Does inertia keep a rotating object rotating forever, or something else?Is there still no known origin of the law of inertia?Does non-rotating object have rotational inertia if it is attach to rotating object by a springHow is inertia related to friction?Does a rotating object have more inertia, mass and gravitational pull?Calculating torque required to keep an object rotatingDoes Inertia really define the resistant ability of a bodyDoes the Earth keep spinning because of inertia?Feynman Lectures Vol1: 18-2 Rotation of a rigid body - conservation of angular momentumDoes horizontal inertia affect the time it takes something to reach the ground?How can angular momentum of an object needed to make another object rotate be calculated?Inertia on a rotating disc?

Why don't commercial aircraft adopt a slightly more seaplane-like design to allow safer ditching in case of emergency?

A scene of Jimmy diversity

ROT13 encoder/decoder

What are the arguments for California’s nonpartisan blanket (jungle) primaries?

what relax command means?

What is the point of a constraint expression on a non-templated function?

Is the purpose of sheet music to be played along to? Or a guide for learning and reference during playing?

Is it okay for a chapter's POV to shift as it progresses?

ArcPy Delete Function not working inside for loop?

Will this tire fail its MOT?

Intel 8080-based home computers

How Can I Process Untrusted Data Sources Securely?

How to color a tag in a math equation?

How could an animal "smell" carbon monoxide?

Improve quality of image bars

How fast does a character need to move to be effectively invisible?

Is there a typesafe way to get a Database.QueryLocator?

How can a drink contain 1.8 kcal energy while 0 g fat/carbs/protein?

Sending a photo of my bank account card to the future employer

How should one refer to knights (& dames) in academic writing?

Kepler space telescope undetected planets

Magento 2 Looking for configuration saved event

Why did Steve Rogers choose this character in Endgame?

Was Apollo 13 radio blackout on reentry longer than expected?



Does inertia keep a rotating object rotating forever, or something else?


Is there still no known origin of the law of inertia?Does non-rotating object have rotational inertia if it is attach to rotating object by a springHow is inertia related to friction?Does a rotating object have more inertia, mass and gravitational pull?Calculating torque required to keep an object rotatingDoes Inertia really define the resistant ability of a bodyDoes the Earth keep spinning because of inertia?Feynman Lectures Vol1: 18-2 Rotation of a rigid body - conservation of angular momentumDoes horizontal inertia affect the time it takes something to reach the ground?How can angular momentum of an object needed to make another object rotate be calculated?Inertia on a rotating disc?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








13












$begingroup$


Someone told me that it is not inertia, but I think it is inertia, because it will rotate forever. In my understanding, inertia is the constant motion of an object without external force. Am I wrong?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    It is external torques that cause an object to rotate (change angular momentum), as external forces are only responsible for moving the center of mass. An offset force happens to produce torques as a secondary effect.
    $endgroup$
    – ja72
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What did the other person say it is?
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Morton
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @ja72 So it's going to rotate forever. Isn't that inertia?
    $endgroup$
    – enbin zheng
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AndrewMorton I was told that rotation is not inertial because it is not an inertial system.
    $endgroup$
    – enbin zheng
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @ja72 I highly disagree. I think that's the entire crux of the question. Equating the two without explaining that "inertia" and "moment of inertia" are different things might completely neglect why OP got into this conversation in the first place, and may only add to the confusion. OP only ever talks about "inertia" so assuming that he really means "moment of inertia", without explaining that they are different, is likely not going to help them.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    2 hours ago

















13












$begingroup$


Someone told me that it is not inertia, but I think it is inertia, because it will rotate forever. In my understanding, inertia is the constant motion of an object without external force. Am I wrong?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    It is external torques that cause an object to rotate (change angular momentum), as external forces are only responsible for moving the center of mass. An offset force happens to produce torques as a secondary effect.
    $endgroup$
    – ja72
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What did the other person say it is?
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Morton
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @ja72 So it's going to rotate forever. Isn't that inertia?
    $endgroup$
    – enbin zheng
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AndrewMorton I was told that rotation is not inertial because it is not an inertial system.
    $endgroup$
    – enbin zheng
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @ja72 I highly disagree. I think that's the entire crux of the question. Equating the two without explaining that "inertia" and "moment of inertia" are different things might completely neglect why OP got into this conversation in the first place, and may only add to the confusion. OP only ever talks about "inertia" so assuming that he really means "moment of inertia", without explaining that they are different, is likely not going to help them.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    2 hours ago













13












13








13


6



$begingroup$


Someone told me that it is not inertia, but I think it is inertia, because it will rotate forever. In my understanding, inertia is the constant motion of an object without external force. Am I wrong?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Someone told me that it is not inertia, but I think it is inertia, because it will rotate forever. In my understanding, inertia is the constant motion of an object without external force. Am I wrong?







angular-momentum rotational-dynamics conservation-laws torque inertia






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









knzhou

53.3k13 gold badges147 silver badges258 bronze badges




53.3k13 gold badges147 silver badges258 bronze badges










asked yesterday









enbin zhengenbin zheng

3352 silver badges10 bronze badges




3352 silver badges10 bronze badges











  • $begingroup$
    It is external torques that cause an object to rotate (change angular momentum), as external forces are only responsible for moving the center of mass. An offset force happens to produce torques as a secondary effect.
    $endgroup$
    – ja72
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What did the other person say it is?
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Morton
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @ja72 So it's going to rotate forever. Isn't that inertia?
    $endgroup$
    – enbin zheng
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AndrewMorton I was told that rotation is not inertial because it is not an inertial system.
    $endgroup$
    – enbin zheng
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @ja72 I highly disagree. I think that's the entire crux of the question. Equating the two without explaining that "inertia" and "moment of inertia" are different things might completely neglect why OP got into this conversation in the first place, and may only add to the confusion. OP only ever talks about "inertia" so assuming that he really means "moment of inertia", without explaining that they are different, is likely not going to help them.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    2 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    It is external torques that cause an object to rotate (change angular momentum), as external forces are only responsible for moving the center of mass. An offset force happens to produce torques as a secondary effect.
    $endgroup$
    – ja72
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What did the other person say it is?
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Morton
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @ja72 So it's going to rotate forever. Isn't that inertia?
    $endgroup$
    – enbin zheng
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AndrewMorton I was told that rotation is not inertial because it is not an inertial system.
    $endgroup$
    – enbin zheng
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @ja72 I highly disagree. I think that's the entire crux of the question. Equating the two without explaining that "inertia" and "moment of inertia" are different things might completely neglect why OP got into this conversation in the first place, and may only add to the confusion. OP only ever talks about "inertia" so assuming that he really means "moment of inertia", without explaining that they are different, is likely not going to help them.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    2 hours ago















$begingroup$
It is external torques that cause an object to rotate (change angular momentum), as external forces are only responsible for moving the center of mass. An offset force happens to produce torques as a secondary effect.
$endgroup$
– ja72
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
It is external torques that cause an object to rotate (change angular momentum), as external forces are only responsible for moving the center of mass. An offset force happens to produce torques as a secondary effect.
$endgroup$
– ja72
9 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
What did the other person say it is?
$endgroup$
– Andrew Morton
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
What did the other person say it is?
$endgroup$
– Andrew Morton
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
@ja72 So it's going to rotate forever. Isn't that inertia?
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
@ja72 So it's going to rotate forever. Isn't that inertia?
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
@AndrewMorton I was told that rotation is not inertial because it is not an inertial system.
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
@AndrewMorton I was told that rotation is not inertial because it is not an inertial system.
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@ja72 I highly disagree. I think that's the entire crux of the question. Equating the two without explaining that "inertia" and "moment of inertia" are different things might completely neglect why OP got into this conversation in the first place, and may only add to the confusion. OP only ever talks about "inertia" so assuming that he really means "moment of inertia", without explaining that they are different, is likely not going to help them.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
@ja72 I highly disagree. I think that's the entire crux of the question. Equating the two without explaining that "inertia" and "moment of inertia" are different things might completely neglect why OP got into this conversation in the first place, and may only add to the confusion. OP only ever talks about "inertia" so assuming that he really means "moment of inertia", without explaining that they are different, is likely not going to help them.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















20












$begingroup$


Is it inertia that a rotating object will rotate forever without external force? Someone told me that this is not inertia [...]




Well, sort of - it’s somewhat correct to say it is inertia, and somewhat correct to say it isn’t. One has to be precise with language! But there is some truth to what you were told.



“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity unless an external force is applied to them. It is basically a single word that encapsulates Newton’s first law of motion. It is a very fundamental law of nature, and at some level, no one really knows why it’s true.



The different parts of the rotating object are definitely not moving in a straight line, and it’s not the case that no forces are acting on them. So there is more than just inertia at play.



What is happening with a rotating rigid body is that each part of the body “wants” to maintain its fixed velocity according to the law of inertia, but the rigidity of the body is preventing it from doing so (since the pieces of the body have different velocity vectors so with fixed velocities they would all fly off in different directions). At the microscopic level, each piece of the body is applying forces to the adjacent pieces. Those forces are causing those adjacent pieces to change their velocity, according to Newton’s second law of motion. The end result of this highly complicated process is surprisingly simple: the body rotates. But the underlying cause is more than just inertia.



Now, I said it’s also somewhat correct to say that it is inertia that’s making bodies keep rotating. This is because there is also a rotational analogue of inertia that in informal speech among physicists might still be referred to as “inertia” (although calling it rotational inertia is more appropriate, and it will also commonly be described under the terms “moment of inertia” or “conservation of angular momentum”, or even more fancy terms like “rotational symmetry of space + Noether’s theorem”, although each of these terms describes something a bit more complicated than just rotational inertia). This rotational inertia is the tendency of rotating rigid bodies to continue rotating at a fixed angular velocity in their center of mass frame, unless a torque is applied to them.



Rotational inertia differs from ordinary “linear” inertia in that it is a derived principle: it can be derived mathematically from Newton’s laws of motion, so in that sense it has (in my opinion) a slightly less fundamental status among the laws of physics. Rigid bodies don’t “want” to keep rotating in the same fundamental sense that particles “want” to keep moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity - they do end up rotating but it’s because of a process we understand well and can analyze mathematically (starting from Newton’s laws), rather than some mysterious natural phenomenon we observe experimentally and accept as an axiom without being able to say much more about why it’s true.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    «“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
    $endgroup$
    – zakinster
    11 hours ago







  • 7




    $begingroup$
    @zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    9 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
    $endgroup$
    – GenlyAi
    7 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
    $endgroup$
    – Lee Mosher
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
    $endgroup$
    – GenlyAi
    3 hours ago



















16












$begingroup$

At its most basic, an object will rotate forever for the simple reason that there is no preferred direction in space.



Emmy Noether's theorem of 1918 explains how various conservation laws arise from from differentiable symmetries. It is a mathematical theorem, not a physics theory. Because of this mathematical certainty, it is one of the most important theorems in physics.



Noether's theorem explains how the conservation of angular momentum (rotation) is required on the assumption that rotation does not change the laws of physics. Similarly, energy is conserved if time does not change the laws, and conservation of linear momentum is caused by the absence of a preferred location.



As these assumptions have always been observed to hold, this gives a very strong proof for the conclusions (the conservation laws).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
    $endgroup$
    – RonJohn
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Schwern
    2 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
    $endgroup$
    – RonJohn
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
    $endgroup$
    – hdhondt
    41 mins ago


















4












$begingroup$

As Newton stated with his 1st law, an object without a force acting on it will keep moving with the same speed and direction. This is also known as the law of inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist acceleration. This is because no force is acting on it to affect acceleration.



For rotational motion, the version of this is the moment of inertia which is similar, but about the tendency to resist angular acceleration.



So it is inertia (the moment of inertia if rotation). It keeps rotating at constant angular frequency since it resists a possible change out of nowhere.






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor



Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$




















    0












    $begingroup$

    Without any applied torque the angular momentum of a rotating object is conserved.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
      $endgroup$
      – JMac
      5 hours ago













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f492035%2fdoes-inertia-keep-a-rotating-object-rotating-forever-or-something-else%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    20












    $begingroup$


    Is it inertia that a rotating object will rotate forever without external force? Someone told me that this is not inertia [...]




    Well, sort of - it’s somewhat correct to say it is inertia, and somewhat correct to say it isn’t. One has to be precise with language! But there is some truth to what you were told.



    “Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity unless an external force is applied to them. It is basically a single word that encapsulates Newton’s first law of motion. It is a very fundamental law of nature, and at some level, no one really knows why it’s true.



    The different parts of the rotating object are definitely not moving in a straight line, and it’s not the case that no forces are acting on them. So there is more than just inertia at play.



    What is happening with a rotating rigid body is that each part of the body “wants” to maintain its fixed velocity according to the law of inertia, but the rigidity of the body is preventing it from doing so (since the pieces of the body have different velocity vectors so with fixed velocities they would all fly off in different directions). At the microscopic level, each piece of the body is applying forces to the adjacent pieces. Those forces are causing those adjacent pieces to change their velocity, according to Newton’s second law of motion. The end result of this highly complicated process is surprisingly simple: the body rotates. But the underlying cause is more than just inertia.



    Now, I said it’s also somewhat correct to say that it is inertia that’s making bodies keep rotating. This is because there is also a rotational analogue of inertia that in informal speech among physicists might still be referred to as “inertia” (although calling it rotational inertia is more appropriate, and it will also commonly be described under the terms “moment of inertia” or “conservation of angular momentum”, or even more fancy terms like “rotational symmetry of space + Noether’s theorem”, although each of these terms describes something a bit more complicated than just rotational inertia). This rotational inertia is the tendency of rotating rigid bodies to continue rotating at a fixed angular velocity in their center of mass frame, unless a torque is applied to them.



    Rotational inertia differs from ordinary “linear” inertia in that it is a derived principle: it can be derived mathematically from Newton’s laws of motion, so in that sense it has (in my opinion) a slightly less fundamental status among the laws of physics. Rigid bodies don’t “want” to keep rotating in the same fundamental sense that particles “want” to keep moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity - they do end up rotating but it’s because of a process we understand well and can analyze mathematically (starting from Newton’s laws), rather than some mysterious natural phenomenon we observe experimentally and accept as an axiom without being able to say much more about why it’s true.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      «“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
      $endgroup$
      – zakinster
      11 hours ago







    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
      $endgroup$
      – JMac
      9 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
      $endgroup$
      – GenlyAi
      7 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
      $endgroup$
      – Lee Mosher
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
      $endgroup$
      – GenlyAi
      3 hours ago
















    20












    $begingroup$


    Is it inertia that a rotating object will rotate forever without external force? Someone told me that this is not inertia [...]




    Well, sort of - it’s somewhat correct to say it is inertia, and somewhat correct to say it isn’t. One has to be precise with language! But there is some truth to what you were told.



    “Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity unless an external force is applied to them. It is basically a single word that encapsulates Newton’s first law of motion. It is a very fundamental law of nature, and at some level, no one really knows why it’s true.



    The different parts of the rotating object are definitely not moving in a straight line, and it’s not the case that no forces are acting on them. So there is more than just inertia at play.



    What is happening with a rotating rigid body is that each part of the body “wants” to maintain its fixed velocity according to the law of inertia, but the rigidity of the body is preventing it from doing so (since the pieces of the body have different velocity vectors so with fixed velocities they would all fly off in different directions). At the microscopic level, each piece of the body is applying forces to the adjacent pieces. Those forces are causing those adjacent pieces to change their velocity, according to Newton’s second law of motion. The end result of this highly complicated process is surprisingly simple: the body rotates. But the underlying cause is more than just inertia.



    Now, I said it’s also somewhat correct to say that it is inertia that’s making bodies keep rotating. This is because there is also a rotational analogue of inertia that in informal speech among physicists might still be referred to as “inertia” (although calling it rotational inertia is more appropriate, and it will also commonly be described under the terms “moment of inertia” or “conservation of angular momentum”, or even more fancy terms like “rotational symmetry of space + Noether’s theorem”, although each of these terms describes something a bit more complicated than just rotational inertia). This rotational inertia is the tendency of rotating rigid bodies to continue rotating at a fixed angular velocity in their center of mass frame, unless a torque is applied to them.



    Rotational inertia differs from ordinary “linear” inertia in that it is a derived principle: it can be derived mathematically from Newton’s laws of motion, so in that sense it has (in my opinion) a slightly less fundamental status among the laws of physics. Rigid bodies don’t “want” to keep rotating in the same fundamental sense that particles “want” to keep moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity - they do end up rotating but it’s because of a process we understand well and can analyze mathematically (starting from Newton’s laws), rather than some mysterious natural phenomenon we observe experimentally and accept as an axiom without being able to say much more about why it’s true.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      «“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
      $endgroup$
      – zakinster
      11 hours ago







    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
      $endgroup$
      – JMac
      9 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
      $endgroup$
      – GenlyAi
      7 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
      $endgroup$
      – Lee Mosher
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
      $endgroup$
      – GenlyAi
      3 hours ago














    20












    20








    20





    $begingroup$


    Is it inertia that a rotating object will rotate forever without external force? Someone told me that this is not inertia [...]




    Well, sort of - it’s somewhat correct to say it is inertia, and somewhat correct to say it isn’t. One has to be precise with language! But there is some truth to what you were told.



    “Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity unless an external force is applied to them. It is basically a single word that encapsulates Newton’s first law of motion. It is a very fundamental law of nature, and at some level, no one really knows why it’s true.



    The different parts of the rotating object are definitely not moving in a straight line, and it’s not the case that no forces are acting on them. So there is more than just inertia at play.



    What is happening with a rotating rigid body is that each part of the body “wants” to maintain its fixed velocity according to the law of inertia, but the rigidity of the body is preventing it from doing so (since the pieces of the body have different velocity vectors so with fixed velocities they would all fly off in different directions). At the microscopic level, each piece of the body is applying forces to the adjacent pieces. Those forces are causing those adjacent pieces to change their velocity, according to Newton’s second law of motion. The end result of this highly complicated process is surprisingly simple: the body rotates. But the underlying cause is more than just inertia.



    Now, I said it’s also somewhat correct to say that it is inertia that’s making bodies keep rotating. This is because there is also a rotational analogue of inertia that in informal speech among physicists might still be referred to as “inertia” (although calling it rotational inertia is more appropriate, and it will also commonly be described under the terms “moment of inertia” or “conservation of angular momentum”, or even more fancy terms like “rotational symmetry of space + Noether’s theorem”, although each of these terms describes something a bit more complicated than just rotational inertia). This rotational inertia is the tendency of rotating rigid bodies to continue rotating at a fixed angular velocity in their center of mass frame, unless a torque is applied to them.



    Rotational inertia differs from ordinary “linear” inertia in that it is a derived principle: it can be derived mathematically from Newton’s laws of motion, so in that sense it has (in my opinion) a slightly less fundamental status among the laws of physics. Rigid bodies don’t “want” to keep rotating in the same fundamental sense that particles “want” to keep moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity - they do end up rotating but it’s because of a process we understand well and can analyze mathematically (starting from Newton’s laws), rather than some mysterious natural phenomenon we observe experimentally and accept as an axiom without being able to say much more about why it’s true.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$




    Is it inertia that a rotating object will rotate forever without external force? Someone told me that this is not inertia [...]




    Well, sort of - it’s somewhat correct to say it is inertia, and somewhat correct to say it isn’t. One has to be precise with language! But there is some truth to what you were told.



    “Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity unless an external force is applied to them. It is basically a single word that encapsulates Newton’s first law of motion. It is a very fundamental law of nature, and at some level, no one really knows why it’s true.



    The different parts of the rotating object are definitely not moving in a straight line, and it’s not the case that no forces are acting on them. So there is more than just inertia at play.



    What is happening with a rotating rigid body is that each part of the body “wants” to maintain its fixed velocity according to the law of inertia, but the rigidity of the body is preventing it from doing so (since the pieces of the body have different velocity vectors so with fixed velocities they would all fly off in different directions). At the microscopic level, each piece of the body is applying forces to the adjacent pieces. Those forces are causing those adjacent pieces to change their velocity, according to Newton’s second law of motion. The end result of this highly complicated process is surprisingly simple: the body rotates. But the underlying cause is more than just inertia.



    Now, I said it’s also somewhat correct to say that it is inertia that’s making bodies keep rotating. This is because there is also a rotational analogue of inertia that in informal speech among physicists might still be referred to as “inertia” (although calling it rotational inertia is more appropriate, and it will also commonly be described under the terms “moment of inertia” or “conservation of angular momentum”, or even more fancy terms like “rotational symmetry of space + Noether’s theorem”, although each of these terms describes something a bit more complicated than just rotational inertia). This rotational inertia is the tendency of rotating rigid bodies to continue rotating at a fixed angular velocity in their center of mass frame, unless a torque is applied to them.



    Rotational inertia differs from ordinary “linear” inertia in that it is a derived principle: it can be derived mathematically from Newton’s laws of motion, so in that sense it has (in my opinion) a slightly less fundamental status among the laws of physics. Rigid bodies don’t “want” to keep rotating in the same fundamental sense that particles “want” to keep moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity - they do end up rotating but it’s because of a process we understand well and can analyze mathematically (starting from Newton’s laws), rather than some mysterious natural phenomenon we observe experimentally and accept as an axiom without being able to say much more about why it’s true.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 21 hours ago









    GenlyAiGenlyAi

    2997 bronze badges




    2997 bronze badges











    • $begingroup$
      «“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
      $endgroup$
      – zakinster
      11 hours ago







    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
      $endgroup$
      – JMac
      9 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
      $endgroup$
      – GenlyAi
      7 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
      $endgroup$
      – Lee Mosher
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
      $endgroup$
      – GenlyAi
      3 hours ago

















    • $begingroup$
      «“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
      $endgroup$
      – zakinster
      11 hours ago







    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
      $endgroup$
      – JMac
      9 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
      $endgroup$
      – GenlyAi
      7 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
      $endgroup$
      – Lee Mosher
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
      $endgroup$
      – GenlyAi
      3 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    «“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
    $endgroup$
    – zakinster
    11 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    «“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
    $endgroup$
    – zakinster
    11 hours ago





    7




    7




    $begingroup$
    @zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    9 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    9 hours ago




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    @zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
    $endgroup$
    – GenlyAi
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
    $endgroup$
    – GenlyAi
    7 hours ago




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
    $endgroup$
    – Lee Mosher
    4 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
    $endgroup$
    – Lee Mosher
    4 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
    $endgroup$
    – GenlyAi
    3 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    @LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
    $endgroup$
    – GenlyAi
    3 hours ago














    16












    $begingroup$

    At its most basic, an object will rotate forever for the simple reason that there is no preferred direction in space.



    Emmy Noether's theorem of 1918 explains how various conservation laws arise from from differentiable symmetries. It is a mathematical theorem, not a physics theory. Because of this mathematical certainty, it is one of the most important theorems in physics.



    Noether's theorem explains how the conservation of angular momentum (rotation) is required on the assumption that rotation does not change the laws of physics. Similarly, energy is conserved if time does not change the laws, and conservation of linear momentum is caused by the absence of a preferred location.



    As these assumptions have always been observed to hold, this gives a very strong proof for the conclusions (the conservation laws).






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 11




      $begingroup$
      Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
      $endgroup$
      – RonJohn
      10 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
      $endgroup$
      – anna v
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
      $endgroup$
      – Schwern
      2 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
      $endgroup$
      – RonJohn
      2 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
      $endgroup$
      – hdhondt
      41 mins ago















    16












    $begingroup$

    At its most basic, an object will rotate forever for the simple reason that there is no preferred direction in space.



    Emmy Noether's theorem of 1918 explains how various conservation laws arise from from differentiable symmetries. It is a mathematical theorem, not a physics theory. Because of this mathematical certainty, it is one of the most important theorems in physics.



    Noether's theorem explains how the conservation of angular momentum (rotation) is required on the assumption that rotation does not change the laws of physics. Similarly, energy is conserved if time does not change the laws, and conservation of linear momentum is caused by the absence of a preferred location.



    As these assumptions have always been observed to hold, this gives a very strong proof for the conclusions (the conservation laws).






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 11




      $begingroup$
      Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
      $endgroup$
      – RonJohn
      10 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
      $endgroup$
      – anna v
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
      $endgroup$
      – Schwern
      2 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
      $endgroup$
      – RonJohn
      2 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
      $endgroup$
      – hdhondt
      41 mins ago













    16












    16








    16





    $begingroup$

    At its most basic, an object will rotate forever for the simple reason that there is no preferred direction in space.



    Emmy Noether's theorem of 1918 explains how various conservation laws arise from from differentiable symmetries. It is a mathematical theorem, not a physics theory. Because of this mathematical certainty, it is one of the most important theorems in physics.



    Noether's theorem explains how the conservation of angular momentum (rotation) is required on the assumption that rotation does not change the laws of physics. Similarly, energy is conserved if time does not change the laws, and conservation of linear momentum is caused by the absence of a preferred location.



    As these assumptions have always been observed to hold, this gives a very strong proof for the conclusions (the conservation laws).






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    At its most basic, an object will rotate forever for the simple reason that there is no preferred direction in space.



    Emmy Noether's theorem of 1918 explains how various conservation laws arise from from differentiable symmetries. It is a mathematical theorem, not a physics theory. Because of this mathematical certainty, it is one of the most important theorems in physics.



    Noether's theorem explains how the conservation of angular momentum (rotation) is required on the assumption that rotation does not change the laws of physics. Similarly, energy is conserved if time does not change the laws, and conservation of linear momentum is caused by the absence of a preferred location.



    As these assumptions have always been observed to hold, this gives a very strong proof for the conclusions (the conservation laws).







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 8 hours ago









    aniline

    31 bronze badge




    31 bronze badge










    answered 23 hours ago









    hdhondthdhondt

    8,2381 gold badge15 silver badges27 bronze badges




    8,2381 gold badge15 silver badges27 bronze badges







    • 11




      $begingroup$
      Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
      $endgroup$
      – RonJohn
      10 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
      $endgroup$
      – anna v
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
      $endgroup$
      – Schwern
      2 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
      $endgroup$
      – RonJohn
      2 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
      $endgroup$
      – hdhondt
      41 mins ago












    • 11




      $begingroup$
      Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
      $endgroup$
      – RonJohn
      10 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
      $endgroup$
      – anna v
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
      $endgroup$
      – Schwern
      2 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
      $endgroup$
      – RonJohn
      2 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
      $endgroup$
      – hdhondt
      41 mins ago







    11




    11




    $begingroup$
    Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
    $endgroup$
    – RonJohn
    10 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
    $endgroup$
    – RonJohn
    10 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    7 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Schwern
    2 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    @RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Schwern
    2 hours ago













    $begingroup$
    @Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
    $endgroup$
    – RonJohn
    2 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
    $endgroup$
    – RonJohn
    2 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
    $endgroup$
    – hdhondt
    41 mins ago




    $begingroup$
    @RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
    $endgroup$
    – hdhondt
    41 mins ago











    4












    $begingroup$

    As Newton stated with his 1st law, an object without a force acting on it will keep moving with the same speed and direction. This is also known as the law of inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist acceleration. This is because no force is acting on it to affect acceleration.



    For rotational motion, the version of this is the moment of inertia which is similar, but about the tendency to resist angular acceleration.



    So it is inertia (the moment of inertia if rotation). It keeps rotating at constant angular frequency since it resists a possible change out of nowhere.






    share|cite|improve this answer








    New contributor



    Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    $endgroup$

















      4












      $begingroup$

      As Newton stated with his 1st law, an object without a force acting on it will keep moving with the same speed and direction. This is also known as the law of inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist acceleration. This is because no force is acting on it to affect acceleration.



      For rotational motion, the version of this is the moment of inertia which is similar, but about the tendency to resist angular acceleration.



      So it is inertia (the moment of inertia if rotation). It keeps rotating at constant angular frequency since it resists a possible change out of nowhere.






      share|cite|improve this answer








      New contributor



      Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      $endgroup$















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        As Newton stated with his 1st law, an object without a force acting on it will keep moving with the same speed and direction. This is also known as the law of inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist acceleration. This is because no force is acting on it to affect acceleration.



        For rotational motion, the version of this is the moment of inertia which is similar, but about the tendency to resist angular acceleration.



        So it is inertia (the moment of inertia if rotation). It keeps rotating at constant angular frequency since it resists a possible change out of nowhere.






        share|cite|improve this answer








        New contributor



        Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        $endgroup$



        As Newton stated with his 1st law, an object without a force acting on it will keep moving with the same speed and direction. This is also known as the law of inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist acceleration. This is because no force is acting on it to affect acceleration.



        For rotational motion, the version of this is the moment of inertia which is similar, but about the tendency to resist angular acceleration.



        So it is inertia (the moment of inertia if rotation). It keeps rotating at constant angular frequency since it resists a possible change out of nowhere.







        share|cite|improve this answer








        New contributor



        Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.








        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer






        New contributor



        Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.








        answered yesterday









        AlazAlaz

        38914 bronze badges




        38914 bronze badges




        New contributor



        Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.




        New contributor




        Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.























            0












            $begingroup$

            Without any applied torque the angular momentum of a rotating object is conserved.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              5 hours ago















            0












            $begingroup$

            Without any applied torque the angular momentum of a rotating object is conserved.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              5 hours ago













            0












            0








            0





            $begingroup$

            Without any applied torque the angular momentum of a rotating object is conserved.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Without any applied torque the angular momentum of a rotating object is conserved.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered yesterday









            amateurAstroamateurAstro

            4581 silver badge7 bronze badges




            4581 silver badge7 bronze badges











            • $begingroup$
              This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              5 hours ago
















            • $begingroup$
              This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              5 hours ago















            $begingroup$
            This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
            $endgroup$
            – JMac
            5 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
            $endgroup$
            – JMac
            5 hours ago

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f492035%2fdoes-inertia-keep-a-rotating-object-rotating-forever-or-something-else%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Sahara Skak | Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: SaharaWikivoyage raisfeerer: Sahara26° N, 13° O

            The fall designs the understood secretary. Looking glass Science Shock Discovery Hot Everybody Loves Raymond Smile 곳 서비스 성실하다 Defas Kaloolon Definition: To combine or impregnate with sulphur or any of its compounds as to sulphurize caoutchouc in vulcanizing Flame colored Reason Useful Thin Help 갖다 유명하다 낙엽 장례식 Country Iron Definition: A fencer a gladiator one who exhibits his skill in the use of the sword Definition: The American black throated bunting Spiza Americana Nostalgic Needy Method to my madness 시키다 평가되다 전부 소설가 우아하다 Argument Tin Feeling Representative Gym Music Gaur Chicken 일쑤 코치 편 학생증 The harbor values the sugar. Vasagle Yammoe Enstatite Definition: Capable of being limited Road Neighborly Five Refer Built Kangaroo 비비다 Degree Release Bargain Horse 하루 형님 유교 석 동부 괴롭히다 경제력

            19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу