack of knowledge of the
basics of existence, due to wrong premises say due to a substitution of
mysticism for facts, or due to an intention to obfuscate or corrupt the
knowledge of others and substitute some other philosophical point of
view (attacks on Newton, Euclid, and Aristotle, for example).

One principle is that it should always be granted that the universe
exists continually. It simply isn't going to be either switched on or off.

The second principle is that the existents of the universe also exist,
and that their particular properties, and potentials for change, also
continue to exist, however, the changes result according to the
properties of the particular existents being referred to.



[ 1.] "Why does matter resist a force?"

I won't give a complete answer, here, due to my lack of time. I will
say, however, that the continuation of the "matter", or the particular
object that has the property of matter, for purposes of discussion, is
the key concept.

[ 2.] "Why do forces exist?"

Nor will I answer that one. The definitions of force, and of the several
possible types of forces, must be stated and proved. Knowledge of forces
at the chemical and sub-atomic level is still in its infancy. For all
that I know I suspect that even more new concepts will need to be
discovered, identified, defined, proved, and demonstrated. The ordinary
mechanical forces are those that do not necessarily require the
destruction of the object for our understanding, and they are more
directly perceptible. Identical steel ball pendulums offer a way to see
the effects of the continued properties of the mass objects. We can see
that the property of dimensional motion is transfered via physical
contact from one ball to the other. If a ball in dimensional motion
strikes another ball the property of the motion of the one is transfered
to the other. One ball slows and the other ball is accelerated to the
velocity of the first. Less heat and other losses. The concept of the
continuity of the properties of the matter, the quantity of the
dimensional motion, for example, and of the existence of the matter,
must be all conserved.

[ 3.] "why do objects have mass?"

I can't answer that in the time I have. Existents in the universe all
exist when they are all considered together. Nothing is ever lost or
ceases to exist, and the forms of the existents and some of their
properties may change according to the natures of the existents. Objects
exist - that is an axiomatic concept of physics. The existents have
properties, i.e., location, that is that they exist where they exist,
and they have the property of amount, that is, some are more, and some
are less of what they are. They have specific natures, properties,
potentials for change, sizes, dimensional relationships, and other
properties. Objects have mass because they exist, and because they exist
having amounts of their substance. This concept is so simple and
fundamental that it is too often ignored. Everything in the universe
exists and continues to exist. Everything in the universe exists having
substance and properties of the substance, and after location, there is
amount. All other properties follow. Mass is the amount of the substance
of the object.

Note that elastic transference of dimensional motion also requires the
integration of the concept of the dimensional size of the object in a
specified duration of time. Strength is still another property.

The relationships of mass and energy are for another discussion. In the
above paragraph, when I referred to mass, I meant all that a thing is,
including, its atoms, lost neutrons, photons, and stored gravitons, for
example. Just everything, including the amount quantity of the dynamic
processes of the constituent parts of the object that may be entering
and exiting the object, i.e., photons and gravitons.

Most generally, the conservation of energy and matter involved for all
particular existents, and the transactions or changes in the universe,
is one of the most fundamental and irrevocable identifications, or laws,
of the universe. The primary identification of the universe is that
everything exists, and that the universe is a continuing plurality of
existents that each have properties and potentials of change according
to their properties.

Ralph Hertle

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-24-2004, 01:26 AM
SDR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inertia of the soul

Ralph Hertle <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...

Ass-kissing done with, we are now going to get to the nitty-gritty.


Fidel Castro often begins his speeches with exactly
these same words. It just means, "Everybody sit down."


This means, "If you see the universe vanish, you are in
the wrong universe. Push the next button."


This means, "If what exists does not exist,
you are in big trouble. Think of a good lie right away."


This means, "The universe is full of stuff
and this stuff we can describe (because it's us
that gave them names already)."

But do go on. I a patient person am.


This is a lie, the truth is he hasn't the foggiest...
But most people lie about being horridly ignorant
(it's an eternally endearing human quality). Go on.


This means, "The important thing is the thing," or maybe:
"If the universe doesn't exist, forget the whole thing."


One honest answer finally without trying to
say he knows the answer but will not say it.


This means, "Look it up."


And so too infants themselves!


This means, "I know nothing! Nothing!"
I expect Col. Klink to show up any minute now.


This means, "I've never heard of gluons or quarks and
those things" but he probably knows how to play pool.


This means, "If I had the time to bag the universe
I'd give you the bag and the answer is bound to be
in there somewhere."


This is just a dumb old joke expressed differently.
It sounds funnier in Spanish: "Todo existe junto."


This person is looking for his car keys and thinks
his wife has hidden them. Poor woman!


This means, "If something doesn't exist, it can't
have a color, a shape, or" (but it can apparently smell).


NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEPLACE!!!
But are you sure of this?!?! What about the Cheshire Cat?


See, told ya: Ya can't have something existing
without it having the qualities of existence!!!!
Although his statement sounds a bit like a bank
teller trying to confess "something."


Now you're just trying to be funny.


Isn't this a line from the movie A Room With A View?

mass= if a thing has color it has 1 unit of mass,
if it has a shape add another unit of mass,
etc.
this must be why everything has the same amount of mass!


Like this post.


I thought only Catholics had mass.


Now we are getting somewhere:
This means, "If you have an object you have mass."
Weren't we talking about inertia...?


This either means, "I never heard of the ElectroMagnetic force"
or "A straw has more mass than a rubber band." Truth/Lie


This means, "What the heck could it be?!"


This means, "If you're thinking of cheating on the mass
of your dirty underwears: FORGET IT."


This means, "There might be a magic aspect to
the existence of mass--maybe some quick-handed magician
is shifting his bass in & out of the equation... if you get
my meaning." Now show me a graviton, please.


This is what "energy can not be created or destroyed"
must sound like to the brain-damaged or otherwise insane.


This means, "Everything that exists in the universe
exists." Jesus, I'm starting to sound like this fellow!


"Lotta stuff in the universe."


"They're probably many different things."


Thank you, Ralph Hertle. If you're not a resident of
an asylum, your text was very humorous indeed.

However, do we really know even the least littlest bit
more about the nature of inertia after Mr. Hertle's many
humorous comments?

I shall re-rephrase Mr. Hetzer's question yet again
for you Mr. Hertle (damn these names are confusing):

How does a ton (of anything) KNOW it has the inertia
of exactly a ton?... If you want to forget the balloon.

How does a ton of "mass/matter" floating in outer space
KNOW it is exactly a ton, and not an ounce or a 1,000 tons?

Here on earth a ton of whathaveyou doesn't have to know
because WE TELL IT SO by measuring upon a scale.

BUT... "out there" in outer space, untouched by
anything and everything...

How does a ton of mass/matter know exactly how much
inertia it should have?

A nail in a piece of wood doesn't need to be told
that it can only be pulled out with a great deal of force
and even with a hammer.

Surely our friend the ton of stuff is not hanging on to
any humongous piece of wood... requiring a great deal
of force to move it (and maybe even a hammer).

So how does the ton of stuff KNOW that it should
"hang on" to the place it is (with a specific amount
of tenacity)... even though it's floating in space
and not touching anything at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seems a simple question. And there's a very simple
answer (if you know it). Mister Newton knew it
even though he didn't know he knew, do you Mr. Hertle?

S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
inertia , soul


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
About Gravity, Inertia and Mass Laurent Physics Forum 0 10-27-2007 01:44 PM
About Gravity, Inertia and Mass Laurent Physics Forum 0 10-27-2007 01:44 PM
Is ZPF Inertia a "semiclassical Gravity" theory? George Hammond Physics Forum 8 09-10-2005 04:00 AM
21st Century Dynamics Donald G. Shead Physics Forum 5 08-14-2003 11:43 PM
Inertia Donald G. Shead Physics Forum 10 07-17-2003 01:41 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.23700 seconds with 16 queries