There is a certain blog posted (in Google) in which it proposes that gravity is not any kind of force, or to be specific, it is not a natural attracting force similar to a magnet but rather, "a product or an end result of bodies stretching out in a three-dimensional pattern due the inflationary rate of expansion of the space-time continuum". In this blog, the author assumed that the similar gravitational effect created by a centrifuge used to train astronauts, is the same as to the earth's gravity, giving a rather unconventional proposal that the Earth's surface itself is expanding in a rate of 9.8meters per second per second from its center creating a constant rectilinear acceleration to provide a similar effect as to the centrifuge, the difference is that the centrifugal force is the rotational version of gravity. But to achieve that, all things in the Universe must be continously expanding (or increases in volume) including the spaces in between bodies, implying that, space-time is not curve but it appears curve due to a reason that space-time itself is dynamic. Einstein once admitted that his space-time has the tendency to expand, thinking that the Universe is static and introduced the cosmological constant. But that blog also proposes that the space-time could also be non-static. If space-time is a four-dimensional entity, a dynamic kind of space-time would result an additional dimension - the dimension of "gravitational effect" which is possibly the fifth dimension.

Note: I will first ask permission to BAUT, if it is ok to specify the title of that blog. Thanks

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Why would it not be OK to link to the blog in BAUT?

What's probably questionable is whether you are firmly convinced by the idea to present it here in this section. It doesn't sound like it. If you can't present it and argue for it in your own words, it probably doesn't belong in Against the Mainstream.

If you just want to ask questions about the worthiness of the ideas presented in the blog, ask in the Q&A section.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

First space-time is 4 dimensional, but it is a mixed thing, 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. The 3 spatial dimensions are expanding into a 4th spatial dimension.

For the rest, is there any evidence you can show that everything is expanding? Naturally, if everything is expanding then necessarily the density of everything would get smaller, however, it would be rather difficult to measure that because all our measuring rods would also be expanding. So, basically it seems like a non-verifiable or non-falsifiable theory.

How are you going to solve that problem?

Also, quickly scanning through your blog pages I find that the only math you offer on the topic is on "page G: personal views" and it reads:

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I am sorry, Sir. The very reason why I asked first a permission is that, I wish not to violate any of your rules. Well, thank you. I learned that Tusenfen already made a glance of my blog. I am thankful for that, atleast there are now people who are giving their time to look at it. But please, read it thoroughly. I will appreciate it more.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

It has to do with the creation of new matter, please read Topic D and I qoute...."Assuming that everything in the Universe is expanding in a three-dimensional pattern, such as the Earth itself, it implies that its volume is continuously increasing. If the rate of increase of the Earth’s radius is at 9.8 meters per second per second (9.8m/sec2), it follows then that its volume is also increasing, not only in arithmetical progression nor geometrically but rather, exponentially. In Physics, density is defined as the quantitative ratio between mass and volume. If one agree that the earth’s volume is continuously increasing in a fast rate without taking account of its mass, the Earth’s density will then decrease tremendously, making it so big and yet so light as a feather.

SELF- OPINION

One way to avoid this scenario is to re-examine the Steady State Theory and make some modifications. First, it is not necessary to create or form new galaxies out from the new matter that is continuously created in the Universe, a better proposal would be - this new matter is continuously created within the very fabric of the space-time continuum itself. It will imply that everything in the Universe also increases in mass due to this new matter that is steadily created within the already existing matter. Therefore, the density of the Earth would not fall tremendously but rather, remain constant."

It would be unfair in my part if you just skim the articles and made an early judgement...I even qouted in that blog that...
"I will also humbly admit that my highest math that I can comprehend are limited to the fundamentals of algebra and trigonometry only. But as Professor Hawking stated in the acknowledgement of his book, “A Brief History of Time”, he published his book so that even ordinary people can have the opportunity to understand his knowledge and opinions about the origin and the fate of the Universe."(see topic F)

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

(See topic B):"Now that we established this new assumption that gravity is not a force, the problem would be how to compromise this idea with what we commonly observe? Assuming, the same man in space is now standing on the surface of the Earth. If gravity is caused by the acceleration of the vehicle and the property of inertia of the rider, it follows then that the ground where the man is standing could also be traveling in an accelerated speed of 9.8 meters per second per second. This would imply that all points on the surface of the earth are moving away from its center, meaning, the Earth is blowing up like a balloon in a tremendous rate of expansion. This therefore, would become a ridiculous idea. No, it isn’t – it has to do with the expanding behavior of the Universe along with a different approach in dealing with the four-dimensional Space-Time."

(See topic C) "In 1922, before Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies are moving away from us, Alexander Friedmann already made a prediction that the Universe is expanding by giving two simple assumptions. Stephen Hawking even described it by comparing the Universe to a balloon. He said the Universe is like a balloon that being steadily blown up. In its surface are painted spots that represent galaxies. As the balloon expands, the spots would appear getting farther from each other. But one thing Hawking missed to observe - in a real balloon, not only the distances between the spots increases, the spots are also stretching out and would appear bigger. This is the way the Universe expands – everything on it is also getting bigger each seconds of a time.

But why we do not see it that way? Of course, the statement is clear, everything in the Universe are getting bigger including the meter stick that we commonly use in measuring length. If one measured his height a second ago, it would be the same measure of height a second later because the meter stick he used already expanded and continuing to expand in proportion to any thing it measures. Even Einstein claimed that his space-time has the tendency to expand. But to avoid a non-static universe, he introduced an anti-gravity force called cosmological constant. Today, people accepted the fact that the Universe is expanding but could it be that this space-time continuum (as the word continuum suggests an infinite continuation) could be similar to a stretching surface of a balloon that continuing to expand together with everything on it?"

Thank you.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Sorry for that, That was my first intention. If you like I can take it out from there (delete it) and share it to you for free!!! The only problem is how to blog it in your forum? Secondly, I might commit again another violation as a spammer? What is your advice?

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

I have one point, and one question here.

First, 9.8ms^-2 is geometrical not exponential.

Second, if the earth is expanding this quickly, but if the distance to the sun (in Eath diameters) is constant (as you imply), then there wil be an absolutely huge force dragging us off the Earth as it accelerates away from the sun.

Your theory also gets the gravity between masses on the surface of the Earth wrong.

If you look at the classic experimen that measures deflection of a mass in the lab, as another mass is brought close by, then your theory predicts a negligible effect. In reality, we get the effect that we'd expect from our classic theory of gravity.

Overall, your theory only works for gravity from one single object, expanding from its centre.

It does not even work well for that. Look at a satellite in freefall around the earth (the Moon, if you like), and ask yourself what trajectory it should follow under your scheme.

I appreciate your reply. You have a point there but I have limited way of giving my own opinion without your knowledge of the actual articles or topics I just qouted. After all my theory is only a proposal but it is not yet final, I still continuing to research on it to give a supporting evidences. Still, thanks a lot.. Until next week, on my free time...

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

You don't really need to have access to any articles to notice that we are not accelerating off the surface f the earth towards the sun at several thousand g. It is reasonably self-evident.

There is nothing wrong with coming up with interesting theories about how things work. There are several common ideas that a lot of people have before formal study, including that we see by our eyes emitting something that strikes the world around us, for example.

With gravity, there are two common "youthful" ideas. One is that we are surrounded by a sea of fast-moving particles, that push on us from all sides, and that the earth shields us from the ones coming from below, so that we are pushed onto its surface. The other is an idea like yours that everything is expanding.

Both make sense initially, but then can very easily be shown to be wrong (both do not follow an inverse-square law, for example). Most people, when realising this, will just see that they made a sensible guess that turned out not to work. Unfortunately, some people are not happy with the scientific method, and will continue to insist that their view is still right, irrespective of the facts.

If I may make an aside, it is interesting to me that these people will often then accuse mainstream scientists of being closed to new ideas. Of course, refusing to accept the evidence is the ultimate closed-mindedness. In contrast, genuine scientists actively go out and look for disproof of our most cherished beliefs.

To turn, as I often do, to my own area of particle physics, we have built a 27km ring deep under the Jura mountains, and spent tens of billions of Euro to test whether the Higgs boson exists (among other things), or if our theory is broken. This is the very essence of testing our theories.

Yours has been tested, has been shown to be wrong, and should be set aside.

If you genuinely do want to explain how the universe works, I'd urge you to spend four years doing an undergraduate degree in physics as the very bare minimum, before you look to rewrite what we know.

Sorry if I offended you...

My main purpose is simply to present this ideas and opinions and the phrase “No Need to Be Super Genius…” from the main title (in case you had read it) is just “to catch the attention” of prospective readers, not as a personal attack to the professional scientists, I have high respect to people like you. My mere intention is to review back our concept of gravity. Maybe, the abundant knowledge achieved by the people in this field seems leading them to a much complex analyses of the structure of the Universe that they are over-looking the possibility that gravity could be analyzed through the fundamental laws and theories provided by Newton and Einstein’s argument that gravity is not a force. The fact now, that I only wishes to simplify it seems, at the end, as I keep on analyzing this petty "grade one" theory, is leading me to complexity that gravity is somewhat a force (but not as attracting force) but due to the assumption that the interghanging of energy into new matter and then into a well defined matter and vice versa (that is, in a cycle), in the Universe could causes it and only appears as an attracting force.
Maybe, I am not authorized to tell what is valid and not valid, it need an authority like you to do that. But Galileo during his time was called heretic and Hawking was adviced by his colleagues to abandon his belief that a black hole emits light, mine is just an idea out of the analysis I conducted through reading Hawking's book. I am very sorry but still, I am adamant to withdraw my case without a good fight. (But maybe you are right, I am not Galileo nor Hawking) .

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

As already mentioned by Northern Boy if the Earth's radius is expanding my 9.8 m/s², and thus R = R0 + 9.8 t², then the volume of the Earth will not expand exponentially but as the 6th power of time as the volume of a sphere is proportional to R³, so first you will have to get the math right.

The Earth will not be light as a feather, only the density would decrease, otherwise, the same mass would be in the ever growing Earth, and thus remain the same and not get any lighter.

Whoah, stop right there! You only claim above that everything expands, nowhere have you yet said that matter would be continuously created. You are taking a leap here!

And where exactly would this matter come from?

Yeah, but unlike you, Prof. Hawking does have the mathematical and physical foundation to build on and make a consistent model of the universe without the necessity of math.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

You do not need to take it out, otherwise it would have been gone already by moderation.

What do you mean with "how to blog in this forum"? Just write what you want to propose and defend it here on the board, in a window like I am typing in now. Why would you need a blog, this is a discussion board, so discuss. And it is no problem that, if you want to give extra background information, to put in a link to a website, e.g. wiki is linked to often, or ADS where one can find scientific papers, or or or

So, just write down what you want to propose here and defend it. You only have 30 days to do so.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Ofcourse as we know that we are lighter on the moon than on Earth, this would mean that the Moon is expanding slower than the Earth. And the Sun and Jupiter are probably expanding faster than the Earth. Why would there be a different expansion rate for different objects?

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

If the Earth was expanding wouldn't we have to expand at the same rate otherwise it's going to take me a long time to drive to Edinburgh on Monday.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

sirjon wrote:

If this is true and gravity is not attractive then how could the sun and the moon effect the ocean tides here on earth?

__________________
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
DETAILS: Where the Devil waits to ensnare the unprepared!
Remember. Just because I'm sure doesn't mean I'm right.
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognise a mistake when you make it again.

For that matter, how do orbits work? What makes objects in orbit around Earth follow paths that curve around the planet? Everything would follow straight-line paths until it gets splattered over the surface of a faster-expanding object.

Sirjon, how old is the planet Earth?

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

How does your model handle the orbital mechanics of the Earth-Moon system? Thanks to laser ranging, we precisely know the distance to the Moon and the very small rate at which it recedes from Earth. These figures fit very neatly with orbital computations using fixed masses (not densities!) for both Earth and the Moon.

How does this fit in with your model of a rapidly expanding Earth, along with the constant creation of new mass?

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

sirjon,

Is this right? You began with implicit dishonesty, and now you expect those you directed that dishonesty toward to care to follow up on the remainder of your words? Well, there are some kind folks here.

I don't really see how this idea is any different than that which is popularized in mainstream books such as the last chapter of Scott Adams' Dilbert Future:

http://www.insolitology.com/rloddities/dilbert.htm

I don't know if there's a fifth dimension now, but there used to be. Saw 'em in concert. Groovy......

__________________
Where mainstream ideas can't be found,
some novel theories can be had.
But keep your feet both on the ground;
Sometimes the astronomy's bad.

You may see the cosmos through the noise,
But take care which path you choose.
Remember when reading conspiracy ploys,
A mind's a terrible thing to lose.

So keep your spider sense on high
And before they drive you to booze,
Take time to roll up your pant legs, boys,
It's too late to save your shoes.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Sorry, think I was having a bad night.

In the book "A Brief History of Time", Hawking stated, "...it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of boxes within boxes"(see p167). Consider this lay man's idea -

Draw an infinite line and put a point lying within that line, isn't true that all points toward the left side of that point are set of points toward infinity and as well as to the right side? Assuming, if one consider a point to its left side from that original point and assign it as the reference point and disregard the other points on the left side and only the points on the right side, what we have then is a ray. The idea that everything is expanding is a proposal of projecting it, similar to a ray. Although we are not certain where that assigned point is located, the way scientists are searching for that ultimate “elementary particles”, isn’t valid to assume a situation, where, if one project it using that assigned reference point and able to make an observation of what might happen to the points on its right side?

In the case that Einstein’s space-time is indeed expanding, the proposal that everything in the Universe are proportionally expanding in a three-dimensional pattern not only include objects that we can see, it also include the empty spaces in between all objects. The rate of increase in distance between the earth and the moon separated by the space in-between them is negligible but to compare it to another, example, such as the distance between the earth and a galaxy of 10 light-years away from it, with the assumption that the rate of expansion of the earth in respect to it’s radius is at 9.8m/sec2, there would be a noticeable rate of increase of distance between the earth and that galaxy for every second of a time that would appear, as a galaxy moving away from us. This idea implies that even the spaces in between bodies contained a vast amount of new matter. Individually, these ultra-small droplets of new matter distributed equally in what we thought empty spaces are also increasing in size but if one tries to look at them through a microscope, they would still appear too small to be seen due to the fact that even the most efficient microscope intended to look at them would be useless due to the possibility that the microscope itself would also increase in size in proportion to the rate of increase of these ultra-small droplets of new matter.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Mass of a body can be represented by the body itself in an increasing rate of volume (which is proportional to the rate of increase of all bodies in the Universe) with an amount of force it possess which is not necessary in proportion to the amount of force possessed by another body.

This new proposal opens new challenges to explain the reason (or reasons) behind “why there are objects small in size but much heavier in weight compared to others”. If all things in the Universe are increasing in volume proportionally as the Universe expands, the problem occurs on how to compromise such idea to objects with denser matter. If the increase in size of an object exerts an opposing force, such as a tennis ball against the surface of the earth, an iron bar in related case, should be increasing much in size to exert a greater opposing force against the surface of the earth, meaning, the rate of increase of volume of the iron bar should be greater than the tennis ball. But such phenomenon does not occur as observed. Maybe it has to do with the following predictions:

1. The property of inertia of a body which is newly defined as the ability of a body to oppose a sudden change of circumstance requires that different bodies should have different amounts of resistance of inertia or different rates of sudden change in circumstance. There are bodies which can easily change their state of circumstance from the state at rest to the state of motion or vice versa or there are bodies which are much resistive or have the ability to delay the sudden change in circumstance.

2. Differences in densities of matter are due to different amounts of compressions of new matter caused by differences in amount of forces of interacting waves that continuously transforming into new matter. Denser objects like a piece of iron bar contain much potential energy to provide greater amount of opposing force resulting to a heavier weight compared to a tennis ball although both have the same proportional rate of increase in volume.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

__________________
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
DETAILS: Where the Devil waits to ensnare the unprepared!
Remember. Just because I'm sure doesn't mean I'm right.
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognise a mistake when you make it again.

Albert Einstein became popular due to this very familiar equation, E = mc2. This is one of the most important scientific discoveries of the Twentieth Century, proving that a very small amount of matter can generate a tremendous amount of energy such as the atomic bomb that fell down on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Law of Conservation of Matter stated that matter can neither be created nor destroyed but can only be changed into another kind of matter while the Law of Conservation of Energy stated that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can only be transformed into another kind of energy. These were the earlier scientists taught until Einstein made that revelation that it is also possible that matter can be transformed directly into energy or vice versa. It turned out that those laws of conservations became Einstein’s Law of Conversions of Matter and Energy. Man successfully proven that indeed, modern science can convert matter into energy (thru nuclear reactors) but energy directly into a matter, I personally doubt that it is now possible,( I stand corrected, there are experiments showing that it is now possible). In Biology, the energy of the sun is being converted into chlorophyll which makes the plants grow, a good example of nature’s way of converting energy into matter. The reverse process of creating matter from energy could explain the evolution of the Universe and from Einstein’s formula E= mc2, there could be another way of describing how the Universe was created.

SELF-OPINION

In general relativity, the Universe was predicted that it came from a point of singularity with infinite density, that is, so small and yet so massive. But there seems to be inconsistencies to that idea. First, how can be a thing be so massive and yet so small, unless it is a black hole? Second, how can one describe (physically) the reverse process of a black hole?

If we consider that the expansion of the Universe is due to the new matter that being steadily created from within the very fabric of space-time, there should be a source where this new matter came from. Maybe, before our Universe was born, there were only two entities that exist, the entity of a “totally empty space” and the entity of a “pure energy”. This totally empty space could be in absolute vacuum and also spatially infinite, while the other entity, the pure energy could be in its highest form in which it does not contain any kind of elementary particle but absolutely, a wave-energy. Initially, this pure energy could have been no physical dimension at all which could be infinitely small in size but possess a tremendous amount of potential energy (almost infinite). At the very first fraction of a second, it released a steady and continues amount of energy in all directions from its point of source, now in a kinetic state at a pulsating or oscillating pattern (frequency of almost infinite cycles per second). The waves are initially at the accelerating speeds covering a large surface area at an exponential rate of expansion from the point of source and began to decelerate as their energies began to decrease. Having lost their energies, they began to convert into new matter (as one unit), in a form similar to an ultra small droplets of water (not in particles which are commonly used in textbooks). The next batch of waves tend to push the new matter as they had the capacity to exert force but in the process, they would also loss energy and be converted into new matter. Layer by layer, the new matter became thicker that the waves of energy, having the same strength of force as to the first batches of waves would simply bounce off (since they did not totally loss energies to convert into new matter). In that process, they would collide with the outgoing waves exerted by the pure energy and oscillate on their own. The collisions of waves increases the temperature of the surroundings and if two opposing waves having the same strength and speed collide head on, they would not evaporate or disappear as most of us thought, they would virtually loss energy and automatically convert themselves into new matter. The process continues and the environment became very hot, in a chaotic state and the forces of waves began to break into different strengths into what are known as the elementary forces of nature – strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force. The new matter, individually, clumped together and formed into elementary particles, then into simple elements of hydrogen and helium, into complex chemical compounds and the story end up similar to the Hot Big Bang Theory, except that in this proposal, the Universe was born in silence, omitting the words “big bang”.

This proposal automatically eliminate Guth’s suggestion of an extra-special energy possessing an anti-gravitational effect similar to Einstein’s cosmological constant if only one accept and consider that gravity is not a force. This will also eliminate his argument that the total energy in the Universe is exactly equal to “zero”, believing that the Universe is an ultimate “free lunch”. The more appropriate proposal would be that the total amount of energy in the Universe depends on how much new matter (as one unit) was converted into “real matter” out of the pure energy. So there is no need to assume that matter energy is positive while gravitational energy is negative. This proposal also supports Linde’s idea of a slow phase transition inside a bubble which could really and possibly be, bigger than the size of the Universe. The new matter at the boundary that separate the waves created by the pure energy and the totally empty space acts like the transparent surface of Linde’s bubble. It could never be developed into what are known as elementary particles, the oscillating waves having enough forces would just push these layers of new matter outwardly while the weaker waves would just bounce back and forth until they loss energies and convert themselves into ultra small droplets of new matter and fill the gaps in between the empty spaces inside this extra-ordinary bubble. Some waves, having much greater forces would possibly put pressure to a now developing matters and compressed them to form into gas, liquid and solid matters that form the stars and galaxies. The process could be in a slow phase, a change from symmetry into broken symmetry.

The above idea of "pure energy" and "totally empty space" are hypothetical examples only, which I believe is valid in making a hypothesis.

The E = mc2 is actually E equal to c times square, the exponent 2 always appears a normal size "2", it is not my fault.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

As for Item #1. How is this a new definition of inertia??? And what do you mean by a "sudden change of circumstance"?

As for Item #2. What does this word salad mean?

__________________
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
DETAILS: Where the Devil waits to ensnare the unprepared!
Remember. Just because I'm sure doesn't mean I'm right.
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognise a mistake when you make it again.