Uniform Motion, Velocity & Inertia

This artist's animation shows a celestial body about the size of our moon slamming at great speed into a body the size of Mercury.

How do we measure the uniform motion of an object? Do we measure it by its velocity, or do we measure it by its inertia?

When we try to assess the magnitude of the uniform motion by the velocity of the object we immediately run into inconsistency. We find that the velocity is different in different frames of reference and therefore, relative.

However, when we try to change the uniform motion we experience a resistance that is always the same. No matter what the velocity of the object is, the same amount of change in velocity encounters the same resistance. This is called inertia. It seems to be absolute for an object.

The magnitude of the motion of an object may be assessed in an absolute sense by its inertia.

The inherent measure of motion comes from inertia because it is activated the moment change is attempted. It is different for different objects, but it is always constant for an object. It does not matter how slow, or how fast, that object is moving with respect to some external point. Inertia is a tendency of the motion to maintain itself, which is constant for an object.

Inertia is the measure of the constant state of an object in space-time.

The greater is the inertia the more difficult it is to change the state of the object through interacting with it. The state of a truck is more difficult to change than the state of a football. That means a truck has greater inertia than a football. The greatest inertia may be registered for black holes.

Similarly, the smaller is the inertia the easier it is to change the state of motion through ineracting with it. We may go beyond objects to consider the state of electromagnetic radiation. This inertia in this case will be the tendency of the frequency to maintain itself. It will appear as resistance to change in frequency, which would be quite small.

Inertia is the measure of the constant state of electromagnetic phenomena in space-time.

This is a different look at motion. We seem to think of motion as movement relative to external reference points. As long as this movement is uniform, it is constant for that object. That constant is the inertia of the object. It does not vary with frame of reference.

The inherent state of motion of something is expressed by its inertia rather than velocity.

The sense of motion, or inertia, is then best expressed as acceleration and gravity. Here are some thoughts about inertia.

  1. Inertia is a state of motion that preserves itself. It is manifested as resistance only to restore the state of motion. Infinite inertia is the state that cannot be changed. Zero inertia is a state that is always changing.

  2. The universe as a whole appears to be changeless in terms of its total energy and momentum. Therefore, we may postulate that the state of the universe is infinitely persistent.  In other words, the inertia of the universe is infinite.

  3. The state of motion, or inertia, may then be measured in an absolute sense using the universe as the reference.

  4. Inertia may be expressed as the mass of a particle, or frequency of a wave. A particle maintains it mass, and the wave propagates at a constant frequency.

  5. The state of motion, or inertia, of an atom consists of both mass in nucleus and frequency in shells around the nucleus. Mass exerts much greater resistance to change than frequency.

  6. A scale of inertia may be visualized from zero inertia or infinitely changeable state of SPACE, to infinite inertia or changeless state of UNIVERSE as a whole.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • 2ndxmr  On March 21, 2015 at 7:15 PM

    V: “Similarly, the smaller is the inertia the easier it is to change the state of motion.”

    This would be falsified if applied to a neutrino. It is virtually massless (so extremely low in inertia by your reasoning) and also lacks charge. The result is that it is very non-interacting with other masses and extremely hard to change in state of motion.

    The inertial properties of EM that you see (… electromagnetic radiation. This inertia in this case will be the tendency of the frequency to maintain itself. ) only occur from interaction with charged particles (or other EM, or gravity).

    If you take a charge and a separate magnetic field (both fixed in magnitude), and have them stationary with respect to each other, they do not interact and so are not useful in determining inertia. Yet when there is relative motion between them (off the original axis between them) then they interact and can be used to measure inertia.


    • vinaire  On March 21, 2015 at 8:53 PM

      Thanks for your observations, 2ndxmr.

      Re: Neutrino… The point is when force is applied to the neutrino it will be very easy to change the state of its motion. What you are pointing out is that it is difficult to interact with neutrino, and, therefore, difficult to apply force to it. I have no disagreement with that. I have now added the phrase “through interacting with it” in the OP to further clarify the meaning.

      Photon has a similar problem. It has literally no resistance to change in motion, so no interaction is possible.

      Electromagnetic fields seem to be locked into each other. Change in one causes equivalent change in the other, such that there is no net movement away from uniform motion, and the uniform motion is maintained.


  • MarkNR  On March 22, 2015 at 5:35 PM

    Motion is relative. All motion is relative.
    Example” Anyone driving slower than you is a jerk. Anyone driving faster than you is a nut.

    Example” Fire a gamma ray beam at someone 20 feet from you and he will receive gamma rays. Fire a gamma ray beam at someone who is passing beside you at half the speed of light and he will receive an X-ray. Any test that can be devised that is done in his speedy car or spaceship will register x-rays, not gamma rays. If he is standing in a lab on a planet that is passing by at half the speed of light, all tests will register x-rays. If he is in a galaxy that is passing by at half light, RELATIVE TO YOU, he will register x-rays.

    If you are traveling at one quarter light, relative to a third galaxy, and the 2nd galaxy is traveling in the same direction, relative to the 3rd galaxy, at three quarter light, his instruments will register half the frequency.

    There is no base, no cosmological constant. no reference point in or of the universe. Motion doesn’t exist in the absence of something to compare it with. That is why I say that anything not being accelerated in some manner is at rest in its own space and time.

    Two objects in motion. It is perfectly valid to stand beside one and say it is at rest and the other is moving. It is just as valid to stand beside object 2 and say it is at rest and object 1 is in motion. Both statements are perfectly true.

    Measure the speed of light anywhere in the universe with your measurement device in any state of rest or motion, and the tests will show your device is at rest and light is traveling at its exact regulated speed.

    The baseline of motion is wherever you happen to be or whatever relative motion you happen to be in. To say that you are standing still and the universe is moving around you is just as valid as any other viewpoint.

    The universe is a boundless sphere whose center is everywhere. Or wherever you happen to be or are moving. If you accelerate to twice light speed, it will take you 5 years to get to a star 10 light years away. Others on either planet will think it took you 10 years and perhaps a few extra minutes to get there, but that is their opinion. Your opinion is just as valid. What if there is only one person on each planet and there are 10,000 people on your vessel. Whose opinion is true then. Answer, ALL opinions are correct.

    The whole purpose of the relationship of time and motion and perception is to orient and adjust everything to the space it happens to be occupying, to make time and space common to all objects, energies, and individuals occupying a common space so that they can interact in a predictable manner.



    • vinaire  On March 22, 2015 at 9:35 PM

      Mark: “Motion is relative. All motion is relative.”

      Velocity is relative to an external reference point. Acceleration is relative to an internal reference point.

      See if you can comment on this.


      • MarkNR  On March 24, 2015 at 8:11 PM

        A perfect statement. Simple, accurate.


        • MarkNR  On March 24, 2015 at 8:15 PM

          It took a very long time to develop a system that was so difficult to understand. It took a very long time to beat down and convince individuals that they could not understand it.


    • Chris Thompson  On March 23, 2015 at 8:40 AM

      Good post.


    • vinaire  On March 24, 2015 at 8:53 PM

      Gamma rays and x-rays, like visible, infrared, and ultraviolet light, are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. While gamma rays and x-rays pose the same kind of hazard, they differ in their origin. Gamma rays originate in the nucleus. X-rays originate in the electron fields surrounding the nucleus or are machine-produced.



      • vinaire  On March 24, 2015 at 8:59 PM

        X-radiation (composed of X-rays) is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Most X-rays have a wavelength ranging from 0.01 to 10 nanometers, corresponding to frequencies in the range 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz (3×1016 Hz to 3×1019 Hz) and energies in the range 100 eV to 100 keV.


        Electromagnetic waves are typically described by any of the following three physical properties: the frequency f, wavelength λ, or photon energy E. Frequencies observed in astronomy range from 2.4×1023 Hz(1 GeV gamma rays) down to the local plasma frequency of the ionized interstellar medium (~1 kHz).


  • vinaire  On March 23, 2015 at 8:18 AM

    Uniform motion may be established after acceleration at a higher velocity in the same frame of reference. However, inertia at the higher velocity is the same as it inertia at the lower velocity.

    Inertia chnages only during accelertaion. When acceleration is removed, inertia is restored.


    • MarkNR  On March 24, 2015 at 8:07 PM

      Exactly Vin.
      Thank you for trudging through the differences and similarities in the meanings of motion and inertia. Since it it not fully understood, it warrants contemplation.


  • Chris Thompson  On March 23, 2015 at 8:19 AM

    I like the effort you’ve put into this.

    However, these assumptions contradict extant physics. Using mind-centric logic without any backup of observation or experimentation seems to result in a belief system world view only. Brainstorming is necessary and fun. It is a first step.

    What do you plan to do next?


    • vinaire  On March 23, 2015 at 8:25 AM

      Brainstorm on quora.

      It is the application of the Scientific Method to thought experiments.


  • vinaire  On March 23, 2015 at 9:56 AM

    To reduce inertia and bring about fhuid changability, we need to accelerate the mass till it starts to behave like a wave with frequency, and then accelerate it further to reduce the frequency.

    In mental awakening we suddenly have a transition of masslike fixed ideas to a wavelike curiosity for looking. In the beginning there is a high frequency of attention flickering all over the place, which is akin to ADHD. This then requires reducing the frequency of attention through calming techniques of mindfulness.

    Having no frequency or inertia of the mind is like establishing the calm background of attention in which all thoughts and ideas can play themselves out.



  • vinaire  On June 9, 2015 at 8:07 PM

    What I am struggling with is the relationship between awareness and velocity. To have the awareness of velocity there should be at least two objects. In a 1D-space the two objects will either be approaching each other or moving away from each other. If the objects have mass then there also will be gravitational attraction between them, and therefore, acceleration.

    Let’s consider a 3D-space, which is made up of at least four non-planar objects, and the objects are moving in this space. There has to be the factor of inertia (mass) and gravitational attraction among them. They all will be accelerating one way or another no matter how imperceptible that acceleration is.

    So, it seems that constant velocity will be a rare phenomenon in this universe.

    As long as objects have inertia they can never be free of acceleration. Even when the acceleration is not linear there will be an acceleration of change in direction.

    Probably constant velocity applies only to electromagnetic radiation. Otherwise any object with mass will be accelerating one way or another. So the measure of motion is acceleration. It is not constant velocity.

    That means there is always some force acting on an object in this universe. If it is not direct push or pull it will be reaction, gravitational force, friction, etc. But there will be some kind of a force.

    So this is a universe of inertia, force and motion (acceleration).

    Inertia is manifested as force. Force is manifested as acceleration. Acceleration is motion. They are different stages of the same thing.


  • vinaire  On June 10, 2015 at 7:44 AM

    In this universe inertia is manifested as force. Force is manifested as acceleration. Acceleration is motion. They are different stages of the same thing. There is no constant velocity.

    Constant velocity may exist only for inertia-less particle. A photon is massless and it may come closest to being inertia-less depending on its frequency.

    “Inertia-less-ness” acquires inertia by acquiring frequency. This gives us a photon. As the photon increases in frequency, its inertia increases also. This is evidenced by light bending near heavy cosmic objects.

    The frequency is basically a disturbance. When frequency of the photon reaches the region of gamma rays, the photon becomes unstable under the influence of its own inertia. The photon, instead of propagating linearly, starts to converge on itself. The “photonic disturbance” that has converged on itself stably appears as an electron.

    An electron has a “mass” that has been determined experimentally. Using Einstein equations: E = mc^2 = hf, we find that this mass (m) corresponds to the frequency (f) of gamma rays. The frequency within an electron is likely to increase along its radius. The maximum frequency shall appear at the center of the electron.

    As this convergence of frequency continues, the next stable particle that we get is a hydrogen atom. Here, very high frequency at the center of the particle has started to accumulate and congeal as “mass”. We assume that a hydrogen atom consists of an electron and a proton, but it could be just a single particle that breaks into an electron and a proton during atomic reactions.

    Further stable particles occur at near integral multiples of the atomic mass of the hydrogen atom. This gives us the periodic table. We assume that these integer values mean the number of electrons, protons and neutrons contained within an atom. But this is just an assumption. Each atom could just be a single continuous particle that breaks into electrons, protons, neutron and residual particles during atomic reactions.

    So we can view an atom as a single continuous particle made up of a disturbance of increasing frequency within it. The frequency increases along the radius of the particle. The outer region appear as “converging disturbance of increasing frequency” and the center region appears as “accumulated disturbance of very high frequency”. The integral values appear due to resonances observed in wave mechanics.

    So “mass” is essentially “accumulated disturbance of very high frequency”.

    Once we have “mass” we have particles of large inertia. And so we have matter and material objects that we are most familiar with.


%d bloggers like this: