''It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be, if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left open to the consideration of my readers. ''
first person to understand the tides.
go complex putin
moon does not pull the earth
high tide under the moon
second high tide
newton's third law
the greatest truth is truth.
go complex putin
moon does not pull the earth
high tide under the moon
second high tide
newton's third law
the greatest truth is truth.
Who you are looking at is the first person on this planet to understand we observe high and low tides.
Got something to say.. The moon is not pulling the ocean to cause a high tide. Sir Isaac Newton made a critical mistake about the universe. When we are in this heightened nuclear war situation, you have to have a go at getting the world's first base relationship with the universe on track. Could be too late but you have try.
There is a high tide under the moon. A high tide relative to a low tide is a lesser earth weight directed towards the centre of the earth. The reason of this the presence of the moon. But not through a direct pull. That was Sir Isaac's mistake. The man arguably was the best mathematician the world will ever know. The problem was he completely failed to apply mathematics to opposites direction of fall at a distance.
If we can successfully demonstrate that the
Got something to say.. The moon is not pulling the ocean to cause a high tide. Sir Isaac Newton made a critical mistake about the universe. When we are in this heightened nuclear war situation, you have to have a go at getting the world's first base relationship with the universe on track. Could be too late but you have try.
There is a high tide under the moon. A high tide relative to a low tide is a lesser earth weight directed towards the centre of the earth. The reason of this the presence of the moon. But not through a direct pull. That was Sir Isaac's mistake. The man arguably was the best mathematician the world will ever know. The problem was he completely failed to apply mathematics to opposites direction of fall at a distance.
If we can successfully demonstrate that the
The secretary general of the United Nations recently stated we are a dysfunctional planet. In that school days had identified the Copernican revolution to be a false academic god, going to try and offer some amateur help from the southern hemisphere.. The central academic problems were sleight hand tidal and planetary motion reasoning.
Equating the earth accelerating towards the sun with a uniform velocity at a right angle was one misnomer. The other was equating a decreasing rate of fall towards the moon with a rate of fall in a direction away from the moon. This was the given explanation of why one high tide is a lifting of an ocean away from the moon. These deviations from sound science culminated in a false teaching about the universe. Any member of the United Nations should understand that the world is not going to be functional while it endorses false understandings about the universe.
Whether or not it is too late for liberation from Copernican revolution mistakes, who knows. Whichever, if a coming generation does not believe the pursuit of truth is humanity's survival guide rail, all is nothing for the United Nations and life on earth. Hint. The sun and its gravity field are moving at a speed superior to that of the planets relative to the sun.
The correct answer to the tides is inspirational. Beyond a simple earth moon subtractive process, the equal and opposite nature of weight beneath the surface of the earth is the missing key to understanding the high and low tides of the earth. Also a post Copernican revolution tidal analysis of why Venus turns backwards as the earth progresses around the galaxy is necessary knowledge in any world wide quest to understand the universe.
If Australia is to be the country accredited with tapping into the intrigue of Venus's subtle two thirds rotational relationship with the earth year, it is going to put a focus on this particular nation. The first accurate mapping of the east coast of Australia by the outside world was done in 1770. This was done by an aspiring Englishman known as Captain Cook. This navigation was an after thought directive from the British Crown. The principle purpose of Cook's journey was sailing to the southern hemisphere to observe, as it was, a transit of Venus from the island of Tahiti. A transit of Venus is when the closer to the sun Venus passes between the earth and the sun. When this happens the same face of Venus is always towards the earth. That is part of the rotational intrigue.
At the time Australia was inhabited by people. After Tahiti and a circumnavigation of New Zealand, Captain Cook sailed west and sighted the east coast of Australia. He named this coast line New South Wales after Northern Hemisphere land he was familiar with. He claimed this new found territory a possession of the British Crown. At the time the Crown was represented by King George the third of England.
The people of Australia at the time did not have a developed knowledge of a Venus transit. When Captain Cook sailed the east coast in 1770 his journal shows he was fascinated by the smoke rising in clouds from his new found land. The people who were here were developing ecological systems of seasonal brush burning. Back in King George third's England inordinate lower class petty crime was filling jails. Sixteen and half years after Captain Cook sighted the east coast of Australia, a fleet of sailing ships left England carrying a number of these criminals. The intent was to colonize Australia with British lowlife. On a subsequent fleet an ancestor was transported here. He was sent for slaughtering and stealing a sheep.
Recently a ninety six year old ruling descendant of King George the third, Queen Elizabeth the second, experienced what some believe is a body soul separation. By now the United Kingdom has moved away from its right to ship its lowlife off to colonize foreign soil. Queen Elizabeth the second was a recognizer of the past wrongs inflicted on indigenous people in the name of a British Empire. Her royal conscience was not objectionable to any desired independence of former colonies.
Hard at work professors will do a better job of explaining how the United Kingdom eventually became a democratic nation. More by chance than design, the Crown assumed the role of a titular or ceremonial head of state. The prime role of a ceremonial head of state is signing laws into effect after they have been passed by democratically elected parliaments and to appoint Ministers of the state after they have been elected to that forum from a people's vote. In order of listings of the most democratic countries on the planet, nations with a monarch as a titular head of state rate the highest. In some rankings Taiwan is an exception to this. In general the least corrupt and most stable nations on the planet have evolved from autocracies into a democracy with the remnants of a former autocratic monarchy becoming a figure head ceremonial head of state above the cut and thrust of daily politics. And so is the post colonial case with Australia. Australia has a Governor General as titular head of state with the British Crown being used to appoint the Governor General that the Australian parliament has decided upon.
Except that it was founded on vacant land musings made half a world away, Australia today is within the bounds of being a fully democratic nation. With a preparedness to defer to the tremendous array of professors that Australia boasts of on precise details and matters, legally descendants of the original people of Australia became legal Australians in a national referendum in 1967. The Australian constitution was implemented in 1901. To be changed, through its iconic section 128, the constitution requires the affirming vote of a national referendum. Under the terms of the Australian constitution, until 1967, descendants of the original people were excluded from the constitution and not counted in the national census. The 1967 national referendum changed this contradictory state of affairs.
This referendum didn't specifically give countenance to the question of this land not being vacant when the British Crown assumed the place. In 1992 a ruling by the highest court of the Australian land did. A man descended from ancestors prior to the arrival of Captain Cook laid a possession claim for islands just off the coast of Australia. The man who brought the case could show continuous hereditary connection with the islands in question. On this ground, the court was happy to state that the islands had always legally belonged to the claimants. This judicial relief was faced with addressing the then implication that the ruling meant that the mainland of Australia had never been a legitimate possession of the British Crown.
The High Court's method of overcoming this was to rule that completed dispossession of any region of the Australia mainland post 1770 meant that original dispossession was now legitimate. Contrarily anyone who could show a continuous ancestral connection with land that traced back to the period prior to 1770 could lay claim to that land. The main impact of this was on rural leases in what is known as outback Australia. Any land parcel boasting complete eradication of original people was always a legal possession of the British Crown or now the Commonwealth of Australia. If, by 1992. there was no-one left who could make a pre 1770 claim on that land, original European dispossession was deemed to have always legal.
The problem with this was the Australian constitution was founded upon Australia being vacant prior to European arrivals. To allow original legal possession rights to the people who already here, the Australian constitution would need to extinguish itself. The High Court assumed that they had the power to do this while they drafted a frame work that would allow hereditary land claims. After this was written and delivered in a court setting, the original constitution would once again exist unaffected on all areas where the original owners had been eliminated.
For those who accepted that the high court judges could extinguish the Commonwealth of Australia behind closed doors and then bring it back to life in a slightly altered form, this is where the story ended.
For those who saw a recognition of original non European ownership of Australia as an extinguishment of the Australian constitution, the High Court's ruling was constitutional anarchy. High Court justices following the constitution they were serving would have realized that extinguishing European owner ship of Australia and then adjusting it into a form that could allow land ownership based on pre 1770 Australia was an alteration of the Australian constitution. As High Court justices they were well aware that the Australian constitution is only alterable with the majority consent of the nation.
Highlighting the beauty of section 128 of the Australian constitution is of value to nations not rated as democratic as Australia. It is not unique in terms of constitutional alteration. The Swiss constitution is arguably superior with its petition origin of change. But any national constitution that requires a national vote to be altered is at a democratic level above constitutions that only require a parliament or a congress or a coup to do consummate the altering. In the formation of the Australian constitution and the kick the can down the road decision of its founders to leave pre 1770 people disenfranchised from the Australia, the founders argued amongst themselves about the way the Australian constitution that they were creating could subsequently be altered. To their credit, a national referendum won the day.
Constitutional change is a decision against a nation as it previously operated. Some or perhaps most constitutional changes are dry and technical. The occasional constitutional change is a touchstone historical moment. The 1967 referendum that allowed that those descended from people here before 1770 to be counted as part of the Australian population was one such touchstone moment.
In 1992, the High Court obliviously and spiritually altered the title of the Commonwealth of Australia to the Commonwealth of Australia including successful native title claimants. What the High Court should have done is made a submission to the Australian parliament explaining that a section 128 referendum was required to incorporate native title and pre 1770 ownership within the modern Commonwealth of Australia.
By now more appropriate suggestions of what the new title of Australia could have been put to a native title referendum are not to point. The High Court of Australia is unlikely to recognize or consider that it acted unconstitutionally back in 1992. These words are tone setters for unveiling the errors of the Copernican revolution. Nevertheless and without input from anyone more appropriately descended, the title for this nation on the world map given here is Tiwi Islands. There is already a small Tiwi Islands near Darwin and, with apologies to those islanders, that is where this suggestion of an appropriated national name that recognizes native title comes from. The mainland of Australia and Tasmania being the two islands in this case. Why it is liked is the name is it says good stuff to world. At the Olympics would Australians like competing as Tiwi Islanders for the Tiwi Islands? Don't know. Australian rules football becoming known as Tiwi Islands football is obvious. There could be better stuff names to consider for this nation to use to meld pre and post 1770 together. Australia, though, simply means land south of Europe and can never recognize original ownership as the 1992 High Court evidently believed it could.
The intent of a proper legal or section 128 recognition of native title is those descended from the original people garner a sobering reconnection with their previous land and also a connection with the other mainly northern nations. Alternatively those of other descents respect pre 1770 life every time they state their this century nationality. If a section 128 referendum rejected original non European ownership, we would find out that we have gone backwards as a people since 1967.
Running parallel with a proper constitutional recognition of native title is the question of Australia achieving legal separation from original European ownership. This question was put to a national referendum in 1999. The personal position was two fold. Yes Australia should procure its own head of state and no we shouldn't become a republic. A republic is a statement against a monarchy. Australia had no need to make a statement against Queen Elizabeth the second. Our Monarch was a positive world influence. Our problem was she was born north.
With the 1999 referendum on the question of whether or not Australia should become a republic the personal vote was unequivocally no. The model of selecting the head of state put was plain stupid. The head of state was to be determined by a 2/3s majority of the Australian parliament being in favour of a proposed candidate. A 2/3s majority of any voting body may never be found. There was no constitutional guarantee that a head of state would actually be determined. In reality what would happen is the head of state would be found through quid quo pro. The political party out of power would agree to a particular head of state if the governing party gave a concession in another area. Current prominent examples of minority veto power procuring democratic dysfunction are the veto power in the security council of the united nations and the United States senate. Australia was better than getting its self involved with dysfunctional democracy and the model was rejected when the national vote was tallied. The other idea floated at the time was a directly elected president. That would have altered the nature of the nation and was not part of the referendum.
Immediately prior to the 1999 referendum, individual submissions were called for and a convention of delegates was established to determine the model to be put to a section 128 national vote. A submission was mailed off.
The idea began with what the then Queen offered Australia as an offshore head of state. The key point was she was the same thing to all Australians. She did not have birth allegiance to any particular state or territory of Australia. Either the 2/3s model or a directly elected President would be causing the most populous states of Australia to provide the head of state more often than not. To maintain federal stability, the new model needed to treat all states and territories the same. The submitted idea was the states and would take it in turns to determine and then supply the Australian head of state with the vice head of state taking over from a retiring head of state. From memory the two mainland territories were left as issue that needed addressing.
In summary of these matters, until it legally recognizes original non European title, Australia is a culture clash between Europe and the original owners. Australia developing a historic rational of why Venus is turning slowly backwards as the earth moves forward is of best value to the rest of the world if Australia genuinely recognizes native title. And the word 'republic' should never be a part of the ownership title of this land.
If you do have a hereditary link with pre captain Cook Australia, the European mistake about the tides was made before Captain Cook became marooned on the Great Barrier Reef back in 1770. When the low life of England were first being sent, a man named Sir Isaac Newton was turning a buck through investing in the Transatlantic slave trade. A side benefit of this slave trade for Sir Isaac was getting merchants to record tidal times in the Caribbean when they reloaded with sugar, etc for the journey back to Europe. This allowed Sir Isaac to become fully certain that the earth was experiencing concurrent high and low tides on direct opposite sides of the planet. These tides move around the earth as the moon moves around the earth. The oceanic part of the bulges get displaced as they crash into land masses and are never directly occurring along the earth moon axis. The bulges themselves continue beneath the ocean right down to the centre of the earth. This is not unknown by science today but it was not part of Sir Isaac Newton's tidal thinking.
End of part 1. Taking the tides to Australia and the world.
Equating the earth accelerating towards the sun with a uniform velocity at a right angle was one misnomer. The other was equating a decreasing rate of fall towards the moon with a rate of fall in a direction away from the moon. This was the given explanation of why one high tide is a lifting of an ocean away from the moon. These deviations from sound science culminated in a false teaching about the universe. Any member of the United Nations should understand that the world is not going to be functional while it endorses false understandings about the universe.
Whether or not it is too late for liberation from Copernican revolution mistakes, who knows. Whichever, if a coming generation does not believe the pursuit of truth is humanity's survival guide rail, all is nothing for the United Nations and life on earth. Hint. The sun and its gravity field are moving at a speed superior to that of the planets relative to the sun.
The correct answer to the tides is inspirational. Beyond a simple earth moon subtractive process, the equal and opposite nature of weight beneath the surface of the earth is the missing key to understanding the high and low tides of the earth. Also a post Copernican revolution tidal analysis of why Venus turns backwards as the earth progresses around the galaxy is necessary knowledge in any world wide quest to understand the universe.
If Australia is to be the country accredited with tapping into the intrigue of Venus's subtle two thirds rotational relationship with the earth year, it is going to put a focus on this particular nation. The first accurate mapping of the east coast of Australia by the outside world was done in 1770. This was done by an aspiring Englishman known as Captain Cook. This navigation was an after thought directive from the British Crown. The principle purpose of Cook's journey was sailing to the southern hemisphere to observe, as it was, a transit of Venus from the island of Tahiti. A transit of Venus is when the closer to the sun Venus passes between the earth and the sun. When this happens the same face of Venus is always towards the earth. That is part of the rotational intrigue.
At the time Australia was inhabited by people. After Tahiti and a circumnavigation of New Zealand, Captain Cook sailed west and sighted the east coast of Australia. He named this coast line New South Wales after Northern Hemisphere land he was familiar with. He claimed this new found territory a possession of the British Crown. At the time the Crown was represented by King George the third of England.
The people of Australia at the time did not have a developed knowledge of a Venus transit. When Captain Cook sailed the east coast in 1770 his journal shows he was fascinated by the smoke rising in clouds from his new found land. The people who were here were developing ecological systems of seasonal brush burning. Back in King George third's England inordinate lower class petty crime was filling jails. Sixteen and half years after Captain Cook sighted the east coast of Australia, a fleet of sailing ships left England carrying a number of these criminals. The intent was to colonize Australia with British lowlife. On a subsequent fleet an ancestor was transported here. He was sent for slaughtering and stealing a sheep.
Recently a ninety six year old ruling descendant of King George the third, Queen Elizabeth the second, experienced what some believe is a body soul separation. By now the United Kingdom has moved away from its right to ship its lowlife off to colonize foreign soil. Queen Elizabeth the second was a recognizer of the past wrongs inflicted on indigenous people in the name of a British Empire. Her royal conscience was not objectionable to any desired independence of former colonies.
Hard at work professors will do a better job of explaining how the United Kingdom eventually became a democratic nation. More by chance than design, the Crown assumed the role of a titular or ceremonial head of state. The prime role of a ceremonial head of state is signing laws into effect after they have been passed by democratically elected parliaments and to appoint Ministers of the state after they have been elected to that forum from a people's vote. In order of listings of the most democratic countries on the planet, nations with a monarch as a titular head of state rate the highest. In some rankings Taiwan is an exception to this. In general the least corrupt and most stable nations on the planet have evolved from autocracies into a democracy with the remnants of a former autocratic monarchy becoming a figure head ceremonial head of state above the cut and thrust of daily politics. And so is the post colonial case with Australia. Australia has a Governor General as titular head of state with the British Crown being used to appoint the Governor General that the Australian parliament has decided upon.
Except that it was founded on vacant land musings made half a world away, Australia today is within the bounds of being a fully democratic nation. With a preparedness to defer to the tremendous array of professors that Australia boasts of on precise details and matters, legally descendants of the original people of Australia became legal Australians in a national referendum in 1967. The Australian constitution was implemented in 1901. To be changed, through its iconic section 128, the constitution requires the affirming vote of a national referendum. Under the terms of the Australian constitution, until 1967, descendants of the original people were excluded from the constitution and not counted in the national census. The 1967 national referendum changed this contradictory state of affairs.
This referendum didn't specifically give countenance to the question of this land not being vacant when the British Crown assumed the place. In 1992 a ruling by the highest court of the Australian land did. A man descended from ancestors prior to the arrival of Captain Cook laid a possession claim for islands just off the coast of Australia. The man who brought the case could show continuous hereditary connection with the islands in question. On this ground, the court was happy to state that the islands had always legally belonged to the claimants. This judicial relief was faced with addressing the then implication that the ruling meant that the mainland of Australia had never been a legitimate possession of the British Crown.
The High Court's method of overcoming this was to rule that completed dispossession of any region of the Australia mainland post 1770 meant that original dispossession was now legitimate. Contrarily anyone who could show a continuous ancestral connection with land that traced back to the period prior to 1770 could lay claim to that land. The main impact of this was on rural leases in what is known as outback Australia. Any land parcel boasting complete eradication of original people was always a legal possession of the British Crown or now the Commonwealth of Australia. If, by 1992. there was no-one left who could make a pre 1770 claim on that land, original European dispossession was deemed to have always legal.
The problem with this was the Australian constitution was founded upon Australia being vacant prior to European arrivals. To allow original legal possession rights to the people who already here, the Australian constitution would need to extinguish itself. The High Court assumed that they had the power to do this while they drafted a frame work that would allow hereditary land claims. After this was written and delivered in a court setting, the original constitution would once again exist unaffected on all areas where the original owners had been eliminated.
For those who accepted that the high court judges could extinguish the Commonwealth of Australia behind closed doors and then bring it back to life in a slightly altered form, this is where the story ended.
For those who saw a recognition of original non European ownership of Australia as an extinguishment of the Australian constitution, the High Court's ruling was constitutional anarchy. High Court justices following the constitution they were serving would have realized that extinguishing European owner ship of Australia and then adjusting it into a form that could allow land ownership based on pre 1770 Australia was an alteration of the Australian constitution. As High Court justices they were well aware that the Australian constitution is only alterable with the majority consent of the nation.
Highlighting the beauty of section 128 of the Australian constitution is of value to nations not rated as democratic as Australia. It is not unique in terms of constitutional alteration. The Swiss constitution is arguably superior with its petition origin of change. But any national constitution that requires a national vote to be altered is at a democratic level above constitutions that only require a parliament or a congress or a coup to do consummate the altering. In the formation of the Australian constitution and the kick the can down the road decision of its founders to leave pre 1770 people disenfranchised from the Australia, the founders argued amongst themselves about the way the Australian constitution that they were creating could subsequently be altered. To their credit, a national referendum won the day.
Constitutional change is a decision against a nation as it previously operated. Some or perhaps most constitutional changes are dry and technical. The occasional constitutional change is a touchstone historical moment. The 1967 referendum that allowed that those descended from people here before 1770 to be counted as part of the Australian population was one such touchstone moment.
In 1992, the High Court obliviously and spiritually altered the title of the Commonwealth of Australia to the Commonwealth of Australia including successful native title claimants. What the High Court should have done is made a submission to the Australian parliament explaining that a section 128 referendum was required to incorporate native title and pre 1770 ownership within the modern Commonwealth of Australia.
By now more appropriate suggestions of what the new title of Australia could have been put to a native title referendum are not to point. The High Court of Australia is unlikely to recognize or consider that it acted unconstitutionally back in 1992. These words are tone setters for unveiling the errors of the Copernican revolution. Nevertheless and without input from anyone more appropriately descended, the title for this nation on the world map given here is Tiwi Islands. There is already a small Tiwi Islands near Darwin and, with apologies to those islanders, that is where this suggestion of an appropriated national name that recognizes native title comes from. The mainland of Australia and Tasmania being the two islands in this case. Why it is liked is the name is it says good stuff to world. At the Olympics would Australians like competing as Tiwi Islanders for the Tiwi Islands? Don't know. Australian rules football becoming known as Tiwi Islands football is obvious. There could be better stuff names to consider for this nation to use to meld pre and post 1770 together. Australia, though, simply means land south of Europe and can never recognize original ownership as the 1992 High Court evidently believed it could.
The intent of a proper legal or section 128 recognition of native title is those descended from the original people garner a sobering reconnection with their previous land and also a connection with the other mainly northern nations. Alternatively those of other descents respect pre 1770 life every time they state their this century nationality. If a section 128 referendum rejected original non European ownership, we would find out that we have gone backwards as a people since 1967.
Running parallel with a proper constitutional recognition of native title is the question of Australia achieving legal separation from original European ownership. This question was put to a national referendum in 1999. The personal position was two fold. Yes Australia should procure its own head of state and no we shouldn't become a republic. A republic is a statement against a monarchy. Australia had no need to make a statement against Queen Elizabeth the second. Our Monarch was a positive world influence. Our problem was she was born north.
With the 1999 referendum on the question of whether or not Australia should become a republic the personal vote was unequivocally no. The model of selecting the head of state put was plain stupid. The head of state was to be determined by a 2/3s majority of the Australian parliament being in favour of a proposed candidate. A 2/3s majority of any voting body may never be found. There was no constitutional guarantee that a head of state would actually be determined. In reality what would happen is the head of state would be found through quid quo pro. The political party out of power would agree to a particular head of state if the governing party gave a concession in another area. Current prominent examples of minority veto power procuring democratic dysfunction are the veto power in the security council of the united nations and the United States senate. Australia was better than getting its self involved with dysfunctional democracy and the model was rejected when the national vote was tallied. The other idea floated at the time was a directly elected president. That would have altered the nature of the nation and was not part of the referendum.
Immediately prior to the 1999 referendum, individual submissions were called for and a convention of delegates was established to determine the model to be put to a section 128 national vote. A submission was mailed off.
The idea began with what the then Queen offered Australia as an offshore head of state. The key point was she was the same thing to all Australians. She did not have birth allegiance to any particular state or territory of Australia. Either the 2/3s model or a directly elected President would be causing the most populous states of Australia to provide the head of state more often than not. To maintain federal stability, the new model needed to treat all states and territories the same. The submitted idea was the states and would take it in turns to determine and then supply the Australian head of state with the vice head of state taking over from a retiring head of state. From memory the two mainland territories were left as issue that needed addressing.
In summary of these matters, until it legally recognizes original non European title, Australia is a culture clash between Europe and the original owners. Australia developing a historic rational of why Venus is turning slowly backwards as the earth moves forward is of best value to the rest of the world if Australia genuinely recognizes native title. And the word 'republic' should never be a part of the ownership title of this land.
If you do have a hereditary link with pre captain Cook Australia, the European mistake about the tides was made before Captain Cook became marooned on the Great Barrier Reef back in 1770. When the low life of England were first being sent, a man named Sir Isaac Newton was turning a buck through investing in the Transatlantic slave trade. A side benefit of this slave trade for Sir Isaac was getting merchants to record tidal times in the Caribbean when they reloaded with sugar, etc for the journey back to Europe. This allowed Sir Isaac to become fully certain that the earth was experiencing concurrent high and low tides on direct opposite sides of the planet. These tides move around the earth as the moon moves around the earth. The oceanic part of the bulges get displaced as they crash into land masses and are never directly occurring along the earth moon axis. The bulges themselves continue beneath the ocean right down to the centre of the earth. This is not unknown by science today but it was not part of Sir Isaac Newton's tidal thinking.
End of part 1. Taking the tides to Australia and the world.
teachers professors world leaders
mathematically doesn't exist
weight in one direction
mathematically doesn't exist
weight in one direction
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
There may be another way to set the world into motion towards a peace. For better or worse I am a product of the British empire. I apologize for the language barrier with other parts of the world and also to world citizens living under autocratic regimes. It's left to hope to get a message through to you.
The British Empire had an exploitative attitude to the planet. Left the democratic ideal behind in places but claiming already occupied lands was not democratic.
The British empire is virtually no more. Currently there is a territorial bloodshed between Ukraine and Russia taking place. The current United Kingdom unequivocally supporting the Ukrainian side and good on them. Also the united Kingdom has a knighthood system of proclaiming those considered worthy to be a Sir or a Dame. Occasionally a recipient of one of these awards is stripped of the title. Without knowing what the process is for doing this, let alone doing the title from someone who has been dead for a number of centuries, world peace begins when the UK parliament and presumbaly, the monarch of the UK, remove the title of Sir from the man currently known as sir isaac newton.
Offically removing Sir Isaac's title by the United Kingdom should allow democratic countries a realignment with its relationship with the universe.
The British Empire had an exploitative attitude to the planet. Left the democratic ideal behind in places but claiming already occupied lands was not democratic.
The British empire is virtually no more. Currently there is a territorial bloodshed between Ukraine and Russia taking place. The current United Kingdom unequivocally supporting the Ukrainian side and good on them. Also the united Kingdom has a knighthood system of proclaiming those considered worthy to be a Sir or a Dame. Occasionally a recipient of one of these awards is stripped of the title. Without knowing what the process is for doing this, let alone doing the title from someone who has been dead for a number of centuries, world peace begins when the UK parliament and presumbaly, the monarch of the UK, remove the title of Sir from the man currently known as sir isaac newton.
Offically removing Sir Isaac's title by the United Kingdom should allow democratic countries a realignment with its relationship with the universe.