Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay-qu
Sorry but this question is flawed.
Since inertia implies motion and all motion is relative, you only have inertia relative to something else. Therefore when you say 'negate' you would have to say 'equate' your inertia with some other object, this would make you stationary in that frame only.
Then making many such negations of inertia between reference frames would essentially be performing Lorentz boosts between reference frames, with infinite acceleration.
|
As I misunderstood earlier, I think the originator of this thread was thinking like Author of
the Sci Fi series I mentioned, Doc E.E. Smith -- Lensman series. That was the propulsion
of the spacecraft in the series was based upon an "inertialess" drive. Note: this was fiction. Somehow when the drive operated, the mass of the craft lost "all inertia" in "all
reference frames". I am not saying this would obey any laws of physics. This is fiction.
You can make up what you want. It's behavior would be as described, acceleration at
the slightest touch.
Lawrence Krauss wrote a book about the Physics of Star Trek. Maybe someone needs to
write a book on the Physics of Super Heroes. Hmmm.
maddog
