A). What is inertia basically, i think it is the resistance of a body to remain at that state. so whenever i try to change the inertia of a body it resist that change, to overcome that resistance we apply force. I mean to say that force is acceleration provided to change the inertia. *is this definition right, if it is not the case then whats the case? * B). second one is absolutely wrong but i m gonna state it because i hope one of you will rethink about it. Is it right to say That Inertia of rest is more preferable than inertia of direction ? I mean to say that if a body is motion i think that it will tend to stay in rest. Or it both inertia is equally preferable. 😅😅
closed as unclear what you're asking by garyp, Jon Custer, rob♦ Oct 19 '16 at 2:07
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
You dont change the inertia by applying a force. you change the 'state' by applying a force....changing inertia means changing resistance(mass)....force does not change the inertia. To the second part, if the body is in a state of UNIFORM motion, it will tend to stay that way....so its inertia is no less or greater than "inertia of rest"....so no reason to distinguish them. This is purely in non-relativistic regime. Simple everyday newton mechanics. When velocity of the object in question is comparable to the speed of light, then the mass changes(increases in fact).