Does this help explain more?
No, if anything it just says more of the same things you already said and raises more questions. For example it says that the earth itself is not expanding, how then are we experiencing the effects of acceleration that is being alleged inthis theory as tough it were?
Secondly, I presume the theory requires that the earth's position in the universe is analagous to the position of the objects shown on the surface of the earth in the illustration: so the earth in the universe can be replaced by a man standing but with nothing under his feet. The querry therefore remains, if an ant is above the head of the man it will tend to fall to the man's head.
If however, the ant is beneath his feet it will fall to the center of the earth: those therefore that are on the earth's surface nearer the center of the universe should fall off the earth towards the center of the universe.
This again is the limit of explanation that I can give.
Quote:
|
As regards negative inertia. the exemplary (below illustrated) - omnidirectionally accelerating - apple (any system of corporeal matter at rest), opposes a resistance (reluctance to respond) to any outside forces acting upon it (Special effects by Austin P. Torney - illustration, copyright, by K.B. Robertson - Truly Yours). |
*** You are referring to it as 'omnidirectional' acceleration but in fact the apple is accelerating outward as though it is exploding. The apple therefore poses resistance to forces trying to compress it but this has NOTHING to do with inertia. Inertia will be the resistance the apple should provide to attempts to move it bodily in any direction: ie to the left, right, up, down etc.
An object moving in any direction, or one that is static, will provide resistance when you try to change its state of motion or rest.
Roger