Inertia and Physics- was "Key Inertia"

[Richard Brekne]

Paul Chick wrote:
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Paul Chick Writes-
> I don't recall Don G. saying outright that inertia had nothing to do with
> mass.  Quite the contrary, as you stated, he said there are no units for
> inertia, and he also stated that inertia is not used in any calculations.
> 

Gezz Paul... maybe I'm just misreading his quote below... but I read the
"one object cannot have more inertia then another" pretty straight
forward. And when I asked him straight out for a clarification he didnt
reply. I've asked at least once since whether he agreed with Sarah and
others that an object with more mass has more intertia then another with
less mass and its been unanswered... so I'm left reading his words
straight forward.
> 
> Don G said
> " There are no units of "inertia"; one object cannot have more "inertia"
> than another. "
> 
...
 
Paul Chick continues
"Following that, everything that you quote (except for what the PhD
says) is saying exactly the same thing."

Again Paul... seems to me the two statments below say exactly the same
thing... except that Calin doenst get into torque.

> Don G said in another post
> "Inertia is just the stubborn tendency of matter to resist change .....
> It resists in the form of force (or torque, for a rotating object)"
> 
> Calin Thomasen said today
> "Any object has a quantifiable resistance, impedance if you prefer, to a
> change in its velocity to any other given velocity, and that  resistance
> is reflected clearly and precisely in the amount of force required to
> achieve that acceleration."

Personally I didnt like the tone of Calins post either Paul.... FWIW

Cheers
RicB