2006-10-10 17:58:21 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Local Businesses ➔ Canada ➔ Toronto
An elephant. Greater mass. (Don't confuse mass & weight - the elephant would still have more inertia even if they were floating weightless in space.)
2006-10-10 18:09:32 · answer #1 · answered by John's Secret Identity™ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Inertia is a scientific principle, and thus not quantifiable.
In common usage, however, people may also use the term "inertia" to refer qualitatively to an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which is determined by its mass), and sometimes its momentum, depending on context (e.g. "this object has a lot of inertia"). The term "inertia" is more properly understood as a shorthand for "the principle of inertia as described by Newton in his First Law."
In simple terms we can say that "In an isolated system, a body at rest will remain at rest and a body moving with constant speed will continue to do so, unless disturbed by an unbalanced force".
If this sounds terribly profound, it is. It isn't original, however. Check the source, below. There is a very long (and informative) article on it. Or was the question asked so the asker wouldn't have to read....?
2006-10-11 14:29:22 · answer #2 · answered by DBG 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Inertia is not quantifiable.
The inertial mass of the elephant is greater than the inertial mass of the bowling ball. In other word, it take for force to produce the same acceleration in the elephant as it does for the bowling ball.
Their inertial masses are extremely close to their gravitional masses and may be identical. This is a fundamental question in physics.
2006-10-11 01:15:32 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An elephant. The heavier the object, the more inertia it has.
2006-10-11 01:07:45 · answer #4 · answered by Living the Alaskan life 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where do you people come up with these dumbo questions I don't know the answer and who cares?
2006-10-11 14:21:32 · answer #5 · answered by devora k 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋