[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.

[sciman55]

Originally Posted by 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.

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But as we all know, newtonian mechanics is outdated.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

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by sciman55

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.


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

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.