In my recent reflections, I’ve been exploring a conceptual approach where inertia is not fixed, but instead varies with position and system dynamics. This isn’t a scientific claim, but a philosophical hypothesis: What happens to our understanding of motion if we treat position and changing inertia as co-determining forces?
I've formulated this idea using two simple products:
x · p — position interacting with momentum
(dm/dt) · p — the rate of change of mass interacting with momentum
These expressions don’t attempt to overthrow classical physics, but instead serve as a conceptual lens: motion not just as a result of force, but as a dynamic balance between where an object is, and how its mass changes.
We can ask:
Is inertia truly constant, or is it an emergent tendency based on interaction?
Could changing mass — often ignored in philosophical models — be more central to how systems evolve?
What do these patterns suggest about the nature of physical equilibrium?
I’ve tried applying this model to real-world cases (such as rockets or planetary orbits), and while the numbers are interesting, what matters here is the conceptual shift: away from static properties and toward dynamic interactions.
This approach, which I’ve loosely termed the NKT perspective, is not a physical law, but a way of re-seeing motion through the interaction of mass, momentum, and spatial relation. It invites us to rethink the deep assumptions baked into our physics and our metaphysics alike.
I'd be very curious to hear thoughts from philosophers of science:
Are such frameworks useful?
Do they clarify or confuse?
What are the metaphysical commitments of assuming variable inertia?
Thanks in advance for engaging — and I welcome critique, questions, or philosophical alternatives.
— Nguyễn Khánh Tùng
For reference (optional to include):A more technical draft of this framework is available here (shared in the spirit of transparency, not authority):
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29389292