The NKTg Law: A New Philosophical Perspective on Motion and Inertia

Philosophy Forums
1

Throughout history, our understanding of motion and inertia has been deeply influenced by classical physics—particularly Newtonian mechanics. Inertia has long been treated as a constant, an inherent property of mass resisting acceleration. But what if inertia itself isn’t fixed? What if it subtly depends on position within a physical system?

This is the central question posed by the NKTg Law on Varying Inertia. Unlike conventional models, the NKTg Law introduces a profound yet simple framework where inertia can vary with position. Surprisingly, its formula is extremely simple—built upon two pairs of multiplicative terms—yet it challenges some of the deepest assumptions in physics.

Why does this matter philosophically?
Because it questions whether so-called “fundamental properties” of objects, such as inertia, are truly inherent—or whether they might emerge from relational positions within a system. This aligns with ancient and modern debates about substance vs. relation. It also echoes Heraclitus’ idea of flux: that everything depends on its context, and nothing is static.

In a way, the NKTg Law suggests a shift from “mass as a constant essence” to “mass as a dynamic quantity shaped by spatial relations.” It bridges physics with philosophy by showing how even basic properties we take for granted may not be absolute.

Some core questions to ponder:

  • Is inertia truly intrinsic, or is it shaped by positional interactions?
  • Could simple mathematical patterns reveal hidden layers of nature’s architecture?
  • Does the simplicity of a formula undermine or enhance its philosophical significance?

I welcome your thoughts and critiques. Whether you’re a physicist, philosopher, or simply a curious thinker, this idea invites open-minded exploration.

Additional Resources:
If you’re curious about the detailed formula or wish to explore the experimental basis, feel free to ask.

1 Like
2

I’m open to all thoughts and perspectives on this topic. Feel free to share your opinions or critiques — I’d really appreciate hearing your views!

3

Tell this guy, Jup. We’re only interested in +=-.

4

Thank you for your comments. I will address your questions in a formal and systematic way.

I am currently preparing an official, updated version of the NKTg Law on Varying Inertia, which will include:

  • Full experimental tests using data from other planets in the Solar System (not just Earth),
  • The generalized formula with clear units and calculation methods,
  • Links to NASA datasets, so that anyone can independently verify the results and check the calculations.

Regarding your concern about whether this law simply copies existing ones:
Please note that traditional laws, such as Newton’s laws or Kepler’s laws, always assume constant inertia (fixed mass).
In contrast, the NKTg Law explicitly considers varying inertia as a core feature. This is the fundamental difference in concept.

As for the signs of parameters:
In my approach, I work with real scalar quantities (not vectors) and simply use measured values.
For example, if at time T0 the mass is 8, and at time T1 the mass is 5, then:
dm/dt = (5 - 8) / (T1 - T0) = -3 / (T1 - T0)
Similarly, this applies to position and velocity as well. I simply take actual measured values without involving vector directions.

All of this will be clearly explained in my official release, including numerical examples, formulas, and step-by-step methods, for full transparency.

5

The recent simulation using the NKTg Law on Neptune’s orbit has yielded something far more intriguing than a physical result — it opens a new philosophical window into the nature of motion itself.

Most classical physics treats motion as either an effect (of force) or a state (of persistence). But the NKTg Law introduces a third layer:

Motion as a tendency shaped by internal structure and transformation.

Let me explain.

:repeat_button: Reversible Motion and Directional Meaning

With NKTg, we define two conserved quantities:

  • NKTg₁ = x × p (position–momentum product)
  • NKTg₂ = (dm/dt) × p (mass-change–momentum product)

These quantities don’t just describe where and how fast something moves — they tell us in which direction the system is evolving, and why.

  • If NKTg₁ > 0, the system is moving away from equilibrium
  • If NKTg₁ < 0, it is returning toward stability

This introduces semantic motion — movement with intention, or directional bias, embedded within the mass-energy structure itself.

It is no longer a billiard-ball universe. Instead, bodies can be thought of as expressing their state through conserved quantities, which shape their future without needing an external force.

:brain: The Law Mirrors Conscious Dynamics

Here’s the deeper link to philosophy:

  • x (position): where we are
  • v (velocity): how fast we are moving
  • m (mass): what we carry, our inertia
  • dm/dt: what we lose or shed as we evolve

Life itself — psychological, existential, or even spiritual — often moves not by “external force”, but by tension between accumulated mass and change. Our direction is set not only by our place and speed, but by how we handle loss.

The NKTg Law models that:

A system with declining mass (loss) and positive momentum will tend toward instability — unless meaning (structure) resists it.

:microscope: A Final Thought: Physics Meets Will

If the universe is not simply a blind cascade of particles but a system of self-stabilizing or self-dispersing motions, then models like NKTg may help build a bridge between physics and metaphysics.

Motion is no longer just a result.
It becomes a reflection of structure.
Structure becomes a reflection of tendency.
And tendency, perhaps, is the nearest physics comes to “will.”

I look forward to any philosophical interpretations, critiques, or expansions.

— Nguyen Khanh Tung
ORCID: 0009-0002-9877-4137

6

Does the internal (nonphysical) force of will add force (applied to the physical body within its influence) that was not previously accounted for in a non-will calculation of force?

How do you show the difference? Is it even possible to calculate that?

Of course, you could say that the apple would’ve fallen to the ground if left uninterrupted by force of will influencing a body external to the apple, which caught it…

… but I’m restricting this calculation of force to the actual body which (will who) caught it.

7

.
All what we have thought and felt is subject to change.. theories, will always be subject to change.

8

…what about if the change is subject to that which doesn’t change?

9

.

Re. the op^

An excellent topic btw.. :ok_hand:t3: