[RascalPuff]

Response to Third World's latest entry:

Originally Posted by ThirdWorld

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,

On the contrary, Third World, all of my work says that all of matter is in a constant state of expansion, the object of inserting Martin Gardner's illustration (in preceding portions of this thread) is to demonstrate his rejection of that proposed, ongoing fact.

How is it that you gather his (demonstrated) rejection of expansion, is mine?

The remainder of your argument is based on this mysterious misunderstanding...

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.

*** You are referring to it as 'omnidirectional' acceleration but in fact the apple is accelerating outward as though it is exploding.

Couldn't agree with you more - that is what is meant by 'omnidirectional acceleration'.

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.

Yes. Again you introduce a false premise - I happen to agree with what you're saying here. The omnidirectionally expanding apple is growing larger from it's center, opposing a resistance to outside forces acting upon it - generating negative inertia. That I know of, there is no precedent for this explanation for the cause of negative inertia. A tendency to remain at a state of rest, when not moving linearly (when it tends to remain in a uniform state of motion in a straight line - positive inertia).

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.

Yes. Newton's laws of motion - as applied to negative and positive inertia. The omnidirectionally expanding apple opposes a resistance to outside forces acting upon it.

Roger

What has been 'cleared up' with Cold Creation, for example, continues to be misunderstood by you. I have consulted several people about the contents and sequence of this thread and in my direct experience there is a concensus that what is conveyed is well clarified.

I do not understand how you can misinterpret and introduce so many misunderstandings from the contents of this thread.

Best regards,
- RP