INERTIA
(October, 1998)

By Noel Huntley, Ph.D.

The article on superspace is prerequisite reading for this one on inertia. We discussed the complexity of nodes (particles) of space covering all properties of direction, velocity, frequency, acceleration, and duration. This framework is necessary for an understanding of inertia, which we shall find is contextual and of an electromagnetic nature.

Scientists and laymen alike have been programmed with the notion that objects possess inertia--as though this was some absolute inherent property of mass. If one really thinks about this and breaks down the programmed thinking one will see how nonsensical it is. What is this strange ingredient with which we endow mass?

Imagine a heavy object flying through the air, say, an airliner. We automatically invest this body with ponderousness, weightiness, irrespective of what the body is doing or what is happening to it. If this body is in free fall, that is, falling freely under gravity or moving freely out in space, or in orbit (also a projectile after firing is included), there is no inertia manifesting, not even momentum (mass times velocity) or kinetic energy, etc. But one will insist that the body has velocity and mass, and therefore momentum. It has velocity but the mass in momentum is based on gravitational mass, which is identical to inertial mass, and as we shall see there is no inertia.

Amazingly we have said nothing that violates Newton's laws, and every educated person will agree with the above when we remind them that inertia only arises when we interfere with the motion of the body. The above presentation was to indicate the preconceived and programmed state of mind, that an object possesses inertia. It is necessary to deprogram this false thinking before proceeding with correct thinking (that is, imagine all bodies as a mass of oscillating fields with no inherent properties of inertia--think of the object as, say, being 'lighter' than a feather).

[A spacecraft, say, one mile in diameter, weighing 10 billion tons is lighter than a feather relative to its propulsion system (assuming it is operating 100 percent efficiently), but if one pushes the craft with a Newtonian force---even while the propulsion system is operating---it will resist with a force up to 10 billion tons. Advanced systems do not have to cancel inertia, they bypass its onset.]

Now let us explain how inertia arises. Firstly make sure one understands resonance---that if two oscillating particles come close with the same frequency they will pull together and lock on.

Imagine a body moving freely through space (free fall). It doesn't matter what velocity it has relative to anything or what direction it has, there will be nodes of spacetime with the same direction and velocity, and also of the same frequency as the nodes of the structure of the body (for example, the centre of an atom is a node).

Thus these spacetime nodes penetrating the body and resonating with the body's own nodes are in holistic relationship. The object could be said to be 'at one' with spacetime. There are no forces, no inertia, no momentum, etc.

Now consider contacting the body at its surface, resisting its motion. Let us just explain that the spacetime nodes are moving as a result of the electromagnetic or quantum potentials of space. They endeavour to keep the body moving at their velocity and in their direction since the spacetime nodes are locked on to the body's own nodes by resonance and entrainment. The body appears to resist the attempt to slow its motion owing to the attraction of the nodes. If one succeeds in reducing the body's speed, even a minute fraction, the body's nodes will now have locked onto another set of spacetime nodes which correspond to the body's new velocity, direction, and frequencies. Thus while one is successfully resisting the body's motion one is causing the nodes of the body to be dragged away from the corresponding spacetime nodes continuously---causing the body to move from one set of spacetime nodes to another. Clearly this also applies to any manner of Newtonian interaction for deceleration, acceleration, and deflecting the body from its path, etc. These circumstances will still apply in a gravitational field where nodes are under acceleration and deceleration but it is a little more complex.

We see from the above analysis that a falling object does not obey Newton's laws! Only when the object is resisted in its free fall, such as impacting Earth, does it obey Newton's laws. When it is falling it has acceleration without force. It is in holistic equilibrium with its environment.

If the body is restrained from falling, such as when it rests on the ground, the spacetime nodes (which are being pressured towards the centre of the Earth---gravitational nodes) are passing through the body, stationary on the Earth's surface, and many of these nodes of identical frequency pass close by and through corresponding ones of the body, attempting to lock on, but continue through causing a dragging-down effect.

Thus one can see clearly that this is an inertial effect but which is called a gravitational force. The body is constantly being dragged downwards. This condition of being pushed against the ground with nodes temporarily hooking together and being pulled away is entirely different from that of the body in free fall giving rise to the well-known weightless condition. What we are stating here is that when the body is falling freely there is no gravitational force. The body is not being pulled down by a Newtonian force (acting 2-to-3 dimensionally) and resisting with inertia.

There is no inertia. There is acceleration without force. This holistic condition superficially appears to be the same as the Newtonian interpretation in which the object is pulled down by a gravitational force and the body resists with inertia so that the gravitational force and inertia are equal and opposite at the acceleration due to gravity. Mathematically they cancel out. But a true no-force condition is not the same as one with cancelled forces---it involves a completely different science. This is a case where 2 - 2 does not equal 0. In pure mathematics it does. Each side of the equation is zero but the left-hand side in this application has factors which are in counteraction. They (the "2's") still exist. We have also seen examples---not specified in this way---in which 2 + 2 does not equal 4, such as in quantum regeneration. These are failures in mathematics.

We see then that if we apply a Newtonian force (2-to-3 dimensional interface) to a body we invoke the inertial property. If, however, we apply quantum action (4D action) or more specifically a 4D-to-3D action, no inertia will be generated. The onset of inertia is avoided--it is bypassed.

The gravitational field, or an antigravitational field (or scalar/quantum fields) satisfy this condition. They act 4th-to-3rd dimensionally on every nuclei simultaneously and there is no reaction, no resistance, no inertial effect whatsoever.

We thus see that inertia is contextual; its onset depends on the interface one adopts in the interaction.