SilentSky23

I see, I must have read sayings in the wrong places, then. But, just so it is clear to me, how is resisting acceleration different from reducing it, exactly? Just want to make sure. Man, I forgot about those two for some reason. I guess it is what is in the formula that matters, if you know what I mean, or how the formula works. I knew there was a potential reason why my thought was possibly wrong, and I only wanted to check on that. Looks like I found the reason, thanks to what you said. To both of you, I hope you did not mind me asking this, especially since there are some things I happened to accidentally miss.

I see. I kinda meant by inertia reducing acceleration, I meant by resisting it. What do you mean by double counting, anyway? Either way, I figured there was something wrong with what I thought. Perhaps I didn't think hard enough on this, or just focused on one or a few things alone. Thanks so much. Though to clarify, I only said reducing because of the equation, force equals mass times acceleration. As I recall, when force increases, acceleration increases, but when mass increases, the acceleration decreases due to resistance, and the more force is needed to accelerate something. Maybe I had something wrong there, too?

Well, I just had this thought some time ago, and I am curious about it. I would like to know if it is actually true or not. So, we all know about inertia, right? The resistance to acceleration, or change in motion. Well, there is also a concept about derivatives of acceleration, mainly jerk and yank. If you don't know, jerk is said to be the rate of change in acceleration, and yank a rate of change in force. Now, about inertia, here is the thought in question. If inertia resists acceleration, and therefore reduces it when a force is applied to something, would inertia not actually act as a yank, and thus jerk to acceleration, and thus reduce it when a force is applied? I mean, I know I could be wrong, which is why I even ask. I know that inertia is a property of matter, which is equal to mass, not a force in itself, and by extension, not even a yank. Maybe it is a property that provides yank, and thus jerk to acceleration somehow as the resistance to change in motion? Kinda like how friction, even though it is a force unlike inertia, resists motion and slows it down? Also, inertia is equal to mass, which is a measure of how much matter there is in something, and if I recall correctly, mass is needed to exert a force on things. I am not saying I am right on my thought, which is why this is more of a question if anything. So correct me if I am wrong, but would inertia act as or provide a yank, and thus a jerk to acceleration when a force is applied to something?

I think I do see what you mean. Thanks.

Well, I read here, "A pulsar also has a wind, and charged particles, sometimes accelerated to near the speed of light, form a nebula around the pulsar: a pulsar wind nebula." https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/su201643 Either way, let us go by wind as we commonly understand them for a moment. If a wind was moving at relativistic speeds, and had its mass increased accordingly, how strong would it be? Would it be devastating to something or anything on Earth, or to any celestial bodies like planets or comets for that matter?

So, based on what I read, pulsar winds can move at speeds near that of light. Now, we all know with relativistic speeds, mass increases as it gets closer to light. Does that make such winds strong? If so, how strong are they? Do I need to add any more details? If so, what kind of details?

So it is mainly just rearranging body parts to give that impression of rotating in more axes than one?

So, you are saying it is both breaking down rotation into vectors and rearranging body parts to give the impression of rotation about other axes?

Are you sure it is not a combination of vectors/rotation, or net rotation? If you are confused, here is what I am talking about. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-1/Vector-Addition

So they are just moving their body parts around to make it look like they are rotating in other axes of rotation?

Fine, I will show. What I am talking about is that some of the divers that rotate in this video seem to be rotating around two axes, specifically, somersaulting and twisting at the same time. To me, anyways. What exactly are they doing when they are appearing to do that?

Can you explain the gymnast part a bit more, please?

I have some questions about torque and rotation, mainly gymnastic rotations, or possibly anything. I hope this is the right subforum for this. So, the thing is, is it possible for something like a gymnast to rotate on two axes of rotation at the same time? Maybe three axes of rotation? Also, is it possible to tilt while rotating so something is rotating at a tilted angle different from being upright? And if the answer is yes to any of these questions, why is this possible?

If you say so. Thanks for pointing that out, though. It was good to learn that.

I think I got it, but a simple yes or no, or not exactly would have sufficed.

So, you can reorient yourself to spin on the X axis while positioned on the Z or Y Axis (upside down or lying on the side) while still spinning as if on the X axis?

Could you explain that a bit more, please?

One more thing, why is angular momentum conserved? EDIT: And by realigning along a different axis, you mean by tilting while cartwheeling or flipping so you are cartwheeling or flipping or twisting 90 degrees or so in another axis/angle?

And you mean what by the last part? Does it have to do with rotation? Let me try a better example. As show here, there are three axis of rotation for a plane, the Yaw axis, which is twisting like, the Roll Axis, which is cartwheeling like, and the Pitch axis, which is flipping like. Now, let us not apply these rotations to the plane, but to a body like the human body. The say the human body rotates around the "yaw axis", but then suddenly changes to spinning in the roll axis or pitch axis, without slowing down or stopping. How hard would that be if it were possible, if it is possible at all? And by the X, Y and Z axes, I meant this.

Okay, I think I get it somewhat. Still, say a person is spinning in the X axis, but wants to change their axis of rotation to the Y axis or Z axis while still spinning at full speed without slowing down or stopping to do so. Would internal motions of the human body allow for that as well?

So it is possible. Can anyone explain how and why it is possible, in more detail if it has been done already?

Depends. Do they go from twisting motions to other forms of rotations such as flips/somersaults and/or cartwheel like motions?

This should be in relation to rotational physics. Now, say you have a rotating person. Would it be possible to change axis of rotation/change direction of rotation while rotating? For example, say the person is doing a head-to-toe twist, but goes from that to a cartwheel or a flipping rotation. Would that be possible? Why or why not?