A New Explanation of Inertia


Reference:  A Proposed Measure of Motion

From the article on Inertia from Wikipedia:

“Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion, including changes to its speed and direction. It is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics that are used to describe the motion of objects and how they are affected by applied forces. Inertia comes from the Latin word, iners, meaning idle, sluggish. Inertia is one of the primary manifestations of mass, which is a quantitative property of physical systems. Isaac Newton defined inertia as his first law in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which states:
The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.
“In common usage, the term “inertia” may refer to an object’s “amount of resistance to change in velocity” (which is quantified by its mass), or sometimes to its momentum, depending on the context. The term “inertia” is more properly understood as shorthand for “the principle of inertia” as described by Newton in his First Law of Motion: that an object not subject to any net external force moves at a constant velocity. Thus, an object will continue moving at its current velocity until some force causes its speed or direction to change.
“On the surface of the Earth, inertia is often masked by the effects of friction and air resistance, both of which tend to decrease the speed of moving objects (commonly to the point of rest), and gravity. This misled classical theorists such as Aristotle, who believed that objects would move only as long as force was applied to them.”


However, inertia seems to be more than just a resistance to change in motion.

Inertia is the inherent state of motion of a wave or a particle. This state maintains itself, the way a spinning top maintains its orientation.

We may say that when “concentrated” as in a particle, the inertia appears as mass. However, when “diluted” as in a wave, it appears as frequency.

The mass of a particle may be a spinning motion. This renders it discrete. But the frequency of a wave is more like an oscillatory motion that renders it partially discrete. Both spinning and oscillatory motions inherently maintain themselves – the spinning motion more rigidly than the oscillatory motion,

As frequency increases the inertia of the wave also increases. Then at the top of the elctromagnetic spectrum, the oscillatory motion of frequency seems to transform into the spinning motion of mass.

With mass comes the characteristic of being discrete and “located” compared to a wave. This may be called the characteristic of “centerdness.”

As mass of a particle increases, its “centerdness” also increases, and the particle becomes harder to move.

From this perspective, the stillest points in this universe shall be the black holes. All other particles and waves shall move around them.

The above is just a conjecture.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • marildi  On January 6, 2015 at 1:19 PM

    Hi Vin. I saw your comment about auditing an MIT course in physics. Wow, how exciting for you!

    On this current post about inertia, is that the same idea 2ndxmr has come up with as part of his quantum physics model? He’s written about it on Geir’s blog too. I will admit, you guys mostly lose me on the quantum stuff! But I thought I duplicated this quantum inertia theory.


  • vinaire  On January 6, 2015 at 1:29 PM

    Hi Marildi. I am not sure what quantum physics model 2ndxmr has come up with. I haven’t been on Geir’s blog for some time. I am simply following a conceptual trail related to motion. I am keeping it very simple and close to fundamentals.

    I do see that all quantum states are inertial states of motion, according to the definition of Inertia in the OP above.


    • marildi  On January 6, 2015 at 1:37 PM

      I think it’s what he was talking about in this comment:


      That was one of the few posts I understood on that thread. LOL


      • vinaire  On January 6, 2015 at 1:56 PM

        In that comment 2ndxmr is commenting on why the measurement of a collapsed state is immediately repeatable.

        He describes his model is as follows:

        “I believe that a better explanation comes from my model where the particle takes a “picture” of every location where it has condensed and it is these pictures that form the probability spectrum.”

        I have no idea how a particle can take pictures and have a memory.


        • marildi  On January 6, 2015 at 2:10 PM

          Okay, gotcha.

          I guess 2X would say that the particle was made in the image of its Maker, and that’s why it is able to take pictures – or mirror the passing moments – in whatever way the Maker does it. But I guess I better just stick to reading for now! Carry on. 🙂


        • vinaire  On January 6, 2015 at 2:15 PM

          I am already treading on the toes of the physicists out there, and they wouldn’t even bother to read what I am writing.

          2x is too far out on the fringes even for me.


        • marildi  On January 6, 2015 at 2:26 PM

          “Great leaps forward do not come from the center, they come from the edge.” –Tom Campbell, Physicist/Consciousness Researcher

          Btw, Tom Campbell says the same – that physicists won’t bother to read what he has written, including a book on his “Big Theory of Everything” (*My Big TOE*) – which is why he started a grass roots movement. He’s been all over the world doing lectures and workshops and has quite a following. The most recent one (as far as I know) was just a few months ago. Pretty interesting.


        • vinaire  On January 6, 2015 at 3:54 PM

          Thanks. I sampled this video and it does look interesting.

          Right now I am focusing on the basics of Quantum Mechanics as talked about at MIT and Yale.


  • vinaire  On January 6, 2015 at 3:07 PM

    Wikipedia: “The law of inertia states that it is the tendency of an object to resist a change in motion.”

    Here the idea of “object” is from classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics looks at an “object” as a wave-particle. A photon is more of a wave than a particle (it is described by its spread out frequency), and an electron is more of a particle than a wave (it is described by its localized mass-based properties of momentum and energy).

    It becomes more interesting when you talk about the tendency, or inherent characteristics, of wave-particles like photons and electrons to resist motion, when they themselves are mostly characterized by motion.

    When we look at a spinning top, it acquires a certain orientation due to its state of motion, and resists any change to it. The resistance is coming from its state of motion. Therefore, we are looking at the inherent characteristics of motion itself as inertia.

    It appears that the frequency of photon somehow acquires a characteristic like spinning as part of its transformation into mass of electron.



  • freebeeing  On January 6, 2015 at 4:28 PM

    V: Inertia is the inherent state of motion of a wave or a particle that wants to maintain itself.

    You reject that particles can take pictures, yet you allow them wants? 🙂

    Tsk, tsk


    • vinaire  On January 6, 2015 at 5:10 PM

      I believe that motion and awareness are reflections of each other. The configuration of motion reflects as a configuration of awareness.

      Then it is not so much as a matter of “wanting” as it is a matter of having an inherent characteristic.

      Thank you freebeing for your direction.


  • freebeeing  On January 6, 2015 at 4:30 PM

    Why did the particle cross the street?

    Because it wanted to!


  • vinaire  On January 6, 2015 at 4:56 PM

    I have modified the OP to take care of the objection raised by freebeing. 🙂


  • vinaire  On January 6, 2015 at 8:22 PM

    The following excerpt from Wikipedia is very interesting:

    “Nevertheless, despite defining the concept so elegantly in his laws of motion, even Newton did not actually use the term “inertia” to refer to his First Law. In fact, Newton originally viewed the phenomenon he described in his First Law of Motion as being caused by “innate forces” inherent in matter, which resisted any acceleration. Given this perspective, and borrowing from Kepler, Newton actually attributed the term “inertia” to mean “the innate force possessed by an object which resists changes in motion”; thus Newton defined “inertia” to mean the cause of the phenomenon, rather than the phenomenon itself. However, Newton’s original ideas of “innate resistive force” were ultimately problematic for a variety of reasons, and thus most physicists no longer think in these terms. As no alternate mechanism has been readily accepted, and it is now generally accepted that there may not be one which we can know, the term “inertia” has come to mean simply the phenomenon itself, rather than any inherent mechanism. Thus, ultimately, “inertia” in modern classical physics has come to be a name for the same phenomenon described by Newton’s First Law of Motion, and the two concepts are now considered to be equivalent.”

    I now think that Newton was correct in thinking of inertia as “innate forces.” It is the internal configuration of motion inherent in waves and fundamental particles that causes resistance to change in orientation and external motion.



  • vinaire  On January 6, 2015 at 8:38 PM

    Here is another interesting excerpt from Wikipedia.

    “Another profound conclusion of the theory of special relativity, perhaps the most well-known, was that energy and mass are not separate things, but are, in fact, interchangeable. This new relationship, however, also carried with it new implications for the concept of inertia. The logical conclusion of special relativity was that if mass exhibits the principle of inertia, then inertia must also apply to energy. This theory, and subsequent experiments confirming some of its conclusions, have also served to radically expand the definition of inertia in some contexts to apply to a much wider context including energy as well as matter.”

    This is the conclusion we seem to be arriving here on this blog too. In case of energy, intertia is represented by frequency because there is no mass. We are also finding that quantity of motion is defined better by frequency rather than by speed.

    The postulate of a constant speed of light is limited to inertial frames linked to matter only. This postulate does not seem to be valid for inertial frames linked to energy.


  • Chris Thompson  On January 7, 2015 at 12:51 AM

    “This renders it discrete.”

    How do you mean? Like the earth as a discrete object? Is that the idea?


    • vinaire  On January 7, 2015 at 5:26 AM

      Discrete is that which can be counted. Photons and electrons are discrete when they are looked upon as particles.


  • vinaire  On January 7, 2015 at 6:25 AM

    From Wikipedia.

    “At high speeds, and especially near the speed of light, inertial mass can be determined by measuring the magnetic field strength and the curvature of the path of an electrically-charged mass such as an electron.”

    It appears that when a particle is accelerated to the speed of light it would turn into a wave. For example, an electron shall turn into a photon with a very high frequency when accelerated to the speed of light. It is in the nature of inertia.

    It doesn’t seem possible that an object shall remain an object at the speed of light. It’s inertia would not allow it to be so accelerated to the speed of light as an object.


  • vinaire  On January 7, 2015 at 6:44 AM

    From Wikipedia.

    “At high speeds, relativistic mass always exceeds gravitational mass. If the mass is made to travel close to the speed of light, its “inertial mass” (relativistic) as observed from a stationary frame would be very great while its gravitational mass would remain at its rest value, but the gravitational effect of the extra energy would exactly balance the measured increase in inertial mass.”

    It appears that what is being considered as increase in mass at high speeds is actually the inertia embedded in frequency. At speeds close to the speed of light, a particle does not remain as a particle. It starts turning into wave. Inertia comes from both mass and frequency.

    Mass seems to be due to rotational spin, whereas, frequency seems to be due to oscillations.


  • freebeeing  On January 7, 2015 at 1:03 PM

    Seems that mass is just a phenomena of human observation and not actual. There is just motion. Different patterns of motions have different behavior/appearances. That we label this motion as mass or energy, an electron, boson, etc is like giving names to colors.

    In the double slit experiment — what is the resulting pattern of sending a wave through a single slit?

    For me, stillness (although I get what you’re trying to convey) is probably not a good word to use. It seems you are substituting stillness for Inertia. There is no stillnss in this universe (other than the You that we are 😉 )


    • vinaire  On January 7, 2015 at 1:42 PM

      Good observations!

      Mass is the reflection of certain configuration of motion as certain awareness. It is there irrespective of humans. Human awareness is itself a reflection of a very complex configuration of motion.

      I have replaced the term “stillness” by the term “centeredness” as ideas are evolving in this area of research. See




  • freebeeing  On January 7, 2015 at 1:14 PM

    So mass is like a slinky when it’s unstretched, At luminal speeds it is like it appears when stretched out?


    • vinaire  On January 7, 2015 at 1:56 PM

      Mass seems to “dilute” as frequency of energy.


  • christianscientology  On January 10, 2015 at 11:36 AM

    Hi Vinaire

    I wonder if THE VOID and A BLACK HOLE are one and the same thing. The Void being subjective and the Black Hole being objective.

    JUST A CONJECTURE – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifjLF2vKJsg (Black Holes and the Void Within).


    • vinaire  On January 10, 2015 at 12:08 PM

      According to the thought process that I am currently following, a black hole and the void would just be opposite of each other.

      A black hole is the extreme of inertia.

      A void may be defined as the absence of inertia.


%d bloggers like this: