Quote:
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.
|
*** I am sorry for misrepresenting your ideas: I detest it when someone misinterprets mine.
On the other hand I cannot say that my confusing what others say with what you are saying clears your theory of the charge of being in disagreement with observed science in my view.
Firstly to say that everything is expanding is unthinkable: the earth must then be expanding, we are expanding and the measuring tape is expanding so we can't detect the expansion by measurement is what you might be saying in your theory.
But if I am quoting you right this time then it must mean that the earth should be expanding at a rate of some 9.8 m/s and it has been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years or so according to some estimations by scientists.
How come the earth is not yet touching the surface of the sun after all this time if all is expanding?
Secondly, you have not understood my point about inertia: you seem to be reaffirming that the force exerted by the expanding apple constitutes inertia. My question in relation to inertia was why should the object that is being pushed back by the expanding apple put up resistance at all to being moved. Or why should someone in an elevator that is accelerating 'upwards' resist such uplift in the first place so as to exert force on the floor of the elevator.
Inertia is the reluctance to move or change state of motion, but why should an object be reluctant to move according to your theory? Why is motion not without effort?
Roger