Inertia is " the blindness of matter having certain energy" in general.

I am also interested to see the perspective in quantum domain.

 Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics, which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied forces. Inertia comes from the Latin word iners meaning idle or lazy. Isaac Newton defined inertia as his first law in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which states In common usage the term "inertia" may refer to an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" 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 and gravity This misled classical theorists such as Aristotle who believed that objects would move only as long as force was applied to them.

In other words: The law of inertia implies that if no external force act on an object, when at rest, the object will stay at rest; and, when in motion the object will move in straight line with constant velocity.

Einstein's theory deals only with the rest mass of the body for defining the principle of equivalence, which is stattic principle. It does not deal with the relativistic mass. So one can ask the question, whether photon has an inertial mass? Since photon does not have rest mass, the answer would be no. But photon has a relativistic mass E = mc^2. Therefore in Einstein's theory, inertia does not apply to energy.

Apart from this, one can also talk about inertia outside the domain of physics and math. Long before Aristotle, Kapila in ancient India promulgated the Samkhya Philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya#Prak.E1.B9.9Bti

In section 4.2.2 of above Wikipedia article, three gunas are mentioned. One of the gunas is Tamas which has the characterisitc of inertia, coarseness, heaviness, obstruction, and sloth. This Samkhya philosophy and three gunas are also mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita (Ch.14) (3150 BCE).

srimad-bhagavad-gita

http://www.chennaimath.org/istore/product/srimad-bhagavad-gita-sridhara-ordinary/

If you leave physics you can modify Jorges statement to:

"Inertia is the resistance of any living object to a change in its status and is the tendency of an subject to resist any change. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical psychology, which are used to describe the development of beeings and how they are affected by applied forces on their mind and behaviour."

Pardon Jorge, but I think inertia is well understood in physics but still to be analysed in sociology.

Hi Hanno, This extends, probably through something akin to self-similarity, to our institutions and even disciplines? Having developed a new form of illusionary space, the patents and the base line technology and presented this repeatedly to, art, science, commercial technology forums etc etc absolutely nothing happens. The breakthrough is made but the implementation is akin to trying to change the direction of a super-tanker by splashing it! It's of interest with respect to 'communication'. Do we possess the ability to communicate (in this age of communication devices) or are the channels simply not actually open? There are 'forces' governing 'switches' that lie outside the scope and remit of every-day communication channels? Inertia as some kind of scaling factor?

I do not know what is the inertia perhaps because I do not know what is matter. It even less I know the mind and the soul of man. All I know is that according to the laws of physics, to counteract the inertia is necessary to use force. I do not know how to counteract the inertia of corrupt and corrupting, of certain lobbies, of the warlords; etc .. What kind of inertia  use they for always stay on the saddle?

Do we understand what's actually involved in an act of observation? We certainly assume that we do but when we apply the assumption (inherent to our instrumentation) to all scenarios we come up short. This might be what you are referring to Manuel? 

The painter, reality and the real https://youtu.be/gzzBYOs6mc8

The painter, reality and the real – Part 2 https://youtu.be/hbFtIIHOQ9Y

When I study the phenomenon of vision AS VISION, I encounter two computational systems (what and where - object in space) that are juxtaposed (in various compositions depending on our intent in the world) by mind and from which it becomes possible to determine our environment sufficient that we can act within it. The effect of a measurement (perceived reality) is generated by us, it is not recorded by our current instrumentation? The way we generate that 'effect' is crucial to understand because it will tell us what's actually involved in an act of observation. Without that understanding we will fail to observer at remote scales meaningfully (where we are today). What's required is a change in ontology?

What I think visual perceptual tells us is that implicit spatial awareness (the basis of visual awareness and our perceptual structure) requires fixation (an action) to collapse the all possibilities field (that we as biological systems generate) to a set of spatial values contained within noisy input from the environment. The set of values that then populate the field are relevant to that fixation. i.e. the perceptual structure and the all possibilities field are there prior-to the data potential arriving. No hard problem. This suggests that there is another data potential embedded within the light array. Dark light. Its dark because its not related to optical projection and non of our instrumentation has been designed to interface with it. If we want to understand it we are going to have to model visual awareness taking our lead from experiential awareness and the study of vision as VISION. Its not logic that needs to change is the the ontology. Vision is prior-to science. 

Yes! This about our relationship to light. The single slit is understood to 'project' a picture of the slit. The double slit is…a pattern. It also contains data about the slits it just that we have failed to understand what's required to unfold it? The dark data in noise requires us develop self-organised criticality and neural avalanches etc. Blind sight is not blind sight! Its spatial awareness developed through the retioncollicular pathway. The dorsal stream is not 'detecting'…its unfolding. Unfolding implicit spatial awareness a system that also provisions multi sense integration. Its 'dark' to our instrumentation as our instrumentation work with 'detection' processes akin to the ventral stream and what occurs to us in central vision. Peripheral vision is not pointlessly blurred, a degraded form of central vision. Its 90% of visual 'field', 90% of visual awareness. We couldn't function without it. Implicit spatial awareness occurs to us prior to conscious awareness and what we think about the world. Peripheral vision processes what we should concentrate on next. It contextualises the world efficiently and fast. We need to understand those processes or our ICT's are going to fall over?

In mechanics, one could say that the "inertial mass M" is the the quantity which makes Newton's second law

d(M v)/dt = F,

true. This requires an independent way of defining F  (f.i. as the Lorentz force).

Rita> Inertia mass is normally taken to be invariant mass

Absolutely not! At least not by anyone with ambitions of writing correct equations. The quantity M above is related to the invariant mass m (which in my vocabulary is the one-and-only quantity deserving the name mass), by the relation

M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2.

During my life I have even experienced extremists talking about "longitudinal and transverse masses", related to the fact that M changes if F is parallel to v, and not if F is perpendicular to v. 

In modern theory of gravitational forces in classical mechanics, the law of inertia can be replaced with the Principle of Cosmic Laziness: The natural way to move between two points is the one which takes the longest time.

Second law of Newton: m = F/a, does it  means that if a increases under a constant Force that the mass is decreasing?

There is also written:

The ‘inertial mass’ (relativistic mass) is a function of the acceleration a mass has undergone and its resultant speed. A mass that has been accelerated to speeds close to the speed of light has its ‘relativistic mass’ increased.

M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2.

The novel of Johan Daisne ‘De trein der traagheid’ really goes about inertia, but because ‘The Train of Inertia’ didn’t sound good they called it in English ‘One Night One Train’. It was filmed by André Delvaux and the movie is now blocked in America, so there it doesn’t move.

According to my interpretation it goes about the train that brought the reserve army of Belgium to the South of France at the beginning of World War II. That train didn’t move either, it took 14 days to ride from North to South, and this without food nor drinks. After 18 days of war we were occupied by Germany and Johan Daisne was involved to look for trains to bring the soldiers back to Belgium, this took more than 3 months before they got permission.

Also the law of Newton is explained in the book as the contrary of the inchoativ reflex, as a psychic automatism in phonetics (Daisne was docent Dutch in a French school of Brussels). The inchoative aspect reflects a change of state and Daisne tried to explain this in the book - that an action starts before she ultimately is carried out. Because the students didn't understand this he explained it with the opposition, namely the law of inertia.   

So that my movie can’t be shown to a public in Ghent (except in Afkikker) is just according to the law inherent in the title of the book. That’s why I want to study all kinds of inertia to bring the train to ride, what is explained in the movie by the forces of poetry of Daisne and me.

We must take into account also the inertial fames and the conservation of energy, which I want to investigate.

To quote Karen Olaussen

In modern theory of gravitational forces in classical mechanics, the law of inertia can be replaced with the Principle of Cosmic Laziness: The natural way to move between two points is the one which takes the longest time.

Rita> does it means that if a increases under a constant Force that the mass is decreasing

If you by mass mean "inertial mass" this is a possibility --- when the Force is directed opposite to the velocity. But for such cases I have considerable inertia against changing the way I wrote Newtons second law into the way you wrote it (which is what requires the introduction of the quantities of "longitudinal and transverse mass" I mentioned above). Inertia is not only a matter of resistance to change, but the direction of the change also matters.

I have small inertia against the transfer of concepts in science to other areas, but one should expect precision to be lost in the process. 

Yes, transfer of information is a lost in precision by mankind but in nature there is no loss in most of the processes; this is order out of order.

In some cases I believe that the mind works also quantum and that intuition can work out a project faultless.

The direction of that change is that not the vector of the momentum or the vector of the reaction force working upon that mass.

The reaction force produced upon an accelerated object is equal to the object's inertia.

Is inertia not a blind state of matter?

Dear Hanno. My answer is in the field of physic, because I am not an expert on sociology. In this field things are more subjective and open to many different interpretation.

Hanno. Physics is not a subjective matter, but in my opinion sociology is a subjective matter.

Rita> Is inertia not a blind state of matter?

It sounds very poetic, hence like a good description. However, state of matter has a very specific meaning in physics, and is as such a misleading description in this context. Blind property of matter(?).

Yes, a tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion.  For me it sounds poetic.

Normally in physics matter is not a living thing, but resistance is a word of sociology, politics, psychology and much more. 

To come close to matter we make projections and also physicists are doing it. We have only words and symbols, we carry them from one field to the other.

I don't see any harm to see it as poetry because poetry is metaphoric, this means understanding something on different levels at once. 

And I repeated the blindness of matter, because it sounds good and may  be because Anil Chauhan got 2 down votes for it.  

Rita> We have only words and symbols, we carry them from one field to the other.

I think that can be a good way of distributing successful concepts and ideas. However, provided (i) that the basic meaning of the idea behind is kept, and (ii) that the idea is sufficiently established and understood to have proved itself worthy of transfer to other areas of life.

F.i., when people say they apply superstring theories or M-theory to sociology or economy they are just bullshitting; when they apply statistical physics to the same fields they may be serious.

Thank you anyway for the answer, our ways are dividing but that's how life is, it's hard to find a common denominator or to bring ‘thought’ on the same wavelenght.

The basic meaning of the idea is some millions years old, how far we must go back to find the original, that's a question for the next year.

First of all, the brain is made of matter so the inertia must have some applications  on the function of the brain.

The word ‘inertia’ is implicit present in the title of the novel 'De Trein der Traagheid', in Dutch 'traag' means slow, but 'traagheid', is the translation of the law of inertia.

Johan Daisne, as a poet, he was also a genius,  thought about the translation and he mentioned in his writings: 'The train of inertia doesn't sound good' so he made another translation that was total different: 'One Night, A Train'. As Daisne spoke at least 10 languages, he knew the difficulties.

All this to say that it is good to meditate about the meaning and background of certain terms. 

Rita> First of all, the brain is made of matter so the inertia must have some applications on the function of the brain.

There are a lot of additional examples that nature opposes change, attached to formulations like Le Chateliers Principle (chemistry), Lentz Law (electromagnetism), etc... I don't know the field of biology, but it would be very surprising if it did not contain such properties on its own, in addition to those rooted in chemistry and physics. F.i., there seems to be self-repair mechanisms preventing (too rapid) change of the DNA. I think such mechanisms quite universally can be formulated as consequences of (local) stability, which seems to be a requirement for having functioning observers with repeatable phenomena to observe. A good compromise between absolute stability and complete chaos may be sequences of rapid transitions between long lasting punctuated equilibria. Which looks like how the universe works...

Inertia is no resistance. The interaction between bodies is resistance to body to remain in a state of uniform motion. Inertia is simply tending to remain an uniform motion state if there is no outer interactions.

It is a definition. It is a property of mass. It is the rest mass when we consider Special Relativity since it will be defined for an Inertial frame of Reference.

There may be lot of definitions. But all should be correct. One should not contridict another.

One more definition is----

Every mass will occupy space and will contain space time of its own. The density of space time of its won and the density of its mass can be calculated by 'Siva's classical Equations of space time".

If both the densities are in equilibrium ,the mass can be defined as completely inertial mass. This concept can be utilised in 'physics of consciousness and 'dark matter'

I understand that if both the densities are in equilibrium ,the mass can be defined as completely inertial mass 

How is the relationship with physics of consciousness and dark matter.

Thank you for your quiry.

1. If the density of mass is more than the density of its own space time , the mass will be dark matter.

2. Regarding consciousness- The research is in progress. It seems consciousness is also a natural force (as per my research) . The consciousness is not defined properly. Various definitions are there.

In physics ‘Sir.Prof. Penrose’ is considering that the consciousness arises in brain connected to microtubules and neurons. You can refer his theory of ‘orch OR’ theory in which orchestrate reduction of mass and origin of vibrations in microtubules. Of course in my opinion every living thing even a living cell will have consciousness(The definition will be modified)

3. In this contest all the for forces of nature can be explained by space time density(research under progress)and after gravity the space time density will explain consciousness. Thus it will be a fifth natural force. In this case the space time density will be more than the mass.(Further research is under progress)

Any how if you are interested you can read my papers on consciousness.

1. S.P. Kodukula, American Journal of Modern Physics 3, 6 (2014), 

DOI: 10.11648/j.ajmp.20140306.13

Weblink:

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.20140301.13.pdf

I have provided all my papers in Research gate. Interested can refer.

Thank You

Very strange, I believe that in my paper on RG: An Aspect of Science of Art, I wrote about spacetimeconsciousness. So yes, this is all possible although that the consciousness arises in brain connected to microtubules is not general accepted. Alfredo Pereira is working  on the astrocytes. 

Thank you for all info.

Rita De Vuyst> the definitions of space time, consciousness, soul etc...should be precise and the concept will be developed. The  conclusions of the concept must withstand for experimental verifications- This is the motto of Physics. Then its implementation in technology boosts its credibility. I am trying for that. I have concluded the concepts at my satisfaction. The papers are under preparation. It may take time for their publications.  

Manuel Morales> As per me -the consciousness is not created by brain. But brain contains the particle which is main cause for consciousness. all the living things contains this particle(even a small living cell). Thus humans also contains this particle which is located in brain. Consciousness is a property of living things.(Not only for humans). This particle will act as a non living matter and living matter as per the structure of its space time arrangement. I will try to expose my ideas and supporting proofs through appropriate channels...

Continue your search.... may lead to some new conclusions. Contemporaries will not accept it ..still continue your ideas....Don't fight too much with this selfish and rude world. All the best ...Thank you

 Dear Manuel Morales>

I am sorry I could not go through your paper due to some of my personal problems. I have glanced it.

I under stood it is an attempt to propose a quality methodology for research.

A quality methodology is very important for present day physics because the competition is more and media has increased .

But in my opinion the method should have a simple formulation (mathematical or graphical)  for implementation.

I will try to go through your papers in detail whenever i get time.

We can't try to find an answer for the first cause. that's a bit too far. but the meaning of words in physics and social life we can put in question and inertia is a metaphor for quite a lot of things. It still sounds as a mystery. 

Inertia and friction are close related. 

Friction is the force resisting the relative motion of surfaces, sliding against each other.

There are different kind of friction and there is also an internal friction which is:

The force resisting motion between the elements making up a solid material while it undergoes deformation.

At the same time friction is not itself a fundamental force. 

Inertia according the law of Newton is the inclination passengers have for bending forwards when the train stops. 

Thought is thought and it is not the best of all what is to be found in nature. Thought has only a certain level, a circle to run around. 

Thought can be very useful in evolution of mankind.

We have to think about it. It all depends on the flexibility of our neuron circuit, how we can cut them end how we can substitute something new, using new information, new situation, something that will bring positive feelings. If we can't incarnate the new spirit, we are doomed to stay at rest, and that is what inertia is about, not be possible to move. There is a need of correlational cognitive neuroscience to make it all clear. 

Inertia is the standing still of a question, and it will take much energy to move it on.

May be it was already said, but in general, inertia is the property of preserving the current property: a tendency of self-preservation.

To Dr. Pedraza:

inertria  is not only about motion. For example, the thermal inertia is a well known integral characteristics to planetary scientists. It can be applied to biology and to the society as well. Similar to the generalized notion of entropy.

There is a well known joke among professors. When a student is behind in his/her studies, the student sighs and says: "Sorry , Professor, inertria..."

Yes, inertia is rather a metaphor and can be used in different areas. 

Johan Daisne explained it in his book as the contrary of the inchoativ reflex, which the students didn't understand.  Inertia they understood better because when the train stops they are falling forwards.

I think it is also savant joke because the author wants to say that society is most of all a status quo. and the artist needs a lot of energy to push the train forwards.

This is an interesting article  'Inertia of Fear and Scientific world view' by Valentin Turchin

It is optimistic because of the social values, the synthesis of science, religion and politics, their interdependent activities and dynamic tension within a cultural background.

it's also an idealistic view where people intellectually and spiritually gravitate to prescient socialist principles, which is perfectly possible for those who live in the right system and in the state where we live and obtained a kind of independency to organize events where science, art and spiritual matters are fusing. But this is not for everybody possible.

This book seems also despairing when Turchin speaks  about a state totalitarianism based on planning by cybernetic systems; this powerful central state makes me shiver as the embodiment of the 'Inertia of Fear'.

The ideal world view is not yet in sight.

In a generalized sense, the tendency of most people to preserve the status quo,

might  be called a sociological  inertia. Out of fear that things might get worse.

But without courage of changes you do not only rest at your status quo you de facto perform regress and steps backwards. Sociological inertia often is harmful.

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion.

My answer was within the field of physics, because this is an area in which the concept of inertia is well defined.

According to physics inertia is a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.

As a noun we use inertia as a tendency to do nothing or to remain unchanged.

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion .

agree with @ Jorge Morales Pedraza

regards

Agree with Dmytro Leshchenko

regards

It's about resistance of any physical object to any change in its change of motion.

This way we give these objects also a psychological quality. And if we are on the train and the train stops, are we falling forwards because of our inertia or because of the train changing velocity.

And what happens on the level of the particle, the molecule, a human being walking.

I'm agree but it must be understood as a selective indifference to external occurrences, which can be conscious and unconscious, this way it is part of the whole consciousness.

Very interesting because it covers the whole of lively and non-lively things as we are used to make the difference.