Nature & Inertia (Thomas J. McLaughlin)

Nature and Inertia
Author(s): Thomas J. Mclaughlin

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Dec., 2008), pp. 251-284
Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40387875 .
Accessed: 04/05/2012 23:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Review of Metaphysics.
http://www.jstor.org
NATURE AND INERTIA
THOMAS J. MCLAUGHLIN
JNewton'sFirstLaw of Motion,also knownas theprinciple ofiner-

tia,says"Everybodyperseveres in itsstate of beingat restor ofmov-
inguniformly forward,
straight exceptinsofaras it is compelledto
change itsstate byforces
impressed."1 I willarguethatinertiais an in-
herentprincipleand thatinertiaand Newton'sFirstLaw are in this
waynaturalin theAristotelian sense. Indeed,manydifficulties con-
cerning inertiaandtheFirstLaw ofMotionmaybe resolvedbyunder-
standing themthrough an Aristotelianconceptionofnature.
However,philosophers fromdifferent traditionshavearguedthat
if no
theprincipleofinertiatreatsa bodyas ithad inherent principle
ofnatureandweredevoidofan innersourceofactivity. According to
Kant,
Thismechanicallaw alone mustbe calledthelaw of inertia(lex iner-
tiae);thelaw thateveryactionhas an equal and oppositereactioncan-
notbearthisname. Forthelattersayswhatmatter does,buttheformer
onlywhatitdoes notdo,andthisis betteradaptedto theexpressionof
inertia.Theinertiaofmatter is andsignifies butitslifelessness,
nothing
as matterin itself.. . . Fromtheveryconceptofinertiaas merelifeless-
nesstherefollowsofitselfthefactthatinertiadoes notsignify a positive
effortofsomething to maintain itsstate.2
Correspondence to: St. JohnVianneySeminary, 1300S. Steele Street,

Denver,CO 80210.
1Isaac Newton,The Principia. MathematicalPrinciplesof Natural
Philosophy. A New Translation, trans.I. BernardCohenandAnneWhitman,
assistedbyJuliaBudenz(Univ.ofCalifornia Press:Berkeley,1999),416. All
English from
quotations Newton's Principia are fromthiswork, unlessoth-
erwiseindicated.Thiseditionis prefacedbyCohen'sA Guide toNewton's
Principia.
2Immanuel Kant,Metaphysical FoundationsofNaturalScience, trans,
withintro.byJamesEllington (Indianapolis: Bobbs-MerrillCo., 1970),105-6.
to
According Heidegger, "How does Aristotle'sdescriptiveobservation ofna-
tureand conceptofmotionrelateto themodernone,whichgotan essential
foundation inthefirstaxiomofNewton?. . . Motionsthemselves are notde-
termined accordingto different natures, and
capacities, forces,the elements
ofthebody,but,inreverse, theessenceofforceis determined bythefunda-
mentallaw ofmotion:Everybody,leftto itself, movesuniformly ina straight
© 2008byTheReviewof
62 (December2008):251-284.Copyright
TheReviewofMetaphysics
Metaphysics.
252 THOMAS J. MCLAUGHLIN
the creed of science is

Accordingto Sir AlfredNorthWhitehead,
mechanism:
were entirely
The greatforcesof nature,such as gravitation, deter-
minedbytheconfigurations ofmasses. Thustheconfigurationsdeter-
minedtheirown changes,so thatthecircleof scientific
thoughtwas
completelyclosed. Thisis the famousmechanistictheoryof nature,
whichhas reignedsupremeeversincetheseventeenth century.It is
justtheorthodoxcreedofphysicalscience.3
Whiteheadholds thatNewton'sFirstLaw ofMotion"is the firstarticle
of the creed of science."4 This orthodoxcreed denies inherentna-
turesand finalcauses:
Therepersists,however,throughout thewholeperiodthefixedscien-
tificcosmologywhichpresupposestheultimate factof an irreducible
brutematter. . . senseless,valueless,purposeless.Itjust does whatit
does do,following a fixedroutineimposedbyexternalrelationswhich
do notspringfromthenatureofitsbeing.5
The ThomisticnaturalphilosopherJames Weisheiplclaims that the
principleofinertiatreatsa body as havingno nature:
In thisformulation [Newton'sFirstLaw ofMotion], itwouldseem,two
originalideas are assumed and one ancientidea is affirmed.First,a
three-dimensional body(corpus)is conceivedas a corpusmathemati-
cumcompletely devoidof"nature" intheAristoteliansense,or ofany-
thingthatwouldaffect thepresenceorabsenceofmotion.6
line.. . . Therefore,
thedifference betweennaturaland againstnature,i.e.,
forced,is also eliminated;
theβία,violence,is as forceonlya measureofthe
changeofmotionandis no longerspecialinkind Therefore, theconcept
ofnaturein generalchanges.Natureis no longertheinnerprinciple outof
whichthemotionofthebodyfollows;rather natureis themodeofthevariety
of the changingrelativepositionsof bodies,themannerin whichtheyare
presentin space and time,whichthemselves are domainsofpossibleposi-
tionalordersand determinations of orderand have no special traitsany-
where." MartinHeidegger, Whatis a Thing?trans.W.B.Bartonand Vera
Deutsch(Chicago:HenryRegnery Co., 1967),85-8.
3AlfredNorthWhitehead, Scienceand theModem World(New York:
TheFreePress,1925),50.
4AlfredNorthWhitehead, Essays in Science and Philosophy(New
York:Philosophical 1948),171.
Library,
5Whitehead, Scienceand theModemWorld, 17.
bJamesA. Weisheipl, O.P.,"GalileoandthePrincipleofInertia," inNa-
tureand Motionin theMiddleAges,ed. WilliamCarroll(Washington, D.C.:
CatholicUniv.Press,1985),69. According toVincent "Theempiriolog-
Smith,
icalphysicist,as such,mustignorebeing.Hisviewofreality feedson theno-
tionofinertia, whichthinsa material thingintoan indifferent
state,depend-
ingforits realitywhollyon thetranseunt forcesactingfromoutsideof it.
Suchan inertand indifferent thing, whenconsideredin itself,is reallynoth-
ing." VincentEdwardSmith,PhilosophicalPhysics(New York:Harper&
Brothers, 1950),142.
NATUREAND INERTIA 253
Otherphilosophers assertthecomplementary viewthat"theprinciple

ofinertiadoes noteventryto explainuniform rectilinear
motion,but
onlysays itneeds no explanation."7
Againsttheviewsofthesephilosophers, onebeginsto see thatin-
ertiais an inherent and
principle is in
natural theAristoteliansenseby
considering whyNewton'sFirstLaw ofMotionis also calledtheprin-
ciple of Newtonexplainswhathe meansbyinertiain Defini-
inertia.
tionIII ofthePrincipia,a definition thatimpliesand partlyexplains
theFirstLaw:
Inherent forceofmatter[Materiaevis insita]is thepowerofresisting
bywhicheverybody,so far as it is able [quantumin se est],perse-
veresin its stateeitherofrestingor ofmovinguniformly straightfor-
ward. Thisforceis alwaysproportional to thebodyanddoes notdiffer
in anywayfromtheinertiaofthemass [inertiamassae]exceptin the
mannerinwhichitis conceived.Because oftheinertiaofmatter[iner-
tiammateriae], everybodyis onlywithdifficulty putoutofitsstateei-
therof restingor of moving.Consequently, inherent force[visinsita]
mayalso be calledbytheverysignificant nameofforceofinertia[visIn-
ertiae]. Moreovera bodyexertsthisforceonlyduringa changeof its
state,caused by anotherforceimpresseduponit,and thisexerciseof
forceis,depending ontheviewpoint, bothresistance andimpetus: resis-
tanceinsofaras thebody,in orderto maintain itsstate,strivesagainst
the impressedforce,and impetusinsofaras the same body,yielding
onlywithdifficulty to the forceof a resisting obstacle,endeavorsto
change the stateof thatobstacle. Resistanceis commonly to
attributed
restingbodiesandimpetustomoving bodies;butmotionandrest,inthe
popularsense oftheterms,are distinguished fromeach otheronlyby
pointofview,andbodiescommonly regarded as beingat restarenotal-
waystruly at rest.8
Aboutthis definition, the Nobel Prize winningphysicistS. Chan-

drasekhar comments: "There is hardlyanything thatone can usefully
add to Newton'scarefulexplanationof the concept of inertia."9
Nevertheless,the passage is fullof paradoxesand difficulties,10for
Newtonis strugglingwiththefactthatinertiais notinert.
Beforetakingup whatNewtonmeansbycallinginertiaan inher-
activities.In
entforce,I shall firstconsiderinertia'scharacteristic
Definition3 ofthePrincipia,Newton maintains thatthe inertiaofa
bodyis an inherent sourceoftwo characteristic activities,
persever-
ance in uniformrectilinearmotion or restand resistanceto external
7 Glen Coughlin,Aristotle'sPhysics, or Natural Hearing (St.

Press:SouthBend,IN,2005),276.
Augustine's
8Newton, Principia,Def.3,404-5.
9 S. Chandrasekhar, Newtons Principia for the CommonReader
(Oxford:Clarendon,1995),19.
10"Def.3 is,inmanyways,themostpuzzlingofall thedefinitions
inthe
Principia" Cohen,GuidetoNewton'sPrincipia,96.
impressedforces. Contemporary physicists also viewinertiaas the

sourceofthesesametwoactivities.Withrespectto perseverance in
uniform rectilinearmotionor rest,theNobelPrizewinning physicist
RichardFeynmanwrites,"[the]property of inertia:if a particleis
movingitkeepson goinginthesamedirection unlessforcesact upon
it."11In theirtextbook, ElementsofNewtonianMechanics,physicists
Knudsenand Hjorthsay,"No externalforceis necessaryto maintain
uniform motion.The motioncontinuesunchangeddue to a property
ofmatter A baseball,afterbeingthrown,
we call inertia."12 continues
moving notonlybecauseitis ina stateofmotionbutalso insomeway
becauseofitsinertia.Ofcourse,thebaseballdoes notcontinuemov-
ingin a straight lineat a constantspeed butthatis because various
forces, such as gravity or airresistance, are actinguponit. Thebase-
ball'smotionis complexand determined bymultiple principles.The
continuing motions of otherprojectiles and of orbitingbodies,suchas
planets,or rotatingbodies,such as a child'stop,are similarly ex-
plained. The inertia! component of such motions, unliketheexternal
forcecomponent, persistswithoutany ongoingmoverand without
anymanifest effort orlabor.Although physicists do notregardinertia
as a movingcause,nevertheless, threehundred yearsafterNewton,it
wouldbe odd forthemto talkaboutinertiaas a property ofmatter if,
as Kantmaintains, itonlysignified whata bodydoes notdo. Rather,
thepointmadebyphysicists is justtheopposite.A body,onceputin
its state,perseveresin inertialmotionof itselfand notthrough the
constantactionofanother.13 In whatsensea body'sinertiais present
inpersevering ininertial motionorrestwillbe consideredlater.
A body'sinertiais also an inherent sourceofitsresistanceto im-
pressedforces.The quantitative measureofthisresistanceis called
mass or,moreproperly, inertialmass. A.P. French,in his textbook
NewtonianPhysics,writesUiInertial mass' is thetechnicalphrasefor
thatproperty whichdetermines how difficult itis fora givenapplied
forceto changethestateofmotionofan object."14Hans Ohanian,a
formerassociate editorof theAmericanJournalof Physics,says
11Richard P. Feynman, RobertB. Leighton, andMatthew Sands,The

Feynman Lectures on Physics,
vol.1 (Reading:Addison- Pub.Co.,
Wesley
1963),chap.2,p. 3.
12JensM. Knudsenand Poul G. Hjorth, Elementsof Newtonian
Mechanics, 2nded.(NewYork:Springer-Verlaß, 27.
1996),
13"[T]henatural ofa bodyis tocontinue
tendency ina straight
moving
line." Raymond A. SerwayandJerry S. Faughn,CollegePhysics,3rded.
(New York:Harcourt BraceJovanovich,1992),183.
14A.P.French, NewtonianMechanics (NewYork:W.W.Norton & Co.,
1971),164.
"massis an intrinsicproperty ofa body,measuring theresistance(in-

ertia)withwhichthebodyopposeschangesin itsmotion."15 A bowl-
ing ballhas a greater inertial mass than a baseball and, other thingsbe-
ingequal,thereby exertsa greaterresistanceto efforts at throwing it,
its or
changing speed direction, stopping or it. The same amount of
forceappliedto thebowlingball and thebaseballproducesdifferent
responses - thebaseballoffersless resistanceand acceleratesmore.
Consequently, inertiacan notsignify merelywhatbodies do notdo,
and theprincipleofinertiadoes nottreatbodiesas lackingan inher-
entprinciple oras entirely underthecontrolofexternalforces.16
Resistance is often associated withweightor perhapswithsome
otherforcesuchas friction, or witha property suchas solidity.How-
ever,theseare nottheresistance of inertia. Bodies resistimpressed
forcesevenin the weightlessenvironment of an orbiting space sta-
tion.17Anastronaut pushingorpullinga container would find thatthe
container resistedsuchefforts, thoughonce thecontainer was inmo-
tionno effort wouldbe requiredto keepitgoing.A mundaneexperi-
enceofinertiaalso helpsdistinguish itfromweight.Whenwe wantto
findouthowdifficult a box is to moveorhowmuchmoredifficult one
box is to movethananother, we sometimes heftthebox up anddown
ratherthanjust holdingor lifting thebox to determine itsweight.In
the
hefting box, we are not seeking to find itsweight itsresistance
but
to ourefforts to changeitsmotionorrestanditstendency to continue
moving. Our concern is not so much with the box's weightbutwitha
differentthoughrelatedproperty, itsinertia.18 In addition,a body'sin-
ertiais thesamewhether itis on theEarth,theMoon,orininterstellar
space whereasitsweightvarieswithlocation.Indeed,thefactthata
body'sinertiais thesameeverywhere indicatesthatitis inherent and
thatthebodyis notentirely determined byitsexternalrelationswith
otherbodies.
Theresistanceofinertiais evidentinordinary cases ofaccelerat-
or
ing,braking, turning in cars or other vehicles. In accelerating,we
15Hans C. Ohanian,Physics,vol. 1 (New York:W.W.Norton& Co.,

1985),122. Italicsinoriginal.
16Historians ofsciencehavealso madethispoint:"Meanwhile itwas ap-
parentto everyone thatmattercannotbe whollyindifferent to motionsince
unequalamountsofeffort are requiredto cause equal changesofvelocityin
unequal bodies." Richard S. Forcein Newton'sPhysics(NewYork:
Westfall,
American ElsevierPub.Co., 1971),450.
17Weightless bodieson Earthalso resistforces.Forexample,tyingup a
blimprequireshandling by teamsof workers.
18I. BernardCohen,The Birth of a New Physics(New York:W.W.
Norton, 1985),157.
feel pressed back into our seat. In braking,we feel pushed forward,
and in turning,we feel shoved to the side. Nevertheless,no external
forceis pressing,pushing,or shovingus. Instead,we are experienc-
ingour inertia.As a car accelerates forward,the backs ofthepassen-
gers' seats press against the passengers to accelerate themwiththe
car, but the passengers inherentlytend to remain eitherat rest or
movingwithuniformvelocity. Because theytendto continueas they
are, the passengers, in virtueof their inertia,resist the impressed
forcesexertedby theirseats and therebypress intothem. Inertialre-
sistance is especially manifestin cases of verygreatacceleration or
deceleration,such as thatexperiencedby passengersin a car brought
to a sudden and violenthalt. As the car suddenlyhalts,the passen-
gers' inertialtendencyis to continue movingat, for example, sixty
miles per hour. The passengers resist the restrainingforce of their
seatbelts,which must exert considerable force in order to keep the
passengers fromcontinuingat the same velocitytoward an impact
withthe dashboardor a flightthroughthe windshield.19
In the above examples,no efficient cause makes a body resistex-
ternalforces. The body,in virtueof its inertia,does so fromwithinas
a spontaneous and automaticresponse to an impressedforce. Cur-
rently,no one knowshow to turnoffa body's inertialresistance,all of
whichindicatesthatinertiais, contraKant,somethingpositivewithin
a thingby whichittendsto maintainits state.
As Newton notes in Definition3, the exercise of inertiain re-
sponse to an impressedforceis both resistanceand impetus,depend-
ingupon the pointofview. Resistanceand impetusare different con-
siderationsof the same exercise of the vis inertiae. A body,when
acted upon, resistsactions thatwould change its state,and in resist-
ingendeavorsto changethe state of the bodythatacts upon it. Thus,
thevis inertiae can be the source ofan impressedforceexertedupon
anotherbody. A couple of dramaticexamples illustratethe impetus
or endeavor of inertia. Occasionally, constructionworkers are in-
jured when theytryto stop a massive movingbeam. Theythinkthat
because a crane supportsthe beam's weightand because the side-
ways motionof the beam is slow and not sustainedby a continuously
actingmoverthatmerelyby holdingout a hand or foottheycan easily
stop the beam's sideways motion. The beam, as theythinkof it,does
not have any significantinherentcapacity to act upon them. How-
ever,the beam, in virtueof its ratherconsiderableinertia,resiststhe
19Louis A.
Bloomfield,How Things Work:The Physics of Everyday
Life (New York:JohnWiley& Sons, 1997), 106-17.
efforts oftheconstruction workersto stopitand,bypersisting in its

motion,acts upontheworkersand iiyures them. Similarly,an astro-
nautbuilding a space stationcouldconceivably be injuredorkilledby
a weightless girder.Because ofitsinertia, a movinggirderwillresist
theefforts ofan astronaut to stopit. The girder, thoughweightless,
mightthenpin and crushthe astronautagainstthe space station.20
The 1997impactofa supplyshipwiththeMirspace stationillustrates
thedangerofcollisionsbetweenweightless bodieswhoseinertiais in-
deedsomething positivebywhich they tend to maintaintheirstate.
Inertiaalso has variouspracticalapplications,such as inertial
guidancesystems21, stabilizers
inertial on oceanliners,andtheinertial
containment of nuclearfusionreactions.22These practicalapplica-
tions,suchas theuse ofinertialnavigation bysubmarines to sail un-
derthenorthpolarice cap, helpshowthatinertiais something defi-
nitewithinbodies by which they act in uniform and characteristic
ways and is not,as described bythephilosophers notedabove,indif-
ferent, purelynegative, null,or nothing. The views of suchphiloso-
phersdo notaccurately reflectthephysicsofinertiaandtheFirstLaw
ofMotion.
In orderto showthatinertiaand Newton'sFirstLaw are natural
in theAristotelian sense,I now wantto considerAristotle's concep-
tionofnature.According "natureis a sourceor cause of
to Aristotle,
beingmovedand ofbeingat restin thattowhichit belongsprima-
rily,invirtueofitselfand notin virtueofa concomitant attribute."23
An important featureoftheAristotelian definition,and theone with
whichI shallbe mostconcerned, is thatnatureis an intrinsic princi-
ple. According a thingthatexistsbynature"haswithin
to Aristotle,
itselfa.principleofmotionand ofstationariness."24 Commenting on
Aristotle,Aquinaswrites,"Wesaythatthosethingswhoseprinciple of
20Isaac Asimov,Understanding Physics:Motion,Sound, and Heat

(NewYork:NewAmerican Library, 1966),60.
21"Theinertialguidancesystemsused aboardships,aircraft, and mis-
silestakeadvantageoftheabsolutecharacter to keeptrackof
ofacceleration
themotionofthereference frame Froma knowledge oftheacceleration
(boththemagnitude and direction) as a functionoftimeanda knowledge of
theinitialpositionand velocity,a computer can automaticallycalculatethe
positionandvelocityoftheshipat anylatertime."Ohanian,Physics,vol. 1,
110.
22Ohanian,Physics,vol.2, interlude J,p. 10-11.
23Aristotle,
Physics2.1.192b23, trans.K.P.Hardieand R.K.Gayein The
Basic WorksofAristotle, ed. RichardMcKeon(New York:RandomHouse,
1941). AllreferenceshereintoAristotle arefromMcKeon,exceptwhereoth-
erwisenoted.
24Aristotle,
Physics2.1.192bl4-5.
motionis in themselvesare movedby nature."25In addition,Aris-

regardsa bodyas actingfromitselfin a uniform
totle'sdefinition
way.26Further, what acts naturally does so withouteffort.27Finally,
and veryfamously, accordingto Aristotle, natureacts foran end.28
Thispaperwillnotdirectly addressissuesrelatedto finalcausality, a
topicwhichwouldrequiremorelengthy treatment.
In Aristotle's
definition,nature is properto a specifickindof
thing.For example,an element,such as carbon,has characteristics
thatare necessaryand peculiarto carbonand do notbelongto the
otherelements.Inertia,however, is notproperto bodiesofonlyone
specificnature,for bodies of manydifferent natureshave inertia.
as VincentSmithnotes,
Nevertheless,
Weoften usetheterms natureandnaturalforanyessential intrinsic
characteristic
eventhough is notprimary.
thatcharacteristic Thuswe
saythatmanwalksbynature ornaturallyeventhough he doesso be-
causeofthegenustowhich hebelongs andnotbecauseofwhathehas
To knowwhatis essential
primarily. butnotproper
toa thing toitisto
knowitsnatureinonlyanimperfect way.29
I willarguethatinertiais a genericnaturalprinciple,
Similarly, nota
nature;and,I willgrantthatconsidering a bodyonlywithrespectto
itsinertiais a veryincomplete
consideration, especiallysinceinertia
-
is natureconsideredat a veryminimal perhapsitsmostminimal -
formed level.
25St. ThomasAquinas,Commentaryon Aristotle's

Physics,trans.
Richard J.Blackwell, Richard J.Spath,andW.EdmundThirlkel (NewHaven:
Yale University Press, 1963),bk. 8, §1023. All Englishquotationsfrom
Aquinas'In Odo Libros PhysicorumAristotelisExpositioare fromthis
translation.
26"Forsincenaturealwaysoperatesinthesame
way,itis naturalforthe
othercases to be thesame."Aquinas,OnAristotle's Physics,bk.8, §1103.
27«Forwhatever is movedwithlaboris beingmovedagainstthenatural
motionofitsbody- forwhichreasonit is laboriousforan animalto move
upwards.Nowinthecase ofthingsmovedagainsttheirnature, ifsucha mo-
tionis to continue,
itmustbe maintained bysomeviolentmoverimposing on
thema motionof coercion - fornaturalnecessityleads onlyto whatis ac-
cordingto nature.Everything such,i.e.,whichis subjectto a motioncon-
traryto itsnature,mustbe inmoreandmorelabor... as itis morealiento
its best disposition,
i.e., thatwhichis accordingto its nature."Aquinas,
ExpositionofAristotle'sTreatiseOn theHeavens,trans.R.F. Larcherand
PierreH. Conway(Columbus:CollegeofSt.MaryoftheSprings, 1963)bk.2,
§294. AllEnglishquotations fromAquinas'In AristotelisLibrosDe Cáelo et
MundoExpositioarefromthistranslation.
28"Naturebelongsto theclass ofcauses thatact forthesake ofsome-
Physics2.8.198blO.
thing."Aristotle,
29VincentEdward Smith,The GeneralScienceofNature(Milwaukee:
BrucePub.Co., 1958),132.
Eventhoughinertiais a principleofnatureconsideredat a very

minimal level,to showthatinertiais naturalis significant becausethe
genus that inertia properly characterizes is verywide and becausein-
ertiaandtheFirstLaw are fundamental to Newtonian and relativistic
physics.30 Aristotelian science,by contrast, did not know of such a
broadcommonality, a property possessedby celestialand terrestrial
bodies,by all the elements, byanimateandinanimate
and things.Fire
and earth,forexample,possessedlevityandgravity respectively. Be-
cause inertiais commonto so manydifferent kindsof bodies,the
properprinciples ofmanydifferent naturescan be neglectedforvari-
ous purposesand naturecan be analyzedat a minimallevel. Thata
giveninertial bodyis a pumpkin is irrelevantforsomepurposes,and
thisis not a
only consequence of the mathematization ofnature.Iner-
tiais undoubtedly a thintreatment ofnature,butthatis notthesame
as treating if
a bodyas it had no nature norneed it excludea fuller
treatment ofa body'snature.Failureto recognizethispointmaymis-
lead a thinker intomaintaining thattheprincipleofinertiadeniesin-
herentprinciples ofnature.
Another distinctionis also necessary.Kantandotherthinkers are
inone sensequitecorrect.Theprinciple ofinertiais opposedto many
ofAristotle's specificconceptionsofthenaturesofthings.Aristotle
held thatthe sublunarelementalbodies,earth,water,air,and fire,
have naturalmotionsfollowing frominherent tendenciesto natural
places which are absolutely situated in the universe.31 Unless re-
strained,the elementalbodies do not remainat rest outsidetheir
30Thequestionofwhatkindsofbodiesdo ordo nothaveinertiawillnot

be addressedhere. Somebodies,suchas light,do nothaverestmass,and,
therefore,mightbe said notto haveinertia.The natureand statusofmass-
less entitiesis, however, notexactlysettledphysics.Born,forexample,ar-
gued even
that though photonsdo nothaverestmass,theydo haveinertiain-
asmuchas photonshave energyand momentum.See Max Born,Atomic
Physics,8th rev. ed., trans.JohnDougall,rev. R.J.Blin-Stoyle and J.M.
Radcliffe(New York: DoverPub.,1989), 57-9,375.
31"So,too,withheavyand light:lightis generated fromheavy,e.g.air
fromwater(forwateris thefirstthingthatis potentially light),and airis ac-
tuallylight,and willat once realize its proper activityas suchunlesssome-
thing prevents it. Theactivity oflightness consistsinthelightthingbeingina
certainsituation, namelyhighup How can we accountforthemotionof
lightthingsand heavy thingsto their propersituations? The reasonforit is
thattheyhave a naturaltendencyrespectively towardsa certainposition:
andthisconstitutes theessenceoflightness andheaviness,theformer being
determined by an upward, the laterby a downward, tendency Foritmay
be thatthroughsome hindranceit does not occupyan upperposition,
whereas,ifwhathindersitis removed, itrealizesitsactivityandcontinues to
rise higher."Aristotle, Physics8.4.255b8-21.See also Aristotle, On the
Heavens1.8.276al8-277b25.
naturalplaces butimmediately movetowardthem.Once brought to

restintheplacesproperto theirnatures, theelemental bodiesremain
at restin virtueof an inherent naturalprinciple.For example,an
earthy bodyis inherently heavyandfallstowardthecenteroftheuni-
versewhereitis naturally at rest.Airis inherently lightandnaturally
risesawayfromthecenteroftheuniverseandtowarda regionabove
earthand waterbutbelowtheregionproperto fire. Contrarily, the
principleofinertiaimpliesthatbodies do nothave inherent tenden-
cies bywhichtheyspontaneously movetowardnaturalplaces. Iner-
tia has no preferred direction or inherent orientation to a place. Ac-
cording to the of
principle inertia, unless acted upon by external
forces,a bodyat resttendsto remainatrestwherever itis,anda body
in motiontendsto continuemovingat a constantspeed in thesame
direction.Inthissense,Newton'sFirstLaw ofMotionis indifferent to
place and is a universal law.
However,a generaldefinition ofnatureshouldbe distinguished
frommorespecificconceptionsof nature. The incompatibility of
Newton'sFirstLaw withmanyofAristotle's viewsaboutthenatureof
gravity, levity, and theelementary bodies need notimplythattheFirst
Law is also incompatible withAristotle's generaldefinition ofnature.
Heidegger and others go too farin thinking of
thata denial natural
motionsfollowing frominherent tendenciesto naturalplaces is a de-
nialofan innerprinciple ofnaturesimplyandingeneral.One can re-
ject Aristotle's specificviewsconcerning thenaturalmotionsofthe
elementalbodieswithoutrejectinghis generalconceptionof nature
just as one can rejectAristotle's viewthatthepurposeofleaveson a
treeis to provideshadeto thefruit andnevertheless insistthatphoto-
synthesis is naturalandteleological.32
Similarly, the principleof inertiashouldbe distinguished from
the mechanisticphilosophicallens throughwhichit is commonly
viewedandwithin whichitwas formulated. Whitehead andothersgo
in
astray failing to observe thisdistinction and in too readilyreading
mechanism intotheprincipleof inertia.Theyhave,in general,mis-
takena certainphilosophy ofinertia, thelensthrough whichinertiais
typically conceived,forinertiaitself.It is moreappropriate to speak
of inertiain theplural,ofprinciplesof inertia,in thewaythatJohn
Paul II famously spokeoftheoriesofevolution, thedifferent theories
32"Bygradualadvanceinthisdirection
we cometosee clearlythatin
toothatis produced
plants totheend- leaves,e.g.grow
whichis conducive
toprovideshadeforthefruit." Physics2.8.199a25.
Aristotle,
being differentiatedby the different naturalphilosophiesupon which

theydraw.33
Newton'sphilosophyof inertiais partiallyexpressed throughhis
problematicconceptionof inertiaas an inherentforce. In Definition3
of the Principia, Newtonverystrikingly and paradoxicallydescribes
inertiaas vis inertiae, the force of inertia,and identifiesthis force
withmateriae vis insita, translatedhere as "inherentforce of mat-
ter."The Latin insita, used here as a past participlemodifyingvis, is
takenfrominsevo,inserere,insevi, insitus and means implanted,in-
nate,or inborn.AboutNewton'suse ofthisword,the Newtonscholar
I. BernardCohen writes,
Throughout thisIntroduction, and in otherwritings, I have translated
Newton's'visinsita'by 'inherent force'and 'vis insitamateriae'by'in-
herentforceofmatter'or 'forceinherent in matter.'Buttheliterature
aboundswitha different rendering,'innateforce.'We maylearnwhat
Newton'sintention was byexamining theintermediate usageinDe Motu
corporum, priorto LL, M, or theprinted editions.'Visinsita'or 'visin-
conceptto renderintoEnglish. The root
sita materiae'is a difficult
meaningof 'insita'is 'implanted' it wouldusuallybe ren-
or 'inserted';
deredby'ingrafted.' ButNewtonwas notreferring to an act
specifically
of puttingthis'power'intomatter;ratherhe was usingthe derived
meaningof 'naturally inborn'and hence 'innate'or even 'natural,'as
commonly usedeveninclassicalLatin.ThusNewton's'visinsita'is nec-
essarilypresentin a bodyfromtimepastto timefuture, and
infinitely,
so is almostan 'immanent force.'34
In Book 3 of the Principia, when Newtoncontrastsgravityand iner-

tia,he reiterateshis view thatby the termuvis insita" he means iner-
tia: "YetI am by no means affirming thatgravityis essentialto bodies.
By inherentforce[vis insita] I mean onlythe forceof inertia[vis in-
ertiae]. This is immutable."35Inertia,accordingto Newton,is some
kindof inherent,unchanging,naturalforcethatis essentialto matter.
It does not depend upon externalforcesor the changingrelativeposi-
tionsofbodies.
33JohnPaul II also distinguished theoriesof evolutionbythe

different
mechanisms
different ofevolution thattheyposit.EWTNDocumentLibrary,
JohnPaul Π, "Messageto thePontificalAcademyofSciences:On Evolution,"
availableat http://www.ewtn.com/ubrarv/PAPALDQC/JP961Q22.HTM.
341.BernardCohen,Introduction toNewton's'Principia'(Cambridge:
HarvardUniv.Press,1971),66-7.
35Newton, Principia,Bk.3, Rule3, 796.
Newton'sDefinition 3 also containstheunusualphrasequantum

in se estyheretranslated as "so faras it is able."36According to Co-
hen,by"quantum in se est"Newton means "to the that
degree itcan
"37
ofand byitself. CohenarguesthatNewtontookthephrasefrom
Descartes,who had taken it directlyfromLucretius'Be Rerum
Natural Newton'splantoinclude90 linesfrom De RerumNaturain
thesecondedition(1713) ofthePrincipia also containedreferences
to thephrasequantumin se est.39According to Cohen,in usingthe
phrase, Newton is saying that thecapacity of a bodyto perseverein
itsstateis bothquantitatively limitedanddueto itsownnatureornat-
uralpower.40Thus,forNewton,uniform rectilinear motionand rest
arenatural.
36Motte,in his translation of the Principia,rendersthe phrase"as

muchas initlies." Cgjori'srevision ofMotte'stranslation retainsthisrender-
ing. See SirIsaac Newton, Sir Isaac Newton's'Mathematical Principlesof
NaturalPhilosophy'and his 'Systemof theWorld,'trans.AndrewMotte,
rev.FlorianCsyori (Berkeley: Univ.ofCalifornia Press,1962),Def.3,p. 2.
37Newton, Principia,404,notea.
381.BernardCohen,"'Quantum In Se Est':Newton'sConceptofInertia
in Relationto DescartesandLucretius," Notesand RecordsoftheRoyalSo-
cietyofLondon19(1964):131-54.Henceforth, Cohen,"'Quantum In Se Est'"
Roy. Soc. I. BernardCohen,"'QuantumIn Se Est': Newton,Kepler,Des-
cartes,andLucretius," Proceedings ofTheAmericanCatholicPhilosophical
Association(1964):36-46. Henceforth, Cohen,"'Quantum In Se Est'"ACPQ.
OtherscholarshavefollowedCoheninrecognizing thephraseas linking Lu-
cretius,Descartes,and Newton.See J.E.McGuire, "NaturalMotionand Its
Causes:Newtonon the'VisInsita'ofBodies,"in Self-Motion fromAristotle
toNewton,eds.MaryLouiseGillandJamesG. Lennox(Princeton: Princeton
Univ.Press,1994),308; AlanGabbey,"ForceandInertiaintheSeventeenth
Century: Descartesand Newton,"in Descartes:Philosophy,Mathematics
and Physics,ed. StephenGaukroger (Totowa,N.J.:BarnesandNoble,1980),
248and315,n. 175.Atleastonehistorian ofsciencearguesthatNewtonmay
havetakenthephrasedirectly fromLucretius orhiscommentators. See Wil-
liamL. Hine,"Inertia and ScientificLaw inSixteenth Century Commentaries
on Lucretius," RenaissanceQuarterly 48 (1995):728-41.
39Cohen,"'Quantum In Se Est'"ACPQ,46; Cohen,"'Quantum In Se Est'"
Roy.Soc, 148-9. Newtonreadand studiedDe RerumNaturain theearly
1690's. Also,about the same timeas the publicationof the firstedition
(1687) of thePrincipia,Newtonwrotean unpublished draftin whichhe
tracedtheoriginsoftheprinciple ofinertiabacktotheancientphilosophers.
According to Cohen,"Arragor portionofthisdocument dealswithLucretius,
presented as one ofthosewhoknewtheLaw ofInertia."Cohen,"'Quantum
In Se Est'"Roy.Soc, 139,141,148-9.
40"Translators and commentators, unableto give equal emphasisto
bothmeanings at once,havechosento stickclose to Newton'swords,inthe
literalrendering 'as muchas in it lie'. Because theyhavethereby stressed
primarily the conceptof a quantitative limitationof theinertial'power'in
bodies,theirmodernreadersareaptto havelosttheidea of'naturally' or'by
itsownforce'whichNewtonandDescartesandtheseventeenth-century stu-
dentsofLucretius knewtobe anotheressentialpartofthesenseofquantum
in se est." Cohen,"'Quantum In Se Est'"Roy.Soc, 148.
However,forNewton,"nature" and "natural" havethesense,de-

rivedfromLucretius, ofwhata bodywoulddo ifleftto itself, although
forNewtonwhatcomes froma bodyof itselfis not,as it was for
Lucretius, downwardmotionin a straight line. Instead,a bodyleftto
itselfremainseitherat restor in uniform rectilinearmotionin what-
everdirection.It does notspontaneously movedownward.41 As the
phrase"quantum in se est"indicates,the notion of "nature"survived
in Newton'sphysics,althoughin a formthatdrawsfromLucretius
ratherthanAristotle.Newton'suse ofthephrasealso showsthathe
regardedinertiaas a quantitatively limitedsourcewithina bodyfrom
which certaincharacteristic proceed. He did notviewthe
activities
FirstLaw as eliminating an inherent principle.
In orderto cast more lighton what Newtonmeantin callinginer-
tia a force,I wantto considera further argument thatpersevering in
eitheruniform rectilinear an
motionorrest,resisting impressed force,
and endeavoring to changethestateofa bodyimpressing a forceare
thatoriginate
all activities fromwithina body.
Not long afterthe publicationof Newton'sPrincipia, Leibniz
consideredtheviewthata bodyitselfcontributes nothing positiveto
itsstateofmotionorrestandis entirely indifferentwithrespectto ex-
ternalforces.He didso whilecriticizing Descartes'viewsofmotion.
According to Leibniz,
I admitthateveryobjectperseveres initsstateuntilsomesufficientrea-
sonforchangearises. Thatis a principle approaching metaphysical ne-
cessity;butit is not thesame thing whether we assert thatsomething
simplypreservesitsstateuntilsomething happensto changeit- a case
whichalso ariseswhenthesubjectis quiteindifferent inregardto both
states- orwhether, ontheotherhand,we assertthatitis notindifferent
butpossesses a poweraccompaniedby an inclination to preserveits
ownstateandthusto resistactivelycauses thatwouldchangeit. I my-
selfpreviously, in a youthfulwork,startedfromthe assumption that
matterwas inherently indifferentto motionand rest;and thenhave
demonstrated as a consequenceofthelawsofmotionholdingforsucha
system thehypothesis thata verylargebodyat restmustbe setintomo-
tionbythepushofanotherbodyno matter howsmallthatotherbodyis
without theleastdiminution ofthelatter'smotion.The case ofsucha
41"Throughout theseventeenth century,therefore, quantumin se est

was takento mean'naturally,'or'bynature,' or'without externalforce.'Des-
cartes- and Newton,followingDescartes - were thus merelyspecifying
whatwouldhappento a bodyleftcompletely to itself.Lucretiuswas inter-
pretedas referringto a bodymovingnaturally, withoutanyexternalforces
producing a 'violent'motion.ButDescartesand Newton,fromthepointof
view of thenew inertialphysics,meanta bodyeitherat restin a location
wheretherewereno external forcesactingon itorinuniform mo-
rectilinear
tionintheabsenceofexternal forces:ina nutshell,a bodyina purelyinertial
state."Cohen,'"Quantum In Se Esf'ACPQ, 46.
worldinwhich
matter noresistance
atrestoffers tobeingmoved,
might
beconceived butitwouldbea purechaos.42
as possible,
Leibnizdistinguishes betweentwodifferent sensesinwhichan object
mayperseverein a state. In one sense,an objecthas a powerand a
positiveinclination to perseverein itsstateand as a consequenceac-
tivelyresistscauses thatwouldchangeitsstate. In anothersense,an
objectlacks anypowerand positiveinclination to perseverein its
stateandremainsinitsstateonlybecausenothing happensto change
it. The objectis completely passive and indifferentto its motionor
rest. Leibnizarguesthatifbodies had no powerand inclination to
persevere in their then
states, one body could notresist another nor
couldone bodyreactto another, so thatactionscouldoccurwithout
corresponding reactions.As Leibnizremarkselsewhere,"everything
couldbe affected byanything" anda quantitativescienceofdynamics
wouldbe impossible.43 In a worldinwhichthegrounddidnotresist
ourefforts to pushuponitandbouldersdidnotresistourmostmea-
gerpulls, motion andrestwouldbe quiteproblematic. A bodycannot
be completely indifferentto its own condition.It mustthenhave
somepositivepowerandinclination ofpersevering initsstate.
Leibnizconceivesofperseverance in uniformrectilinear motion
or restas following froma positiveinclination arising from a power
withina body.Invirtueofthisinclination topersevere, a bodyresists
efforts to changeitsstateofmotionor rest. Resistance,forLeibniz,
presumesa priorpositiveinclination to persevere.Newton,however,
reversestheorderofperseverance andresistance.Theforceofiner-
tia is a forceofresisting bywhicha bodyperseveresin itsstate;itis
nota forceofpersevering bywhicha bodyresistschangesto itsstate.
Even thoughthe word"perseverance" (perseverare)ordinarily con-
notesactivity and thoughin Definition 4 Newtonwritesthat"a body
perseveresin anynew statesolelybytheforceofinertia," neverthe-
less, the vis inertiaeoperatesonly(solommundo)duringa body's
changeofstatein responseto an impressedforce. On Newton'sac-
count,mereperseverance in uniform rectilinear
motionor restis an
inactivity and not a positiveinclinationoriginating fromwithina
body, for a bodydoes notexertitsvis inertiaemerelyinpersevering
42Gottfried
Wilhelm "OnSubstance
Leibniz, as ActiveForceRather
ThanMereExtension," in Leibniz:Selections,
ed. PhilipP. Wiener(New
York:CharlesScribner's
Sons,1951),159-60.
43GottfriedWilhelm Leibniz,"SpecimenDynamicum," in Leibniz:
ed.PhilipP. Wiener
Selections, (NewYork:CharlesScribner'sSons,1951),
129.
in a state. Ifa bodywerenotsubjectto an impressedforce,itwould

persevereinitsstate,butitsvis inertiaewoulddo nothing.
The vis inertiaeis a verystrangeforce. Kantregardedtheex-
pression"inertial force"as contradictory.44It is at leastparadoxical.
"Inertia," which usually means inactivity,absence of motion,or pas-
sivity,seemsto havea meaningopposedto thatof"force," whichusu-
allymeans an action an
by agencyproducing some kind ofeffect.One
translator of Newton'sPrincipia, FlorianCßjori,rendersNewton's
"visinertiae1' Thehistorian
as "forceofinactivity."45 RichardWestfall
makesa similarpoint:"InthePrincipia,Newtonhimself summarised
the paradoxin anotheranomalousphrase,vis inertiae,whichwe
might translatefreelyas 'theactivityofinactivity1,orperhaps'theert-
ness of inertness'."46
Similarly,an inactivemotion is an odd concep-
tion,formotionis typically regarded as theparadigm case ofactivity.47
Newtonuses the same word "force"in two verydifferent ways.
In one way,"force"meanswhatNewtoncalls "impressed force,"an
actionexertedon a bodythattendsto changeitsstateofuniform rec-
tilinearmotionor rest,thatis,to acceleratea body. It originates in a
cause externalto thebodyactedupon.48 Newton's First,Second,and
ThirdLaws ofMotionand Universal Law ofGravitation use "force"in
this sense. Contemporary physicists, speaking of the four
in
44"Thedesignation forceofinertia(vis inertiae)must,then,in spiteof

thefamousnameofitsoriginator, be entirelydismissedfromnaturalscience.
Thismustbe donenotonlybecausethisdesignation carrieswithita contra-
dictionintheexpression itself. . ." Kant,Metaphysical FoundationsofNat-
uralScience,114. '
45Sir Isaac Newton's'Mathematical PrinciplesofNaturalPhilosophy,
Def.3,p. 2.
46Westfall,Forcein Newton'sPhysics,450.
47Aristotle,Metaphysics 9.3.1047a30-32;Aquinas,Commentary on the
MetaphysicsofAristotle, trans. John R. Rowan (Chicago:HenryRegnery,
1961),bk.9, §1805. Descartes,thoughdisagreeing withthecommonconcep-
tionofmotion, acknowledges thatmotionis ordinarily understood as an ac-
tion.See RenéDescartes,PrinciplesofPhilosophy, trans.JohnCottingham,
in ThePhilosophicalWritingsofDescartes,vol. I (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985)bk.2, §24-5.
48"Impressed forceis theactionexertedon a bodytochangeits state
eitherofrestingor ofmovinguniformly straightforward. Thisforcecon-
sistssolelyin theactionand does notremainin a bodyaftertheactionhas
ceased. Fora bodyperseveres inanynewstatesolelybytheforceofinertia.
Moreover, therearevarioussourcesofimpressed force,suchas percussion,
pressure,or centripetal force."Newton, Principia,Def.3, 405. Contempo-
raryphysicists oftenmakethesame claim: "In Newtonianmechanics,the
forceactingon a bodyis considered tobe thecause oftheacceleration ofthe
body." Knudsen and Hjorth,Elements ofNewtonian Mechanics, 73. "Inthis
chapter we will see thatthe cause of accelerationis force."Ohanian, Phys-
ics,vol.1,91.
fundamental forcesofnature,also use theterm"force"inroughly this

sense. Although contemporary usuallyreferto inertiaas a
physicists
property and notas a force,theydo sometimes use theterm"inertia!
force"inreferenceto fictitious
orpseudoforces.A.P.French'sexpla-
nationis worthquotingat length:
Imaginethatyouare sitting in a car on a verysmoothroad. You are
holdinga heavypackage. The car is moving, butyoucannotsee the
speedometer fromwhereyousit. Allat onceyougetthefeeling thatthe
package,insteadofbeingjusta dead weighton yourknees,has begun
to pushbackwardhorizontally on youas well. Eventhoughthepack-
age is notin contactwithanything exceptyourself,theeffectis as ifa
forcewerebeingappliedto itandtransmitted to youas youholditstill
withrespectto yourselfandthecar. Ifyoudidnotrestrain thepackage
inthisway,itwouldinfactbe pushedbackward.Younoticethatthisis
whathappensto a mascotthathas beenhanging at theendofa previ-
ouslyverticalstring
attachedto theroofofthecar.
Howdo youinterpret theseobservations? Ifyouhaveanypreviousex-
perienceofsuchphenomena, youwillhaveno hesitation insayingthat
theyare associatedwithan increaseofvelocityofthecar- i.e.,witha
. . . Nonetheless,
positiveacceleration. itdoes feeljustas ifthepackage
itselfis somehowsubjectedto an extraforce - a "forceofinertia"- that
comesintoplaywhenever theeffort
is madeto changethestateofmo-
tionofan object.
Theseextraforcesforman important class. Theycan be heldresponsi-
ble forsuchphenomenaas themotionofa Foucaultpendulum, theef-
fectsin a high-speed the
centrifuge, so-calledg forceson an astronaut
duringlaunching, andthepreferred direction ofrotationofcyclonesin
thenorthern andsouthern hemispheres. Theseforcesare unique,how-
ever,inthesensethatonecannottracetheirorigins to someotherphys-
ical system,as was possibleforall theforcespreviously considered.
Gravitational, and contactforces,forexample,have
electromagnetic,
theiroriginsinothermasses,othercharges,orthe"contact" ofanother
object. Buttheadditionalforcesthatmaketheirappearancewhenan
objectis beingacceleratedhave no suchphysicalobjectsas sources.
Aretheseinertial forcesrealornot?49
49French,NewtonianMechanics,493-4. "Onecan do thisbycomparing

the gravitationalforceof the earthwiththe centrifugal forcedue to the
earth'srotation,whichis a purelyinertialeffect.... A similarexperiment
maybe carriedoutbycomparing thegravitational
forceduetothesun,tothe
inertialforcesassociatedwithourorbitalmotionaboutthesun." RichardP.
Feynman, FeynmanLectureson Gravitation, ed. BrianHatfield(Reading,
MA:PerseusBooks,1995),3-4. "Thisnewtypeofforceclearlyis notan in-
teractionforce.Itis calledan inertialforceandarisesbecauseoftheaccel-
erationofthecoordinate systemS'. Anacceleratedcoordinate systemis not
an inertial
frame.Inertial forcesoccuronlyinacceleratedandrotating coor-
dinatesystems, neverininertial frames."UnoIngardandWilliam L. Kraush-
aar,Introduction toMechanics,Matter,and Waves(Reading,Mass.:Addi-
son-Wesley Pub.,1960),295.
In theaboveexample,a carwitha passengerinitbeginsto accelerate

withrespectto theroad on whichit is moving.The behaviorofthe
packageon thepassenger'slap is due to itsinertial tendency to perse-
verein its stateof uniform rectilinearmotion,to resistaccelerating
withthepassengerandthecar,andto endeavorto changetheirstate
ofmotion.The actionofthepackageevenretards(slightly) thecar's
acceleration.
Forsomepurposes,however, itis veryusefulto adoptthecar as
a reference frameandregarditas ifitwerenotaccelerating butwere
at rest or movinguniformly in a straightline (thatis, an inertial
frame).Viewed sucha way,thebehaviorofthepackageinpressing
in
againstthepassengermayusefully be regardedas producedbyan ex-
ternalforce,as ifsomething externalto thepackagewerepressingit
intothepassenger.However,no suchexternalforceexists.No cause
externalto thepackageis pushingitintothepassenger.Thepassen-
gerhas simplyregardedthereference frameofthecar as ifitwereat
rest(or inuniform motion)insteadofregarding
rectilinear itas accel-
with
erating respect to thereference frame of, example,theroad.50
for
The"force"experienced bythepassengeris thenfictitious. Thepack-
age, considered as beingpressed into the passenger'sstomach by a
fictitiousforce,does not react(via Newton'sThirdLaw of Motion,
50"Thatis,sinceMoe'scoordinate systemis acceleratingwithrespectto

Joe's,theextratermma comesin,andMoewillhaveto correcthisforcesby
thatamountinordertogetNewton'slawstowork.In otherwords,hereis an
apparent, mysterious newforceofunknownoriginwhicharises,ofcourse,
because Moe has the wrongcoordinatesystem. This is an exampleof a
pseudoforce;otherexamplesoccurincoordinate systems thatarerotating"
Feynman, FeynmanLecturesonPhysics,vol.1,12.11."Fictitious forcesare
distinguished from'actual'forcesbythefactthatthefictitiousforcesdepend
onlyon themotion. . . oftheframe5, theposition. . . , andthevelocity... of
theparticle, massoftheparticle.Thepresenceofan ac-
and on theinertial
tualforceF can alwaysbe relatedto an interaction betweentheparticleand
another materialbody.Forexample,ifan electricalforceactsontheparticle
chargedparticles.Ifa gravi-
withotherelectrically
. . . thereis an interaction
tationalforceacts,thereis an interaction withsomebody.. . . Thefictitious
forcescannotinanyobviouswaybe relatedto an interaction withotherbod-
ies. . . . The thirdlaw,thelaw ofactionand reaction,is notvalidforficti-
tiousforces;forthereis no otherbodyuponwhicha reactionforcecan act."
KnudsenandHjorth, ElementsofNewtonianMechanics,108.
action and reaction) upon the source of the fictitiousforce,for no

such source exists.51
As spoken of by contemporaryphysicists,inertialor fictitious
forces,thoughrelatedto Newton's vis inertiae, do not have exactly
the same meaning,thoughforboth,a body's inertiais acknowledged
as a truesource of the phenomenaunderconsideration. In any case,
in speakingof fictitiousforces,physicistsacknowledgea whole class
ofphenomenathatarise froma body's inertia. In the above example,
the behaviorof the package and the experienceof the passenger are
certainlyreal, and even deliberatelyimaginaryexplanationsof them
51"Wenowwantto compare. . . whatwe observewhenwe aremoving

witha uniformly rotatingreference frame.. . . The observerintuitsthata
forceis actingevenwhenthereis no force.Theimpression is so strongthat
itis actuallyuseful,andleadsto theinvention oftheclassofnonexistent, ap-
parent, fakeoradventitious
virtual, forcescalled'centrifugal'forceand'Cori-
olisforce.'"HenryM.Stommel andDennisW.Moore,AnIntroduction tothe
CoriolisForce(NewYork:ColumbiaUniv.Press,1989),12. "Sincewe have
used . . . theterm'centrifugal force'and havenow introduced the'Coriolis
force,'it is necessaryto inquireas to thephysicalmeaningofthesequanti-
ties. It is importantto realizethatthecentrifugal andCoriolisforcesarenot
'forces'intheusualsenseoftheword;theyhavebeenintroduced inan artifi-
cial manneras a resultofourarbitrary requirement thatwe be able to write
an equationwhichresemblesNewton'sequationandatthesametimeis valid
in a noninertial reference frame.... In spiteoftheirartificiality,theuseful-
ness of theconceptsof centrifugal and Coriolisforcesis obvious. To de-
scribethemotionofa particlerelativeto a bodythatis rotating withrespect
to an inertial reference frameis clearlya complicated matter.On theother
hand,theproblemcan be maderelatively easybythesimpleexpedient ofin-
troducing the'noninertial
forces'whichthenallowstheuse ofan equationof
motionthatresemblesNewton'sequation."Jerry B. Marion,Classical Dy-
namicsofParticlesand Systems(NewYork:AcademicPress,1965),347-8.
"Fromthestandpoint of an observerin theaccelerating frame,theinertial
forceis actuallypresent.Ifonetookstepsto keepan object'atrest'inS', by
tyingit downwithsprings, thesespringswouldbe observedto elongateor
contract insucha wayas to providea counteracting forceto balancethein-
ertialforce. To describesuch a forceas 'fictitious' is therefore somewhat
misleading.Onewouldliketohavesomeconvenient labelthatdistinguishes
inertial forcesfromforcesthatarisefromtruephysicalinteractions, andthe
term'pseudo-force' is oftenused. Eventhis,however, does notdojusticeto
suchforcesas experienced bysomeonewho is actuallyin theaccelerating
frame.Probably, theoriginal, strictlytechnicalname,'inertial force,'which
is freeofanyquestionable overtones, remainsthebestdescription." French,
NewtonianMechanics,499.
can be given,but theycome forthfromthe inherent inertiaof the

packageandnotfroman externalforce.Itis precisely thepointthata
body,by virtue ofits does
inertia, some of
things itself,forconcerning
thesephenomenaphysicists employexternalforcesmerelyas useful
fictions.Consequently, fictitiousor inertia!forcesfurther
showthat
the principleof inertiais a principleof nature,thatthe activities
ofinertiaoriginate
characteristic fromwithina bodyas spontaneous
andautomatic responsesofa naturalprinciple.
SinceNewton'stime,variousphysicists havesoughtto showthat
inertiaand its characteristic activitieshave some externalorigin.
ChristiaanHuygens, Newton's greatcontemporary, developedan un-
successfulrelativisticphysicsthat soughtto eliminatefictitious
forces,especiallycentrifugal "force."52In the 19thCentury and the
early20thCentury, somephysicists unsuccessfullysoughtto account
fortheinertiaofbodiesintermsofelectromagnetism.53 Somerecent
hypotheses also seek to explaintheoriginofinertiain termsofelec-
tromagneticprocesses.54
Otherthinkershave maintained thatEinstein'sSpecial Theory
showsthatinertiais notan inherent
Relativity ofa body. In
property
SpecialRelativity,themass of a bodyincreaseswithitsvelocityac-
cordingto theformula:
m = mo/'/ 1-v2/ c2
wherem is therelativisticmass ofa body,ν is itsvelocityrelativeto

someframeofreference, ra0is therestmassofthebody,andc is the
Theincreasein masswithvelocityis quitesmall,ex-
speed oflight.55
ceptwhen thevelocityapproachesthatoflightina vacuum.Sincethe
velocityofa bodyvariesdepending upontheframeofreference with
respectto whichit is measured,themass of a body likewisedepends
upon the frameof reference withrespectto whichit is measured.
Thus,sincethemass ofa bodyis nota constantbutvarieswithand
partlydependsupon its relationsto thingsexternalto it, Special
52Max Jammer, Conceptsof Space, 3rd ed. (New York:Dover Pub.,

1993),122-6.
53See MaxJammer, ConceptsofMass in Classicaland ModernPhysics
(Mineóla, NY:Dover Pub.,1997),136-53.
54BernardHaisch,AlfonsoRueda,and H.E. Puthoff, "Inertiaas a zero-
point-field PhysicalReviewA 49,no. 2 (1994):678-94. For
Lorentzforce,"
further see thearticleslistedat theCalphysics
references, available
Institute,
://www.
at http html.
calphvsics.org/index.
55"Themassthata particlehas whenat restis sometimes calleditsrest
mass." Ohanian,Physics,vol. 1, 186.
Relativitywas viewed by some as showingthatinertiais not an inher-

entpropertyof a body.56However,the restmass (m0) in the equation
is reasonablyinterpretedas referringto a constant,inherentproperty
of the body,forit mustbe takenintoaccount and has the same value
fromany referenceframethatone mightuse to determinethe body's
relativisticmass. Accordingto JohnWheeler,"Does rest mass have
the same value in everyinertialframe? Yes. . . . Rest mass is thus an
invariant"07 Newton'sfundamentalinsightthatinertiais an inherent
propertyof bodies is not overturnedby Special Relativitybut,consid-
ered as restmass, is preservedand reinforcedby it.
Anotherattemptto account forinertiaand its activitiesis known
as Mach's Principleand originatedwiththe physicistand philosopher
ErnstMach and, to a lesser extent,the philosopherBerkeley.58Mach
arguedthatinertialor fictitiousforcesare caused by the distantmat-
teroftheuniverseand thatifthe backgroundoffixedstarsdid notex-
ist,therewould be no inertialforces. The physicistDennis Sciama, a
proponentof Mach's Principle,compares Newton'sand Mach's differ-
entaccounts ofthe originof inertia:
EversincethetimeofIsaac Newtontheclassicalviewhas been- and
experimentshaveseemedto prove- thatinertiais an intrinsic
property
of matter,
i.e., thatthe inertiaof a bodyis in no wayaffected
by its
56"Inthesameway,themassofa moving bodywas foundto dependon

itsmeasuredspeedofmotion, andthisinturndependedon themeasurer, or
ratheron thecoordinate systemhe adopted.Thusabsolutemassfelloutof
science." SirJamesJeans,GrowthofPhysicalScience(Cambridge: Cam-
bridgeUniv.Press,1951),267.
57EdwinF. Taylorand JohnArchibaldWheeler,Spacetime
Physics
(San Francisco:W.H.Freemanand Co., 1966),134. "Itis veryoftensaid in
textbooksthatthetheoryofrelativity has shownthatmass increaseswith
velocityaccordingto therelationm = moy, wherem0is therestmass. Ex-
pressedin thiswayit appearsas a new and profound property of matter,
whereasitis reallya resultofa particular
definitionofrelativistic
velocity.If
we insiston retaining Newtonian dynamics, andtheNewtonian definitions
of
velocityand acceleration, thenwe can stillobtainrelativistically
correctre-
sultsifwe paythepriceofallowingthemassto dependon thevelocity.If
howeverwe adoptEinsteinian dynamics,themassremainsinvariant." J.R.
LucasandP.E. Hodgson,Spacetimeand Electromagnetism (Oxford:Claren-
donPress,1990),192.
58C. Bransand R.H.Dicke,"Mach's
Principleand a Relativistic
Theory
ofGravitation," PhysicalReview124(1961):925. See ErnstMach,History
and RootofthePrincipleoftheConservation ofEnergy,trans.PhilipE. B.
Jourdain (Chicago:OpenCourt,1911),75-80;idem,TheScienceofMechan-
ics, 6thed. withrevisionsthrough the9thGermanedition,trans.ThomasJ.
McCormack (La Salle,111.:
OpenCourt,1989),271-97; GeorgeBerkeley, The
PrinciplesofHuman Knowledge, inBerkeley'sPhilosophicalWritings,ed.
David M. Armstong (New York:Macmillan,1965),§111-17;and De Motu,
trans.A.A.Luce,inBerkeley's PhilosophicalWritings,§52-71.
environment. But a fewphysicists

and philosophers
have insistedon
theoppositeview:thata bodyhas inertiaonlybecause it interacts
in
somewaywithothermatter.I proposeto upholdthesecondviewhere
and to reviewthe evidence,whichseemsto me strongly to favorthe
conclusionthattheinertiaofanybodydependsontherestofthematter
intheuniverse.59
Mach'sPrinciple as a philosophical
originated viewthatwas onlylater
developed into a of
theory physics.60 Einsteinhoped thatGeneral
wouldinstantiate
Relativity Mach'sprincipleand "suggested thatthe
forcesarenotfictitious
inertial butare gravitational
in origin."61
Gen-
eralRelativity,
however, failsto instantiate
Mach'sPrinciple,exceptin
thatinstantiateMach's Principle.64 To date,theseeffortshave not

succeeded.65
Physicistshave also soughtto accountforinertiaby meansof
quantummechanics.66 Recenttheoretical workattempts to account
fortheoriginofinertiaintermsoftheas yetundetected Higgsparticle
andfield.67Thesespeculativeattempts havebeenunsuccessful so far,
whichis, ofcourse,no reasonwhyresearchintotheoriginofinertia
shouldnotcontinue.
Severalconclusionsmaybe drawnfromtheseefforts to account
fortheoriginofinertia.First,as thequotationfromSciamaindicates,
mostphysicistshaveregardedinertiaas an inherent propertythatis a
source of certaincharacteristicactivities.Second,since Newton's
64See, forexample,DennisSciama,TheUnityoftheUniverse(Garden
City,NY:DoubledayAnchor,1961),69-160;idem,"OntheOriginofInertia,"
Monthly NoticesRoyAstron.Soc. 113(1953):34; and IgnazioCiufolini and
JohnArchibaldWheeler,Gravitationand Inertia (Princeton:Princeton
Univ.Press,1995). Further attempts are describedand citedin PeterGra-
neau and Neal Graneau,NewtonVersusEinstein:How MatterInteracts
withMatter(NewYork:CarltonPress,1993),59-101.
65"Einsteinwas strongly influenced byMach'sargument. However, Ein-
stein'stheoryof generalrelativity does not satisfyMach'sprinciple, and
manycosmologists, including Einsteinhimself,havetriedinvainto incorpo-
ratetheprinciple intothetheory."JosephSilk,TheBig Bang,3rded. (New
York:W.H.Freemanand Co.,2001),59. "Ifthephilosopher is goodenough,
aftersometimehe maycomebackand say,Ί understand. Wereallydo not
havesucha thingas absoluterotation; we are reallyrotatingrelativeto the
stars,you see. Andso some influence exertedby thestarson the object
mustcause thecentrifugal force.'Nowforall we know,thatis true;we have
no way,atthepresenttime,oftelling whether therewouldhavebeencentrif-
ugalforceiftherewereno starsandnebulaearound.Wehavenotbeenable
to do theexperiment ofremoving all thenebulaeandthenmeasuring ourro-
tation,so we simplydo notknow. Wemustadmitthatthephilosopher may
be right."Feynman, FeynmanLectureson Physics,vol. 1, 16.2. See also,
Jammer, ConceptsofSpace,215-37.
66See, forexample,CoreyS. Powell,"Unbearable Lightness,"Scientific
American270(May1994):30-31;andJean-Pierre Vigier,"DerivationofIner-
tialForcesfromtheEinstein-de Broglie-Bohm (E.d.B.B.) Causal Stochastic
Interpretation of QuantumMechanics," FoundationsofPhysics25 (1995):
1461-1494.Some physicists havesoughtto combinebothapproachesand
establishMach'sprinciple as a theoremofa quantummechanicaltheoryof
gravity.See, forexample,K.P. Tod, "Mach'sPrincipleRevisited," General
Relativity and Gravitation 26 (1994):103-111.
67GordonKane,"TheMysteries ofMass,"ScientificAmerican293(July
2005): 41-8; FrankWilczek,"Mass withoutMass I: Mostof Matter," and
"Masswithout Mass II: The Mediumis theMass-Age," PhysicsToday52 no.
11 (1999): 11-13and 53 no. 1 (Jan.2000):13-14respectively. Manyparticle
physicistsareoptimistic thattheLargeHadronCollider(LHC) willdetectthe
Higgsparticle.The LHC is locatedat CERNnearGeneva,Switzerland and
willresumeoperations inthespringof2009.
time,somephysicists haveobjectedto thisstandardor classicalview

and have sought,so farunsuccessfully, to explaininertiaby some-
thing external.These failedefforts show thatthosephilosophers are
mistaken whoholdthattheprinciple ofinertiarepudiatesan inherent
principle of nature or signifiesmerelywhata bodydoes notdo. The
oppositeis indeedthecase: theprinciple ofinertiais itselfan inherent
principle. Ifthe principle ofinertiatreatedbodiesas devoidofan in-
herentprinciple, thentherewouldbe no reasonforphysicists to look
foran externalcause ofinertia.Threecenturies offailedefforts to ex-
plaintheoriginofinertiabyexternalforcesandrelationshighlight the
factthattheprinciple ofinertiahas so faralwaysaffirmed an inherent
principle to bodies. No currently acceptedphysicshas shownother-
wise, and Special Relativity has even supportedthe classicalview.
Withregardto modernphysics,inertiais theobviouscounterexample
to an entirelymechanistic philosophy.
Attempts explain originofinertiain termsofotherprinci-
to the
ples mayone daybe successful.Then,it willbe necessaryto deter-
mineifsuchan explanation showsthatinertiais or is notan inherent
principle.Givenwhatis now knownaboutinertia,if inertiais ex-
plainedintermsofotherprinciples, itseemsunlikely thatanysuchex-
planationwillshowthatinertiais notan inherent principle, thoughin-
ertiamayturnoutto be a different kindofinherent principlethanis
currently thought.Perhaps,whatmaybe shownis thatinertiais like
whatis nowcalledan emergent property. Another possibility is thatif
inertiadoes turnoutto havesomekindofextrinsic origin, thenitmay
be naturalsomewhatinthewaythatgravity is naturalin generalrela-
tivity.Dependinguponone'sconceptionofnature,an extrinsic cause
neednotmeanthatsomething is notnatural.
Newton'suse ofthesameword,"vis" in impressedforceand in-
ertialforceandhisuse ofthetermvis insita maysuggestthatinertia
is an internal cause oragencythatmovesa bodyfromwithin,
efficient
andsome writers have interpretedNewtoninjustsucha way.68How-
ever,as we have seen, Newtonis at pains to maintainthata body
68See,forexample, TheMechanization
E.J.Dijksterhuis, oftheWorld
Picture,trans.C. Dikshoorn (Oxford:OxfordUniv.Press,1961),466;
McGuire, Motion
"Natural "Newton's
andItsCauses,"310; ZevBechler, On-
tologyoftheForceofInertia,"in TheInvestigation ofDifficultThings:Es-
says on Newton and the History of theExact Sciencesin HonourofD.T
Whiteside,eds. PeterM. Harmanand Alan E. Shapiro(Cambridge:Cam-
bridgeUniv.Press,1992),287-304;andCohen,GuidetoNewton'sPrincipia,
98.
perseveringinuniform rectilinear Inthe

itself.69
motionis notmoving
Opticks,firstpublishedin 1704,Newtonalso makesit clearthatthe
vis inertiaeis notan agencywithina bodythatcauses itto moveor
rest:
The vis inertiaeis a passiveprinciplebywhichbodiespersistin their
motionor rest,receivemotioninproportion to theforceimpressing
it,
and resistas muchas theyare resisted.Bythisprinciplealone there
couldneverhavebeenanymotionin theworld. SomeotherPrinciple
was necessaryforputting BodiesintoMotion;andnowtheyare inmo-
tion,someotherprinciple themotion.70
is necessaryforconserving
In contrastto inertiaas a sourceofcharacteristic thispas-
activities,
sage emphasizespassivity.Thepassivity ofthevis inertiaeprecludes
itfrombeingan agencyofa body'sownuniform rectilinearmotionor
rest,forthatwouldmakeitan activeprinciple, whichforNewtonis a
kindofefficient cause.71Ifinertiawerean internal agencythatmoves
a bodyfromwithin, thenNewtoncouldnotreasonablyclaimthaton
thebasis ofthevis inertiaealone therecouldneverhave been any
motionintheworld.Thus,byitsinertia, a bodycannotdriveorpush
itselfto continuemovingina straight lineat constantspeednorcan it
forceitselfto rest.
A comparison withKeplerfurther illuminatesthispoint.72Kepler
conceivedofinertiaas an inherent inclinationofmatter to resistmo-
tionand to be at rest.73By contrast,Newtonconceivedofinertiaas
69For furtherargumentation in supportofthisclaim,see DudleySha-

pere,"ThePhilosophicalSignificance of Newton'sScience,"in TheAnnus
MirabilisofSir Isaac Newton1666-1966(Cambridge, Mass.:M.I.T.Press,
1970),287-9.
70SirIsaac Newton,Opticks,bk.3, query31,p. 397 (NewYork:Dover,
1979),397.
71Seeingtherefore thevariety ofMotionwhichwe findintheWorldis
alwaysdecreasing, thereis a necessityofconserving and recruiting itbyac-
tiveprinciples,
suchas arethecause ofgravity . . . andthecause offermenta-
tion."Ibid.,399.
72Newtonplannedbutdidnotcarryoutan emendation to thethirdedi-
tionofthePrincipiathatwouldadd thefollowing to Def.3: "I do notmean
Kepler'sforceofinertia,bywhichbodiestendtowardrest,buta forceofre-
mainingin the same stateeitherof restingor of moving."Newton,Prin-
cipia, 404, note c; and, Cohen,A Guide to Newton'sPrincipia, 101.
Newton'spositionis a kindofmiddlewaybetweenthatofLucretius inwhich
atomsareneverat restandKepler'sinwhichbodiestendtowardrest.
73According to Kepler,inertia"a primary
qualityofmatter, is a kindof
laziness,an abhorrenceof beingmoved." Cohen,"'QuantumIn Se Est'"
ACPQ,41. See also Jammer, ConceptsofMass,52-9.
persevering eitherat restor in uniform rectilinear motionand as re-

sistingchangesto eitherstate. However,uniform rectilinearmotion
andrestareopposedstates,fora bodycannotbe inmotionandat rest
at thesametimeand inthesamerespect.Therefore, sincea bodyby
itsinertiapersistsin eitheroftheopposedstatesofuniform rectilin-
ear motionor rest,inertiacannotbe an agentcause of a body'suni-
formrectilinear motionor ofitsrest.Ifinertiawerean agentcause of
uniform rectilinear motion,thena body,byitsinertia, couldnotalso
persist in a state ofrest. Similarly,ifinertia were an agentcause ofa
body'srest,thenitcouldnotalso be thatbywhicha bodyperseveres
in uniform rectilinearmotion.Consequently, a body,in virtueof its
owninertia, is determined to neitherstate. Thus,inertiais neithera
forceofrestnora forceofuniform rectilinearmotion.
the
However, openness of inertia
to either restor uniform recti-
linearmotionis incompatible withNewton'sconception ofnatureand
naturalas whata bodydoes whenleftto itself.GivenNewton'scon-
ceptionof inertia,a bodyleftto itselfwouldbe neithermovingnor
resting.Ifa bodyis movinginertially or is at rest,thentheactionof
someotherbodydetermined itto one ortheotherstateandonlythen
does thebody,ifleftto itself, persevereat restor in uniform rectilin-
ear motion.Thus,Newton'sconceptionof natureis inadequatebe-
cause as thequotefromtheOpticsmakesclear,inertialmotionim-
plies a causal relationship to anotherbodyeveniftheactionofthat
otherbodyoccurredonlyinthepast. A notionofnaturethatexcludes
anykindofexplanation intermsofexternalcauses is too extremefor
theFirstLaw ofMotion.
Newtonhas severaldilemmas.On theone hand,he cannotas-
cribea body'sinertial motionto a continuously actingexternalforce,
norcan he ascribeits continuing motionto an inherent force,which
a
would make body self-propelled. On the other hand,he cannot
maintain thata bodyofitselfcontributes nothing to itsuniform recti-
is
linearmotionorrestand entirely determined by external forces,for
a body,in virtueof its inertia,acts uniformly in characteristicways.
Yet,inertiais passive,open to bothuniform rectilinear motionand
rest,and notorderedtowardanyparticular place or direction.It is
notan efficient cause of its own activity.Thus,inertialmotionand
restpointtowardan externalcause, whichis problematic forNew-
ton'sconceptionof nature. However,inertiais inherent neces- and
saryandthereby impliessomeconceptionofnature.ThoughNewton
regardsinertialmotionand restas inactive,nevertheless, inertiais
somehowpresentin them. Also,forNewton,resistanceis passive,
althoughresistanceto an impressedforceis something a bodydoes,

and so seems active. Even morecuriously, forNewton,inertiais a
passiveprinciple, although ita
by body endeavors to changethestate
ofbodiesthatact uponit. Newton'ssolutionto thesedifficulties and
his explanation oftheFirstLaw drawupontheveryinadequatecon-
ceptionsandlanguageavailableto himinhisownnaturalphilosophy,
thethinking characteristicofhisage,anda mathematical approachto
nature,whichare thesourcesofmanyoftheparadoxesand difficul-
ties of Definition 3 in thePrincipia. Newton'sgeneralframework
failsto solve thedilemmasand difficulties posed by inertiaand the
FirstLaw. Another framework is needed.
An Aristotelian conceptionofnaturehelpsresolveNewton'sdi-
lemmas.In theAristotelian sense,naturemaybe consideredas mate-
rialand as formal.As material, natureis thesourceofvariouspoten-
tialitiesforextrinsicinfluence.As formal,natureis a source of
activity.Newtonfamously rejectedthenotionofform, butironically
thenotionofformalongwiththeattendant Aristotelianprinciples of
potencyandactcan helpexplainhowtheprinciple ofinertiais a natu-
ralprinciple.Inertia,consideredin termsoftheseprinciples, would
be a genericaccidentofa bodythatresultsfroma form.74 Anaccident
further its
specifies subject.75 Some accidents arenecessarytoa thing
andothersarenot.76Inertiawouldbe an accidentthatnecessarily be-
longs to a thingby virtueofthe principles of itsnature.As such, iner-
tiawouldbe inherent andinseparable froma body,a description ofin-
ertiathatfitsthatgivenbyphysicists.
As an accidentofa bodyresulting froma form, inertiais a formin
a subject.Sincea formis an actoractuality ofthatwhichitforms, in-
ertia,considered as form,would be an act ofa As
body.77 such, inertia
74"[A]ccidentsthatresultfromtheformareproperties to the
belonging
genusor species,and consequently theyare foundin everything sharingthe
natureofthegenusor species." ThomasAquinas,Being and Essence,2nd
rev.ed.,trans,and notesbyArmandMaurer(Toronto:The Pontifical Insti-
tuteofMedievalStudies,1968),chap.6,p. 69.
75"Becauseessenceis whatthedefinition . . . accidentsmust
signifies
havean essenceinthesamewaythattheyhavea definition. . . . Accidental
beingresultsfroman accidentand a subjectwhentheformer comesto the
later."Aquinas,Beingand Essence,6.66
76Ibid.,4.56.
77"Becauseformcauses actualexistence,formis said to be an act."
ThomasAquinas,ThePrinciplesofNature,in JosephBobik,Aquinas on
Matterand Formand theElements:A Translationand Interpretation of
the 'De Principiis Naturae1and the 'De MixtioneElementorum' of St.
ThomasAquinas(NotreDame:Univ.ofNotreDamePress,1998),chap.1,p.
6.
would be an inherentprincipleby which a body acts in the

characteristicways thatNewtonascribesto the vis inertiae,for
everything accordingto itsform.78
acts Sinceinertiais an act,a body
simplyactsso as topersevereinuniform rectilinearmotionorrestbe-
cause "everythingactsinso faras itis inact."79Putinanotherway,an
followsfromeveryform.80
inclination Thus,ifinertiawereregarded
as determined by a formal principle, bodyin virtueof its inertia
a
wouldhave an inclination to perseverein eitheruniform rectilinear
motionor rest,to resistimpressedforces,and to endeavorto change
thestateofanotherbodyimpressing a forceuponit.
and
In addition, veryimportantly, form, ininanimate things,is not
cause ofa body'sownactivity.81
an efficient ForAquinas,natureis a
principleofmotionandshould notbe conceived as a movingcause.82
Some of his harshestwordsare used forthosewho would modify
definition
Aristotle's ofnatureso thatnaturebecomesa vis insita.83
Thus,inertiaconsideredas a formwouldnotimplythata bodyis self-
propelledor thatit is movingitselfthrough some kindof immanent
force. Consequently, whenphysicists say thatthemotionof a body
continuesbecause ofitsinertiaor thata bodyperseveresin uniform
motionor restbytheforceofinertia,
rectilinear thisshouldbe under-
stoodtomeanthatinertiais a formal andnotan efficient principleofa
body's motion
inertial or rest. Inertia"maintains" a body in uniform
78"Everything acts in accordwithitsform."ThomasAquinas,Summa

TheologicaI, q. 4, a. 3c in TheBasic Writings ofSt. ThomasAquinas,ed.
AntonPegis (New York:RandomHouse, 1945). Henceforth ST. All refer-
enceshereinto ST are fromPegis,exceptwhereotherwise noted. "Nothing
is actualexceptbyitsform."Aquinas,ST I, q. 7,a. 3c.
79Aquinas,ST l-ll,q. 55,a. 2c.
80"[S]omeinclination followseveryform. Aquinas,ST1, q. 80,a. lc.
81Aristotle,
Physics8.4.255a5-19.
82On thedistinction betweena principle and a moverandthetendency
ofthinkers toreify principles, see JamesA.Weisheipl, O.P.,"SpecterofMotor
Coniunctus," inNatureand Motionin theMiddleAges,ed. WilliamCarroll
(Washington, D.C.: CatholicUniv.Press,1985),100,113-18;"Aristotle's Con-
cept of Nature:Avicennaand Aquinas,"in Approachesto Nature,ed.
LawrenceD. Roberts(Binghamton, N.Y.:CenterforMedieval& EarlyRenais-
sance Studies,1982),146-54;"ThePrincipleOmne quod moveturab alio
movetur in MedievalPhysics," Isis 56 (1965):38-41;andNatureand Gravi-
tation(RiverForest,III: Albertus MagnusLyceum,1955),22-9.
83"Hencetheyareto be laughedat [Undederidendisunt]who,wishing
to correctthedefinition ofAristotle, triedto definenaturebysomething ab-
solute,sayingthat nature is a power seated in things[natura est vis insita
rebus]orsomething ofthissort."Aquinas,OnAristotle's Physics,2.145.
rectilinearmotion or rest as a formalconstituentfromwhich such

motionor restfollows.84As formal,inertiais not a propulsionsource
fora body's inertialmotion. Put in anotherway,Kant'sview ofinertia
as signifyingnothingbut the lifelessnessof a body involvesa false di-
a
chotomy: body need notbe alive to act froman inherentprinciple.
Furthermore,since the inertiaof a body is not of itselfdeter-
minedto eitherof the opposed states of restor of uniformrectilinear
motion,inertiais open to one or the other of the opposed states.
Thus, a principleof potencyis implied,fora body thatis open to op-
posed states mustbe in potencyto them.85Consequently,some force
externalto a body mustdetermineit to one or the otherstate,thereby
furtherformingit. A body, afterbeing acted upon by an external
force,is theneitherin the act of restor the act of uniformrectilinear
motion. Motion or rest, which are generable and corruptibleand
caused by an externalforce,add to inertia,which is an inseparable
but incompleteaccident.86
Inertialmotion,then,would follow froma formgeneratedin a
body by an externalforcethathas furtherdeterminedthe body. So
considered,inertialmotionwould be consistentwithNewton'sclaim
that the vis inertiae of a body does not operate as a continuous
moverthatkeeps a body in uniformrectilinearmotion. A body's iner-
tial motion (as distinctfromits inertia)would be received froman-
otherand would followfroman act enduringin the body as a further
actualizationof it. Thus, a body would perseverein inertialmotion
withoutrequiringa continuousmovingcause to sustain its ongoing
uniformrectilinearmotion,thatis, it could persistin uniformrectilin-
ear motionwhen it is no longerbeing acted upon. The body would
just remainin act, which adequately captures the sense of passivity
thatNewtonclaims forthe vis inertiae while at the same timedoing
84Theconception ofinertiaas a formal constituentis represented

math-
ematically inmomentum mvandkineticenergy Vzmv2 wherem is theinertial
massandν is thevelocity.
85"Forthesamethingcan be at thesametimetwocontrar-
potentially
ies, but it cannotbe actually."Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans.W.D. Ross,
4.5.1009a34-6,
86"Butsometimes accidentsare causedonlyas aptitudes, andtheyare
completedbyan externalagent,liketransparency in theair,whichis com-
plemented byan externalluminousbody. In cases likethesetheaptitudeis
an inseparableaccident,whereasthecompletion thatcomesfroma source
externalto theessenceofthething, or thatdoes notenterintoitsconstitu-
tion,willbe separablefromit,likemovement and otheraccidentsof this
kind."Aquinas,Beingand Essence,6.69-70.
justiceto the dynamiccharacterof whatinertiaand inertialmotion

andrestdo.
Withrespectto rest,Newtonand otherthinkers, such as Des-
cartes,regardedrestas an absenceofactivity because a bodyat rest
remainsthesameandis unchanging.87 Thiswouldbe trueif"activity"
werelimitedto changeortheproduction ofsomething newin orbya
for
body. However, Aristotle, restis a motionless act or an unchang-
ingactivity.88 If one embracesAristotle's largernotionof activity in
whicha constantunchanging actis an activity,thenrestis an activity.
A bodyat restis in act. Newton,following Descartes,notonlycon-
ceived of rest as an unchanging state but also regardeduniform
rectilinearmotionas an unchanging stateequivalent to rest.89Forthis
reason, Descartes and Newton thought that uniform rectilinearmo-
tion,unlikeacceleratedmotion,didnotrequirea continuously acting
mover.90 Consequently, justas restwas notconsideredan activity, so
too persevering in uniform rectilinear motionwas notconsideredan
activity, whichis one reasonthaton Newton'saccountthevis iner-
tiae is inactivein suchmotion.On thisview,a body,whether at rest
or ininertialmotion, is notdoinganything, and,thus,thevis inertiae
neednotoperate.Newton,lackingAristotle's analogicalnotionofact
and activity, could notunderstand how inertialmotioncould be an
and
activity yet not be the result of a continuously actingagency.
Newton,therefore, resortedto theparadoxicalnotionofvis inertiae
inattempting to solvethisandrelatedproblems.
Inertia,consideredin termsof form,potency,and act not only
betterexpressesthefactsaboutinertiabutalso solvesan additional
problemto whichNewton'svis inertiaegivesrise. Theproblemcon-
cernshowNewton'sinactiveandpassivevis inertiaeis calledintoex-
ercisewhenbodiescollide.91Considera collisionbetweenbodiesA
andB. According to Newton,each body,bymeansofitsvis inertiae,
resiststheotherand endeavorsto changethestateoftheother.The
87Descartes, ofPhilosophy
Principles 2.24-8.FortheinfluenceofDes-
cartesonNewton, see AlexandreKoyré,"Newton andDescartes,"inNewto-
nian Studies(Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard Univ.Press,1965),53-114;and
Gabbey, "Force
and 230-320.
Inertia,"
88"[T]here ofmovement
is notonlyan activity butan activityofimmo-
Nicomachean
bility."Aristotle, Ethics,trans.W.D.Ross,7.14.1154b26-7.
SeealsoAristotle,
Metaphysics9.8.1050al5-1050b2.
89Shapere,"ThePhilosophical ofNewton's
Significance Science,"285-
99.
2.37-8.
^Descartes,PrinciplesofPhilosophy
91ErnanMcMullin, (NotreDame:Univ.
Newtonon Matterand Activity
ofNotreDamePress,1978),36-42.
twobodiessupposedlyimpressforcesuponeach otheras a resultof

resistingtheimpressedforceoftheother.Theproblemconcernsthe
origin theimpressedforces.Neither
of body,invirtueofitsvis iner-
tiae,can exertan impressedforceupon theotherunlesstheyresist
an impressedforcefromthe other. Body A cannotexertan im-
pressedforceon Β unlessΒ exertsan impressed forceuponA. How-
ever,body Β cannot exert an impressed force uponbodyA unlessA
exertsan impressed forceuponbodyB. Howdoes onegetan original
impressed force? Two passiveand inactiveforcescannotmutually
seteach otherintooperation.In orderforthetwocolliding bodiesto
change from passiveperseverance to active some
resistance, other
forcemustbe involved, butNewtonpositsno such force. Thus,on
Newton'saccount,two collidingbodies couldnotexercisetheirvis
inertiaeand could not resistand endeavorto changeeach other.
However,inertia, consideredas an act ofa body,and inertial motion
and rest,regardedas further actualizationsof a body,explainhow
twobodiesact uponeach otherin collisions.Thebodiescollidewith
eachotherandthenactbecausetheyarealreadyinact. Oncebrought
intomutualcontact,each ofthecolliding bodies,invirtueofitsinertia
and ofitsrestor uniform rectilinearmotion,tendsto perseverein its
motionorrestandto resistandendeavorto changetheotherbecause
a thingacts insofaras itis in act. Thus,theinertiaofa bodyand its
perseverance in inertialmotionor restare betterunderstood as acts
ofthatbodyand notas something inactive.Considering inertiaand
inertialmotionandrestinthiswayavoidstheproblematic conception
ofinertiaas a forceand treatstheresistanceand endeavorofinertia
as following uponits inclination to perseverein uniform rectilinear
motionorrestratherthanreversing theorderofperseverance andre-
sistanceas Newtondid.
SpecialRelativityfurthersupportsthenotionthatinertiais an act
foraccordingto Einstein'sfamousequationE=mc 2 the
or activity,
inertialmass ofa bodyis itselfa formofenergy.Inertiais notaccu-
ratelydescribedas bruteresistantmatter. Even in prerelativistic
physics,a bodymovinginertially has kineticenergy.92Thus,theiner-
tial motionof a body is an energeticactivityeven if thereis no
92Kinetic
energyistheenergyofmotion andis a measure
ofa body'sca-
todoworkinvirtue
pacity ofitsvelocity.
Abody'skineticenergy(inNewto-
nianphysics)
equalsonehalfthemassofthebodymultiplied byitsvelocity
squaredÇfam?).Ohanian,Physics,vol.1,162-3.Theform bywhich a body
movesinertially
anditsrelation
tokineticenergy,momentum, andheatare
analyzedinAnthony Rizzi,TheScienceBeforeScience(BatonRouge,LA:
IAPPress,2004),193-203.
ongoingactionofone thinguponanother.A bodyat restmayalso be

thought tohaveenergy invirtueofitsposition.Forexample,thework
doneinraisinga heavybodysomedistanceabovethegroundmight be
thought ofas buildingworkor energyintothebodyat itsposition.93
In virtueofitspositionand in respectto an externalforce,thebody
thenhas potentialenergy.94 Energyis commonly regardedas some-
thing active. since
Consequently, inertia, uniform rectilinear
motion,
and restall involveformsofenergy, theyare reasonablyregardedas
eventhoughtheyneednotinvolvetheongoingactionofone
activities
thingupon another. Newtoncould not recognizethisnot onlybe-
cause he didnothavethenotionofenergy butalso becauseofhislim-
itednotionofactivity.
The solutionpresentedabove offersseveraladvantagesfroman
Aristotelian or Thomisticperspective.First,theprincipleof inertia
showsthedependenceofmotionon a moverbetterthanthenatural
motionsoftheAristotelian elementalbodies.95Thenaturalmotionsof
thesublunarbodies,thoughfollowing upontheirnatures, arefroman-
other.Forthisreason,Aquinassaysthatgravitasis a passiveprinci-
ple.96The generator ofa heavyor lightbodyis theefficientcause of
93"Youwillundoubtedly withanotherwayofinterpreting
be familiar a
potentialenergysuchas U(h) in thelastequation.It representsexactlythe
amountofworkthatwe wouldhaveto do inorderto raisean objectthrough
pull,withoutgivingit anykineticen-
a distanceh, againstthegravitational
ergy."French, NewtonianMechanics,378.
94Expressedmathematically, thegravitational
potential
energy ofan ap-
ple withrespectto thegroundequalsmgh(forsmalldisplacements nearthe
Earth'ssurface)wherem is themassoftheapple,g is theacceleration pro-
ducedbygravity nearthesurfaceoftheEarth,andh is theheight oftheapple
abovetheground.Sincemgequalstheconstant forceofgravityontheapple,
theapple'spotentialenergywithrespectto thegroundequalstheforceof
gravityon theapplemultiplied byitsheightabovetheground.French, New-
tonianMechanics,376-7.
95In previouslypublishedwork,I have addressedissues concerning
Newton'sFirstLaw ofMotion,movercausality, and theAristoteliandefini-
tionofmotion.See ThomasJ.McLaughlin, "Aristotelian
Mover-Causalityand
InternationalPhilosophicalQuarterly38 (1998):
the Principleof Inertia,"
137-51;and "LocalMotionand thePrincipleofInertia:Aquinas,Newtonian
Physics,and Relativity,"InternationalPhilosophicalQuarterly44 (2004):
239-64.
96"Nowwe do notfindin anynon-living bodyanyoriginative sourceof
motion Thereis inlivingthingsan activeprinciple ofmotion,namely, the
soul,while in bodies
non-living thereis no such active of
principle motion
whichcouldmove,butsuchthingsaremovedbyan external mover, whichis
thegenerator orthatwhichremoveswhatprevents motion.Yettheydo have
a passiveprincipleofmotionwithin, bywhichtheyare aptto be moved,for
example,heavinessor lightness."Aquinas,ExpositionofAristotle's On the
Heavens,2.305.
itsnaturalmotion.Nevertheless, once formed, a sublunarbodyim-

mediately moves toward a place that its
fulfills nature. Its local mo-
tionis thenconsequentupon a formalprincipleof motion.97The
movements ofsuchbodiespresentthegreatest becausethat
difficulty
fromwhichtheirmotionis derivedis notclear. Therefore, itis notas
evidentthattheyare movedbyanother.98 Bycontrast, local mo-
the
tionof a bodythathas inertiais notinherently consequentuponits
property ofinertia.99 Inertia,simply itself, no preferred
of has direc-
tionorinherent orientationto a place. Motiondoes notfollowfromit
alonebecause,ofitselfand wherever it maybe, inertiais indetermi-
natewithrespectto motionorrest. Something furtheris required for
a bodyto be in motion.In thisrespect,inertiais unliketheAristote-
lian notionsofgravitasand levitas,whichare moreeasilymiscon-
struedas moversthanis inertia.A body,in virtueof its inertia,is
moreclearlymovedby anotherthanare theAristotelian elemental
bodies. Thus,theprinciple ofinertiabettershowsthedependenceof
motionon a mover.
A secondadvantagefroman Aristotelian or Thomistic perspec-
tiveconcernsthedistinction betweennaturalandcompulsory motion.
in a
Heidegger, quotation footnoted at the beginning of this paper,
assertsthatNewton'sFirstLaw eliminates"thedifference between
naturaland againstnature,i.e., forced."However,theprincipleof
inertiadoes providea basis fora distinction betweennaturaland
compulsory motion if one considers the resistance ofinertiato vari-
ous impressed forces.Forbyitsinertia, a bodydoes notresistgravity
inthewaythatitresistsotherforces.A bodyinfreefall, thatis a body
97"However, inheavy[gravibus]andlight[levibus]bodiesthereis a for-

malprincipleofmotion.(Buta formal principleofthissortcannotbe called
theactivepotencyto whichthismotionpertains.Ratheritis understood as
passivepotency.Forheaviness[gravitas]inearthis nota principle formov-
ing,butratherforbeingmoved.)Forjust as theotheraccidentsare conse-
quentuponsubstantial form, so also is place,andthusalso 'to be movedto
place.'However,thenaturalformis notthemover.Ratherthemoveris that
whichgenerates and givessuchand sucha formuponwhichsucha motion
follows."Aquinas,OnAristotle's Physics,2.144."Hence,to askwhya heavy
thingis moveddownward is nothing otherthanto ask whyitis heavy.The
samethingwhichmakesitheavyalso makesitto be moveddownward."On
Aristotle's
Physics,8.1034.
98Aristotle,
Physics8.4.254b 7-255a5. See also Aquinas,On Aristotle's
Physics,8.1021-8.
yy Themotionofbodieswithout restmass,suchas light,wouldseemto
followfromtheirnature.Light,however,cannotrest,thoughit can be im-
peded.
whichis notsubjectto anyforcesotherthangravity, does notfeel

heavynor do weighingscales and othersuch devices recordany
weight. In freefall, a body is weightless, thoughgravity is not,of
course,absent. Weightrequiresan obstacleto gravity.Whenan ob-
stacleprevents orhindersa body'sgravitational motion, thebodythen
feelsheavyand measuring devicesrecorda weight.100 Consequently,
infreefallinggravitationalmotion and in in
persevering uniform recti-
linearmotionbyitsinertia, a body,in Aquinas'words,"is notmoved
with labor."101 Such motions are natural.However,because of the
way in whichinertiaresistsmanyotherforces,a bodyis movedby
these otherforces"withlabor." Theyare resistedin manifest and
measurableways. Therefore, consideredwithrespectto its inertia,
theacceleration ofa bodybysuchforceswouldbe compulsory.
AnadvantageofAristotle's notionofnaturecomparedto thatof
theancientatomistsis thaton an Aristotelian conceptionof nature,
something can have an extrinsic cause and stillbe natural. Some
causes outsidea bodyare naturaland othersare not.102Aristotle's
principleofpotencymakesthisbroaderconceptionofnatureintelligi-
ble. As material,natureis thesourceofvariouspotentialities forex-
trinsicinfluence,and so, a body'spotencycan be actualizedbyan ex-
trinsiccause towhichitis naturally disposed.Theresulting motionor
actualizationwouldthenbe natural.Therefore, and
gravity gravita-
tionalmotion,evenviewedas havingan extrinsic cause,can be natu-
ral. Whether is
something according to nature or againstnaturede-
pends upon the potencyof the body and its relationto an agent.
Although a developedaccountofnaturaland compulsory motionwill
not be givenhere,the basis fordistinguishing betweennaturaland
compulsory motion is present in inertialphysics,even if physicists
thinkofitindifferent, perhapsconfusing, terms.103
100French,NewtonianMechanics,285.
iU1Seefh.27.
102"Andthemotionofthingsthatderivetheirmotionfromsomething
else is insomecases natural, inothersunnatural. . . . Someofthemarecapa-
ble of causingmotionunnaturally (e.g. theleveris notnaturally capableof
moving theweight),othersnaturally (e.g.whatis actuallyhotis naturally ca-
of
pable moving what is potentially
hot). ... So when or
fire earthis moved
bysomething themotionis ... naturalwhenitbringsto actuality theproper
activitiesthat theypotentially possess." Aristotle, Physics 8.4.254b20-
255a30.
103Foran accountofnaturalandcompulsory motionandoffinalcausal-
ity,see JohnW.Keck,"TheNaturalMotionofMatterinNewtonian andPost-
Newtonian Physics,"The Thomist 71 ( 2007): 529-54 .
Finally,accordingto Aristotle, natureacts foran end. As noted

previously, thetaskofthispaperis notto arguethatinertiaand mo-
tionaccordingto Newton'sFirstLaw are goal directed.For now,I
merelynotethatan argument forfinalcausalitycouldbeginbycon-
the
sidering respects in which inertiaandNewton'sFirstLaw arenat-
uralintheAristotelian senseandthenargueon thebasisoftheprinci-
ple thatnature acts for an endthatNewton'sFirstLaw ofMotionand
theproperty ofinertiamustbe teleological.The taskwouldthenbe
to discoverthatteleology.
Inertiais a genericprincipleof motionand restwithina body,
thoughat a minimalformedlevel. Inertiainforms the FirstLaw of
Motion,whichis thereby calledtheprinciple ofinertia.Invirtueofits
a
inertia, body acts and is acted in
upon verydefinite, characteristic
anduniform ways. Newtonandphysicists fromhistimeto ourshave
regarded inertiaas an inherent principlebywhicha bodyperseveres
in eitheruniform rectilinear motionor rest,resistsimpressedforces,
andendeavorsto changethestateofthosebodiesuponwhichitacts.
In short,inertiais notinert.The variousphysicalexamplesgivenin
thispapershowthattheprinciple ofinertiadoes nottreata bodyas if
ithas no inherent principle.The unsuccessful attempts byphysicists
to findan extrinsic originofinertia, thoughtheymayeventually lead
tonewdiscoveries, further support theview that inertia
is an inherent
principle ofnature.Newtonhimself understood theprinciple ofiner-
tia through an eclecticbutlargelynonAristotelian conceptionofna-
tureandmatter andbytheproblematic notionofa vis inertiae.How-
ever,Newton'sgeneralphilosophy ofnatureshouldbe distinguished
fromthemorespecificcontentoftheFirstLaw andofinertiaitself.A
generalAristotelian conceptionofnaturecan resolvemanyof New-
ton'sdifficulties. Thus,inertiaand theFirstLaw ofMotionare rea-
as
sonablyregarded naturalinthegeneralAristotelian sense,thougha
teleologicalaccountoftheseprinciples remainsto be given.104
St. JohnVianneyTheological
Seminary
104
An earlydraftofthispaperwas readat theSummerConference of
theInstitute
forthe Studyof Natureon June16th,2007. I am grateful
to
thosepresentfortheirmanycomments andsuggestions.

Nature &amp; Inertia (Thomas J. McLaughlin)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nature &amp; Inertia (Thomas J. McLaughlin)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nature and Inertia

Author(s): Thomas J. Mclaughlin

JNewton'sFirstLaw of Motion,also knownas theprinciple ofiner-

Correspondence to: St. JohnVianneySeminary, 1300S. Steele Street,

the creed of science is

Otherphilosophers assertthecomplementary viewthat"theprinciple

Aboutthis definition, the Nobel Prize winningphysicistS. Chan-

7 Glen Coughlin,Aristotle'sPhysics, or Natural Hearing (St.

impressedforces. Contemporary physicists also viewinertiaas the

11Richard P. Feynman, RobertB. Leighton, andMatthew Sands,The

"massis an intrinsicproperty ofa body,measuring theresistance(in-

15Hans C. Ohanian,Physics,vol. 1 (New York:W.W.Norton& Co.,

efforts oftheconstruction workersto stopitand,bypersisting in its

20Isaac Asimov,Understanding Physics:Motion,Sound, and Heat

motionis in themselvesare movedby nature."25In addition,Aris-

25St. ThomasAquinas,Commentaryon Aristotle's

Eventhoughinertiais a principleofnatureconsideredat a very

30Thequestionofwhatkindsofbodiesdo ordo nothaveinertiawillnot

naturalplaces butimmediately movetowardthem.Once brought to

being differentiatedby the different naturalphilosophiesupon which

In Book 3 of the Principia, when Newtoncontrastsgravityand iner-

33JohnPaul II also distinguished theoriesof evolutionbythe

Newton'sDefinition 3 also containstheunusualphrasequantum

36Motte,in his translation of the Principia,rendersthe phrase"as

However,forNewton,"nature" and "natural" havethesense,de-

41"Throughout theseventeenth century,therefore, quantumin se est

in a state. Ifa bodywerenotsubjectto an impressedforce,itwould

44"Thedesignation forceofinertia(vis inertiae)must,then,in spiteof

fundamental forcesofnature,also use theterm"force"inroughly this

49French,NewtonianMechanics,493-4. "Onecan do thisbycomparing

In theaboveexample,a carwitha passengerinitbeginsto accelerate

50"Thatis,sinceMoe'scoordinate systemis acceleratingwithrespectto

action and reaction) upon the source of the fictitiousforce,for no

51"Wenowwantto compare. . . whatwe observewhenwe aremoving

can be given,but theycome forthfromthe inherent inertiaof the

wherem is therelativisticmass ofa body,ν is itsvelocityrelativeto

52Max Jammer, Conceptsof Space, 3rd ed. (New York:Dover Pub.,

Relativitywas viewed by some as showingthatinertiais not an inher-

56"Inthesameway,themassofa moving bodywas foundto dependon

environment. But a fewphysicists

thatinstantiateMach's Principle.64 To date,theseeffortshave not

time,somephysicists haveobjectedto thisstandardor classicalview

perseveringinuniform rectilinear Inthe

69For furtherargumentation in supportofthisclaim,see DudleySha-

persevering eitherat restor in uniform rectilinear motionand as re-

althoughresistanceto an impressedforceis something a bodydoes,

would be an inherentprincipleby which a body acts in the

78"Everything acts in accordwithitsform."ThomasAquinas,Summa

rectilinearmotion or rest as a formalconstituentfromwhich such

84Theconception ofinertiaas a formal constituentis represented

justiceto the dynamiccharacterof whatinertiaand inertialmotion

twobodiessupposedlyimpressforcesuponeach otheras a resultof

ongoingactionofone thinguponanother.A bodyat restmayalso be

itsnaturalmotion.Nevertheless, once formed, a sublunarbodyim-

97"However, inheavy[gravibus]andlight[levibus]bodiesthereis a for-

whichis notsubjectto anyforcesotherthangravity, does notfeel

Finally,accordingto Aristotle, natureacts foran end. As noted

You might also like

Nature & Inertia (Thomas J. McLaughlin)

Nature & Inertia (Thomas J. McLaughlin)