By this formula, the greater its mass, the less a body accelerates under given force. Masses m defined by the formula 1 and 2 are equal because the formula 2 is a consequence of the formula 1 if mass does not depend on time and speed. This meaning of a body's inertia therefore is altered from the original meaning as "a tendency to maintain momentum" to a description of the measure of how difficult it is to change the momentum of a body.
The only difference there appears to be between inertial mass and gravitational mass is the method used to determine them. Gravitational mass is measured by comparing the force of gravity of an unknown mass to the force of gravity of a known mass. This is typically done with some sort of balance scale. The beauty of this method is that no matter where, or on what planet you are, the masses will always balance out because the gravitational acceleration on each object will be the same.
This does break down near supermassive objects such as black holes and neutron stars due to the high gradient of the gravitational field around such objects. This gives an accurate value for mass, limited only by the accuracy of the measurements. When astronauts need to be weighed in outer space, they actually find their inertial mass in a special chair.
The interesting thing is that, physically, no difference has been found between gravitational and inertial mass. Many experiments have been performed to check the values and the experiments always agree to within the margin of error for the experiment.
Einstein used the fact that gravitational and inertial mass were equal to begin his Theory of General Relativity in which he postulated that gravitational mass was the same as inertial mass, and that the acceleration of gravity is a result of a 'valley' or slope in the space-time continuum that masses 'fell down' much as pennies spiral around a hole in the common donation toy at a chain store.
Since Einstein used inertial mass to describe Special Relativity , inertial mass is closely related to relativistic mass and is therefore different from rest mass. In a location such as a steadily moving railway carriage, a dropped ball as seen by an observer in the carriage would behave as it would if it were dropped in a stationary carriage.
The ball would simply descend vertically. It is possible to ignore the motion of the carriage by defining it as an inertial frame. In a moving but non-accelerating frame, the ball behaves normally because the train and its contents continue to move at a constant velocity. Before being dropped, the ball was traveling with the train at the same speed, and the ball's inertia ensured that it continued to move in the same speed and direction as the train, even while dropping.
Note that, here, it is inertia which ensured that, not its mass. In an inertial frame all the observers in uniform non-accelerating motion will observe the same laws of physics. However observers in another inertial frame can make a simple, and intuitively obvious, transformation the Galilean transformation , to convert their observations.
Thus, an observer from outside the moving train could deduce that the dropped ball within the carriage fell vertically downwards. However, in frames which are experiencing acceleration non-inertial frames , objects appear to be affected by fictitious forces.
For example, if the railway carriage was accelerating, the ball would not fall vertically within the carriage but would appear to an observer to be deflected because the carriage and the ball would not be traveling at the same speed while the ball was falling. Other examples of fictitious forces occur in rotating frames such as the earth. For example, a missile at the North Pole could be aimed directly at a location and fired southwards.
An observer would see it apparently deflected away from its target by a force the Coriolis force but in reality the southerly target has moved because earth has rotated while the missile is in flight. Because the earth is rotating, a useful inertial frame of reference is defined by the stars, which only move imperceptibly during most observations. Objects tend to continue doing what they were already doing. For example, if there were no external forces, like gravity or friction, a thrown ball would continue moving in a straight line, at a constant rate, for eternity.
A ball unthrown, sitting on the ground, would never move. Inertia is the force that holds the universe together. Without it, things would fall apart. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. Without it, matter would lack the electric forces necessary to form its current arrangement. Inertia is counteracted by the heat and kinetic energy produced by moving particles. Subtract it and everything cools to Yet we know so little about inertia and how to leverage it in our daily lives.
Inertia refers to resistance to change — in particular, resistance to changes in motion. Inertia may manifest in physical objects or in the minds of people. We learn the principle of inertia early on in life. We all know that it takes a force to get something moving, to change its direction, or to stop it.
Our intuitive sense of how inertia works enables us to exercise a degree of control over the world around us. Learning to drive offers further lessons. Without external physical forces, a car would keep moving in a straight line in the same direction. It takes a force energy to get a car moving and overcome the inertia that kept it still in a parking space. Changing direction to round a corner or make a U-turn requires further energy.
Inertia is why a car does not stop the moment the brakes are applied. The heavier a vehicle is, the harder it is to overcome inertia and make it stop. A light bicycle stops with ease, while an eight-carriage passenger train needs a good mile to halt.
Similarly, the faster we run, the longer it takes to stop. Running in a straight line is much easier than twisting through a crowded sidewalk, changing direction to dodge people.
Any object that can be rotated, such as a wheel, has rotational inertia. Rotational inertia depends on the mass of the object and its distribution relative to the axis.
When developing his first law, Newton drew upon the work of Galileo Galilei. Furthermore, there is no reason that a body should tend to the right rather than to the left. Therefore in the first case where one supposes that it is possible for the body to move on its own, even during a certain time, independent of the initiating cause, it will move in a uniform and rectilinear direction during this time.
Furthermore, a body which can initiate its own motion in a uniform and rectilinear way must continue perpetually in motion as long as there is nothing to prevent it. If we suppose that the body leaves from A fig. Mechanics and is capable of traveling the distance along a straight line AB uniformly, and that any two points that are taken along C, D, between A and B that the body at D is precisely in the same state when it was at C [page illus.
Thus the same effect must happen to the body when it is at C. Since when it is at C, it can hypothetically move on its own uniformly to B. Therefore if the action is primary and instantaneous and as the motivating cause is capable of setting a body in motion, it will move uniformly and in a straight line insofar as no new force will prevent it from doing so.
In the second case, since we do not suppose that any foreign or different action will cause any motivating reason to act on the body or that anything will cause the motivating factor to either increase or diminish, it follows that the continued action will be uniform and constant and that during that time that it will act, the body will move uniformly in a straight line.
For the same reason that has made the motivating cause to be constant and uniform during a certain time, always in existence insofar as nothing opposes its action and it is clear that this action must remain continuously the same and have the same effect. Therefore in general a body put into motion by whatever cause, will remain so uniformly and in a straight line, insofar as no new cause will occur to change it.
The straight line that a body describes or tends to describe is called its direction. See Direction. We have somewhat extended ourselves concerning the proof of this second law, since there has been and there may very well be still some philosophers who pretend that the motion of a body must slow by itself little by little as it appear that experiments indicate.
One must agree, that the proofs that are ordinarily given for inertial force , insofar as it is the principle of the conservation of motion, do not contain the necessary evidence to convince us. They are nearly all founded on what is imagined to be inherent in matter and which resists all changes of state or is indifferent to whether the matter is in motion or rest. The first of these two principles, besides the fact that it supposes something in matter for which there is no clear idea, cannot possibly be sufficient to prove the law which it is question; since when a body is in uniform motion, the motion which it possesses at any moment has the distinction of being isolated from motion which it has had or will have in the moments preceding or following.
The body is therefore in some way in a new state at any given moment, it only does as can be said to continuously be in a state of starting to move and one might imagine that it tends without falling into a state of rest, which if the same cause which initiated its movement was not in some way responsible to continue.
All that this principle represents in regards to the indifference of matter concerning motion or rest, appears to me to very distinct from some evanescent qualities and that is to say that it is not essential for matter to be always in motion neither to be always at rest.
However it simply does not follow from this law that a body cannot tend continuously towards rest not that rest is any more important than motion, but simply that it would appear that nothing else is required for a body to be at rest and that to be in motion would require something else and that it would necessarily have to always reproduced within itself.
The proof that I gave concerning the conservation of motion, has certain particularities, as it takes place irrespective of whether the motivating cause is applied to the body or not. It is not that I believe in the continued action of this fact to be necessary to move the body since if the continuous action were insufficient, what then would be the effect of this action?
And if this action had no effect, what would the continuous action have?
0コメント