…”First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.” Sir Isaac Newton
This assertion proposes that “rest” is a fundamental state, inherent property, or characteristic of matter.
We know from our observations in nature, and by experimental model that this statement is incorrect.
In every understanding we have of matter, the common observations are that the particle is comprised of “moving” material within it’s nucleus, as well as orbital bodies in motion around it.
No matter the element, an atom is typically described as being in a state of “vibration.”
We also know that all atoms have a dipole magnetic structure. Doesn’t this also then imply “motion” through the concepts of magnetic field movement?”
Wouldn’t “vibration” of the atom then be transferred like a “pulsation” or “harmonic vibration” through, and as much a part of the atom itself?
Isn’t a particle of energy or light usually being described as having “spooky action?”
Isn’t even a particle’s existence itself at times in question as they often disappear only to re appear somewhere else?
Couldn’t the “observed” matter “at rest” then be seen as being “at rest” only as it’s density and mass increase to such levels where observational tools can ‘measure” it, yet it’s true state of being is still unknown?
I propose that the true state of matter is in motion. That matter itself is comprised of “energy” in motion, and that it has field lines comprised of like but smaller particulate matter in constant motion, and that the particle itself, (waveform) is also in a constant natural state of motion, or “vibration,”
Therefore, we should also assume that in it’s natural, or “free” state, it’s inherent qualities should be observable. (I believe it is) And, that the “greater forces” applied, are those of “Gravity” or “density” or oher “forces.”
I propose that the premise Sir Issac Newton suggests will invalidate many mathematical computations that might otherwise be correct.