# Movement of atoms in solids

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movement-of-atoms-in-solids/969205>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [August 6, 2022, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movement-of-atoms-in-solids/969205 "2022-08-06T16:07:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\
**Post date:** [August 9, 2022, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movement-of-atoms-in-solids/969205/21 "2022-08-09T22:02:25Z")

</div>

> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> Well so, my question would be - and I suspect that the answer is “no” - whether this elliptical movement forms the basis of inertia?

You’re trying to use phenomena based, in part, on inertia, in order to form a basis for inertia. It doesn’t work that way.

It’s like the classic problem Feynman described, of trying to describe magnetism in terms of rubber bands… when the elasticity of rubber bands is actually, ultimately, due to electromagnetism.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\
**Post date:** [August 10, 2022, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movement-of-atoms-in-solids/969205/22 "2022-08-10T15:20:51Z")

</div>

> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> Given an imperfect world and jelly-like objects that aren’t truly rigid - just sort of wobbling around on springs against each other - linear movement of macroscopic objects is probably nigh-impossible.

That leap doesn’t hold. If anything, your argument makes linear motion easier since your suggestion is that gyroscopic stability helps prevent rotation, and thus it’s exactly linear motion that will most readily survive when pushing your hypothetical object.

That’s beside the point, of course, as inertia has nothing to do with all of that. Note that a single atom has inertia even when not connected to anything else, and the inertia of a chunk of stuff is just the sum of the inertia of the individual atoms. There’s no need to find an additional “source” of inertia for the chunk of stuff.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\
**Post date:** [August 10, 2022, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movement-of-atoms-in-solids/969205/23 "2022-08-10T15:43:31Z")

</div>

Makes sense! Thanks

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movement-of-atoms-in-solids/969205.md?page=1)