[KitRittyTug]

I agree... but one would expect that
add force, change position/state etc

And that is what inertia/momentum is all about. (Gawd, how many high school problems were we set that involved some variation of m1v1=m2v2 and f=ma?)

[UncoonsKala]

I have told my story, please criticise

establishment has told its story.... very confused IMO..... and contorted

We have, now it's your turn.

[apannamma]

And that is what inertia/momentum is all about. LOL

I think there is more to it than that

[weO1bVp1]

stop spelling acceleration wrong rev.

;-)

OK then.

[NarunapyCalry]

Thanks for all your help, I must depart

[steerryGritly]

Well is Inertia a resistance, a constrained state or friction

IMO, inertia is a resistance to the particle returning to a space-like form, constrained to being a time-like particle.

[KeettyGlots]

IMO, inertia is a resistance to the particle returning to a space-like form, constrained to being a time-like particle. please explain further.

[Unlopssesuj]

please explain further.

What stops particles being entangled? The time-like nature of particles provides there separation. The time-like quantities of particles are in constant relative evolution. The space-like properties of particles shape the nature of this evolution. I could go to the extent of illustrating particle equivalency, but identifying what gives a particle form and then makes it distinct from another is still beyond me. *shrug*

[DebtDetox]

What causes Inertia? Mass.
Mass warps space/time causing gravity.
Light has no mass, yet it does by a very very small amount warp space/time due to its momentum.
So is there any similarity between Inertia, gravity and momentum?

Maybe our knowledge of one or the three is not yet complete.

[Thomas12400]

What causes Inertia? Mass.

It is my understanding that mass and inertia and not the same thing. There is a one to one relationship but there is no theoretical reason for this. An object has mass and inertia, and they are the same value, but they are different properties. One does not cause the other.

[xjNo4zvD]

It is my understanding that mass and inertia and not the same thing. There is a one to one relationship but there is no theoretical reason for this. An object has mass and inertia, and they are the same value, but they are different properties. One does not cause the other.

+1

[BqTyG9eS]

It is my understanding that mass and inertia and not the same thing. There is a one to one relationship but there is no theoretical reason for this. An object has mass and inertia, and they are the same value, but they are different properties. One does not cause the other.

+2, which means my post should have read,IMO, inertia is the tendency for a particle to return to a space-like form, while constrained to being a time-like particle. Mass is the action that retains the particular form. There may not be a whole theory that links the two, but you have to start with a hypothesis anyway, don't you?

[RogerButton33]

It is my understanding that mass and inertia and not the same thing. There is a one to one relationship but there is no theoretical reason for this. An object has mass and inertia, and they are the same value, but they are different properties. One does not cause the other.

One does not cause the other because they are the same thing. If they are not the same thing, what is the difference?

[tsaaapla]

If an electric field is found 90% to a magnetic field, wouldn't this imply that particles travel in opposition to the momentum of space? Is gravitation the rejection of particles from the flow of space?

[WebDocMan]

One does not cause the other because they are the same thing. If they are not the same thing, what is the difference?

I would say they are at least opposite sides of the same coin Rev.

[vesiasmepay]

I would say they are at least opposite sides of the same coin Rev.

In what way?

[Loolasant]

If an electric field is found 90% to a magnetic field, wouldn't this imply that particles travel in opposition to the momentum of space?

Would it?

I don't even know what that means.

Is gravitation the rejection of particles from the flow of space?

I don't know what that means either.

[c2siOlIk]

In what way?

To my reasoning, mass is the property that retains the particles form, while inertia is the property that ensures that particles return to an equilibrium. Mass is anti-inertial in this sense.

[Appenianags]

To my reasoning, mass is the property that retains the particles form, while inertia is the property that ensures that particles return to an equilibrium. Mass is anti-inertial in this sense.

Well if you are going to redefine mass and inertia they can mean whatever you would like them to mean, but it does make it a bit difficult to discuss with other people.

[ZZipZZipe]

FWIW, this is how Wikipedia defines mass:

"In physics, mass (from Greek μᾶζα "barley cake, lump (of dough)"), more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to acceleration. In addition to this, gravitational mass can be described as a measure of magnitude of the gravitational force which is
1.exerted by an object (active gravitational mass), or
2.experienced by an object (passive gravitational force)

when interacting with a second object. The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg)."

So mass (or at least inertial mass) is a measure of inertia.