Daniel Hooke, a philosopher at Virginia Tech, described what was discovered as a "clumsy mistranslation" in the original 1729 English translation of Newton's Latin Principles.Countless academics and teachers have since, based on this translation, interpreted Newton's first law of inertia to mean that "the body will continue to move in a straight line or remain at rest unless an external force intervenes." A body with its momentum if no forces acted on it, that is, the new reading shows that Newton meant that every change in the body's momentum (every tremor, regression, deflection, and mutation) was due to external forces.However, this momentous correction never spread, and Hooke added: "Some see my reading as too reckless to be taken seriously," but a closer examination of Newton's own writings shows what the leading mathematician was thinking at the time. The prevailing translation, that objects move in straight lines until forced otherwise by a force, raises the question! Why does Newton write a law about objects without external forces when there is no such thing in our universe; when gravity and friction are always present?Hooke wrote: "By giving this example, Newton clearly shows us how the first law applies, as he understands it, to accelerating objects that are subject to forces, that is, it applies to objects in the real world," and adds that "planets, stars, and other celestial bodies are all subject to the same physical laws as objects on Earth", according to a study published in the journal Science Alert.