In the beginning there was nothing. Or so the religious story went. There was really space, though. And Space wasn’t nothing. Space is length, width and breadth. Nothing would be an absence of the three dimensions. In reality the religious story was unable to explain what an original nothing could be. Thus the foundation of religion was a folly of mankind.
Space was expanding at infinite rate into a size beyond comprehension. Then it naturally stopped. The right angles between length width and breadth were all exactly born in an instant. The evolution of infinite distance was taking on a new form. Space had ended on the outside. On the inside the relationship between the circumference and the diameter was mathematically inexact. The fracturing of space into three dimensional particles in motion was beginning. A crude universe of matter and momentum were simultaneously born. The calculation of a number of infinite length began. It is to be the ratio between the circumference and it’s diameter The first digits of this number were 3.1459. The calculation is performed by length width and breadth fracturing into particles of length, width As the number expanded the infinite expansion evolved into partculate matter the man came to be he first called this birth to be the supernatural. He was yet to understand geometry and science. he called the supernatural God and God had created man in the image of God in the centre of all things. it all made sense to man . Later when man worked out that the earth wasn't fixed in the centre of all things he mused that the supernatural might be a bang. A big one. The supernatural though was the end of the expansion of space and the beginning of equal and opposite forces. The expansion of space was one force. Its opposite the limit.
Space was expanding at infinite rate into a size beyond comprehension. Then it naturally stopped. The right angles between length width and breadth were all exactly born in an instant. The evolution of infinite distance was taking on a new form. Space had ended on the outside. On the inside the relationship between the circumference and the diameter was mathematically inexact. The fracturing of space into three dimensional particles in motion was beginning. A crude universe of matter and momentum were simultaneously born. The calculation of a number of infinite length began. It is to be the ratio between the circumference and it’s diameter The first digits of this number were 3.1459. The calculation is performed by length width and breadth fracturing into particles of length, width As the number expanded the infinite expansion evolved into partculate matter the man came to be he first called this birth to be the supernatural. He was yet to understand geometry and science. he called the supernatural God and God had created man in the image of God in the centre of all things. it all made sense to man . Later when man worked out that the earth wasn't fixed in the centre of all things he mused that the supernatural might be a bang. A big one. The supernatural though was the end of the expansion of space and the beginning of equal and opposite forces. The expansion of space was one force. Its opposite the limit.
In the beginning there was nothing. Space was simply expanding at infinite rate into a size beyond comprehension. Then it naturally stopped. The right angles between length width and breadth were all exactly born in an instant. The evolution of infinite distance was taking on a new form. Space had ended on the outside. On the inside the relationship between the circumference and the diameter was mathematically inexact. The fracturing of space into three dimensional particles in motion was beginning. A crude universe of matter and momentum were simultaneously born. The calculation of a number of infinite length began. It is to be the ratio between the circumference and it’s diameter The first digits of this number were 3.1459. The calculation is performed by length width and breadth fracturing into particles of length, width As the number expanded the infinite expansion evolved into partculate matter the man came to be he first called this birth to be the supernatural. He was yet to understand geometry and science. he called the supernatural God and God had created man in the image of God in the centre of all things. it all made sense to man . Later when man worked out that the earth wasn't fixed in the centre of all things he mused that the supernatural might be a bang. A big one. The supernatural though was the end of the expansion of space and the beginning of equal and opposite forces. The expansion of space was one force. Its opposite the limit.
MANIFESTATION OF AN INFINITE FORCE happy countries lead the world democracy egptians
high school drop out good at physics would be a genius or an everyday person who would work out the reason of the universe.I am tipping an everyday person. the reason of the universe is an infinite force. one that is in the process of dividing its self in half. next table
The hall mark of truth is detail, A and I are side issue.
I know or knew what had to be done to set the world to a better scholastic standard. Was just not sure that I could do it. Publication was the suggestion from the head of the Melbourne university physics department. His email is from 2023.
What had sparked his curiosity was this table. The discernment of a relationship between the gravity field turn rates of the planets of the solar system and their day lengths. If the discernment was correct, it would work as proof that what the universe is a simple spatial calculation of a never ending number. 3.14159 etc. The finite and inexact ration between the circumference and its diameter. Getting professors to consider that their big bang was a flawed complexity stemming from Aristotle come Galileo come Newton come Einstein and then considering the shape of space and the geometrical instability within was had to be done. The first step had been taken. This video is the next step. Come on professors. Let's go.
So the prospect of getting future generations on the same page required moving the world past the Einstein world. Knowing that was the requirement was the easy bit. Doing it an occupation of hope as much as anything else. Whilst the professor may have been mildly let to the point of seeing the Einstein world is the problem, how would the current world ever be able to socially accept that landing men on the moon and the development of nuclear power had not necessarily been achieved through innate understanding. Trial and error and luck had all played their roles.
To introduce myself, I am not intelligent like Einstein. But am some one who grew in a land experiencing limited political tensions with a curiosity about the reason of the universe. My mother was mildly religious. My father a farmer in the south eastern state of Victoria in the nation known as Australia. English is the only language I have any capacity at all with and that is all that is needed to sit in a classroom in the late sixties of the last century and easily understand that the physics of Sir Isaac Newton is not all that it was purported to be. He had the planets ascending and descending at the same time. He had the direction of fall towards the moon reversing at the centre of the earth.
If you wish and its for world peace the first part of the answer is the centre of the earth. The second part is you. Leading the world seems crass. But half think I can do it. The doubt is the essential ingredient of this exercise is having Albert Einstein to be looked back on in a hundred years time as a no hoper.
You see Albert was a lesser genius. His craft was making things unnecessarily complex on either side of an equal sign. A greater genius is the continent currently known as Australia. I do no like the name. It refers to the continent as a land mass relative to Europe and Northern America. In the complexity of my mind, and don't worry about this, the great name for Australia is the Tiwi Islands. The mainland and
I know or knew what had to be done to set the world to a better scholastic standard. Was just not sure that I could do it. Publication was the suggestion from the head of the Melbourne university physics department. His email is from 2023.
What had sparked his curiosity was this table. The discernment of a relationship between the gravity field turn rates of the planets of the solar system and their day lengths. If the discernment was correct, it would work as proof that what the universe is a simple spatial calculation of a never ending number. 3.14159 etc. The finite and inexact ration between the circumference and its diameter. Getting professors to consider that their big bang was a flawed complexity stemming from Aristotle come Galileo come Newton come Einstein and then considering the shape of space and the geometrical instability within was had to be done. The first step had been taken. This video is the next step. Come on professors. Let's go.
So the prospect of getting future generations on the same page required moving the world past the Einstein world. Knowing that was the requirement was the easy bit. Doing it an occupation of hope as much as anything else. Whilst the professor may have been mildly let to the point of seeing the Einstein world is the problem, how would the current world ever be able to socially accept that landing men on the moon and the development of nuclear power had not necessarily been achieved through innate understanding. Trial and error and luck had all played their roles.
To introduce myself, I am not intelligent like Einstein. But am some one who grew in a land experiencing limited political tensions with a curiosity about the reason of the universe. My mother was mildly religious. My father a farmer in the south eastern state of Victoria in the nation known as Australia. English is the only language I have any capacity at all with and that is all that is needed to sit in a classroom in the late sixties of the last century and easily understand that the physics of Sir Isaac Newton is not all that it was purported to be. He had the planets ascending and descending at the same time. He had the direction of fall towards the moon reversing at the centre of the earth.
If you wish and its for world peace the first part of the answer is the centre of the earth. The second part is you. Leading the world seems crass. But half think I can do it. The doubt is the essential ingredient of this exercise is having Albert Einstein to be looked back on in a hundred years time as a no hoper.
You see Albert was a lesser genius. His craft was making things unnecessarily complex on either side of an equal sign. A greater genius is the continent currently known as Australia. I do no like the name. It refers to the continent as a land mass relative to Europe and Northern America. In the complexity of my mind, and don't worry about this, the great name for Australia is the Tiwi Islands. The mainland and
spontaneous self limiting
sleep under stars
space particulate
god good russian
big bang no opposite force
can be life after death
sleep under stars
space particulate
god good russian
big bang no opposite force
can be life after death
|
When you are someone who judges
that world wars would have been far less likely if Sir Isaac Newton had not messed up understanding the tides and when a USA political leader has a stated campaign policy favouring a Russian military advancement into democratic Europe, you know you have a job to do and that job is explaining to professors first and foremost that every particle in the universe is not attracting every other particle in the universe. The immediate future of the world seems set to pivot on the USA electoral college system and the ideals of the citizens in a handful of USA states. They are to decide whether or not the USA is a nation that should ally with Russia or the free world. For now, every particle in the universe does not attract every other particle in the universe. With this mathematically foolish assumption about the whole universe, Sir Isaac Newton has implanted a false narrative about said whole universe in our midst and minds back in our youth. The first step to long term international stability is getting every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe out of junior free world classrooms. Then, in decades to come, international policy makers will not be maturing under the umbrella of false academic rhetoric pertaining to what lies beyond the earth. There are several post mutual gravitation data points. Each should be old news by now. Firstly planetary suspension above the sun cannot be understood prior to understanding that descent in a moving gravity field is a relative motion. Secondly in all probability the day lengths of the earth and other planets are intertwined through the rotations of their gravity fields. Meaning we have the data but not yet the professors or astronomers to lead us past the Copernican revolution. The hang up we have is Newton's unaccounted for multiplication of the mass of an apple with the mass of the earth to declare a universe containing an array of mutual forces. Apart from the problematic mathematical presumption about gravity fields being indefinite extensions from their source particle, Sir Iassac failed to be unconfused about when mass represents mass and when mass represents the gravity field of that mass. In doing so he has stuffed the ego of the world up. When you are someone who judges that world wars would have been far less likely if Sir Isaac Newton had not messed up understanding the tides and when a USA political leader has a stated campaign policy
favouring a Russian military advancement into democratic Europe, you know you have a job to do and that job is explaining to professors first and foremost that every particle in the universe is not attracting every other particle in the universe. The immediate future of the world seems to be set to pivot on the USA electoral college system and the ideals of the citizens in a handful of USA states. They are to decide whether or not the USA is a nation that should ally with Russia or the free world. For now, every particle in the universe does not attract every other particle in the universe. With this mathematically erroneous assumption about the whole universe, Sir Isaac Newton has implanted a false narrative about said whole universe in our midst and minds back in our youth. The first step to long term international stability is getting every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe out of junior free world classrooms. Then, in decades to come, international policy makers will not be maturing under the umbrella of false academic rhetoric pertaining to what lies beyond the earth. The expectation of belief is small. Planetary suspension above the sun cannot be understood prior to understanding that descent in a moving gravity field is a relative motion. In all probability the day lengths of the earth and other planets are intertwined through the rotations of their gravity fields. Meaning you have the data but you are not yet the professors or astronomers to lead us to the true nature of the solar system and the universe beyond. The hang up you need help overcoming is Newton's multiplication of two masses together to declare a universe bound together by an array of mutual forces. Guiding you and future academics away from mass multiplication is the order of the day. |
|
When you are someone who
judges that world wars would
have been far less likely if Sir
Isaac Newton had not messed
up understanding the tides
and when a USA political
leader has a stated campaign
policy favouring a Russian
military advancement into
democratic Europe, you know
you have a job to do and that
job is explaining to professors
first and foremost that every
particle in the universe is not
attracting every other particle
in the universe.
The immediate future of the
world seems to be set to
pivot on the overtone of the
USA electoral college system
and the ideals of the citizens
in a handful of USA states.
They are to decide whether
or not the USA is a nation
that should ally with Russia
or the free world.
For now, every particle in the
universe does not attract
every other particle in the
universe.
With this mathematically
erroneous assumption about
the whole universe, Sir Isaac
Newton has implanted a false
narrative about said whole
universe in our midst and
minds back in our youth.
The first step to long term
international stability is
getting every particle in the
universe attracting every
other particle in the
universe out of junior free
world classrooms.
Then, in decades to come,
international policy makers
will not be maturing under
the umbrella of false academic
rhetoric pertaining to what
lies beyond the earth.
The expectation of belief is
small. Planetary suspension
above the sun cannot be
understood prior to
understanding that descent
in a moving gravity field is
a relative motion. In all
probability the day lengths
of the earth and other
planets are intertwined
through the rotations of
their gravity fields.
Meaning we have the data but
you are not yet the professors
or astronomers to lead us to
the true nature of the solar
system and the universe
beyond. The hang up you
need need help with is
Newton's multiplication of
two masses together to
declare a universe bound
together by an array of
mutual forces. Guiding you
or future professors and
astronomers away from mass
multiplication is the order of
the day.
judges that world wars would
have been far less likely if Sir
Isaac Newton had not messed
up understanding the tides
and when a USA political
leader has a stated campaign
policy favouring a Russian
military advancement into
democratic Europe, you know
you have a job to do and that
job is explaining to professors
first and foremost that every
particle in the universe is not
attracting every other particle
in the universe.
The immediate future of the
world seems to be set to
pivot on the overtone of the
USA electoral college system
and the ideals of the citizens
in a handful of USA states.
They are to decide whether
or not the USA is a nation
that should ally with Russia
or the free world.
For now, every particle in the
universe does not attract
every other particle in the
universe.
With this mathematically
erroneous assumption about
the whole universe, Sir Isaac
Newton has implanted a false
narrative about said whole
universe in our midst and
minds back in our youth.
The first step to long term
international stability is
getting every particle in the
universe attracting every
other particle in the
universe out of junior free
world classrooms.
Then, in decades to come,
international policy makers
will not be maturing under
the umbrella of false academic
rhetoric pertaining to what
lies beyond the earth.
The expectation of belief is
small. Planetary suspension
above the sun cannot be
understood prior to
understanding that descent
in a moving gravity field is
a relative motion. In all
probability the day lengths
of the earth and other
planets are intertwined
through the rotations of
their gravity fields.
Meaning we have the data but
you are not yet the professors
or astronomers to lead us to
the true nature of the solar
system and the universe
beyond. The hang up you
need need help with is
Newton's multiplication of
two masses together to
declare a universe bound
together by an array of
mutual forces. Guiding you
or future professors and
astronomers away from mass
multiplication is the order of
the day.
When you are someone who sincerely believes world war one would not have transpired if Sir Isaac Newton had of not messed the tides of the earth up and when a USA political leader has said, if elected, he is fine with Russia starting a European conflict, you know you have a job to do and that job is to explain to the world that every particle in the universe is not attracting every other particle in the universe. Post explanation, a true understanding of the tides should permeate the planet followed by an in depth consideration that the 24 hours in an earth day is the result of an earth gravity field turn rate mesh with the Mars gravity field turn rate. Then the will of the world should be able to address self destruction in a positive mood. Politically the future of the world seems to hinge on the vagaries of
When you are someone who
judges that world wars would
have been far less likely if Sir
Isaac Newton had not messed
up understanding the tides
and when a USA political
leader has a stated pre-election
policy favouring a Russian
military advancement into
democratic Europe, you know
you have a job to do and that
job is explaining to professors
first and foremost that every
particle in the universe is not
attracting every other particle
in the universe.
At this stage the future of the
world markedly hinges on the
nuance of the USA electoral
college system and the ideals
of the citizens in a handful of
USA states. They are to decide
whether or not the USA is a
nation that should ally with
Russia or the free world.
For now, every particle in the
universe does not attract every
other particle in the universe.
With this mathematically
unfounded assumption about
the whole universe, Sir Isaac
Newton has implanted a false
narrative about said whole
universe in midst and minds.
If we did want to survive our
own selves, there is no option
but to move education
standards away from and
above Newton's whole
universe academic rhetoric.
The first step to long term
international sanity is getting
every particle in the universe
attracting every other particle
in the universe out of junior
free world classrooms.
Then, in decades to come,
international policy makers will
not have matured under false
academic rhetoric pertaining to
what lies beyond the earth.
Particularly as it's not hard to
work out the real reason of the
universe. Just have to get past
the solar system physics of
Galileo and Newton.
The world could be going a lot
better than what it is. That's the
point.
When you are someone who
judges that world wars would
have been far less likely if Sir
Isaac Newton had not messed
up understanding the tides
and when a USA political
leader has a stated pre-election
policy favouring a Russian
military advancement into
democratic Europe, you know
you have a job to do and that
job is explaining to professors
first and foremost that every
particle in the universe is not
attracting every other particle
in the universe.
At this stage the future of the
world markedly hinges on the
nuance of the USA electoral
college system and the ideals
of the citizens in a handful of
USA states. They are to decide
whether or not the USA is a
nation that should ally with
Russia or the free world.
For now, every particle in the
universe does not attract every
other particle in the universe.
With this mathematically
unfounded assumption about
the whole universe, Sir Isaac
Newton has implanted a false
narrative about said whole
universe in midst and minds.
If we did want to survive our
own selves, there is no option
but to move education
standards away from and
above Newton's whole
universe academic rhetoric.
The first step to long term
international sanity is getting
every particle in the universe
attracting every other particle
in the universe out of junior
free world classrooms.
Then, in decades to come,
international policy makers will
not have matured under false
academic rhetoric pertaining to
what lies beyond the earth.
Particularly as it's not hard to
work out the real reason of the
universe. Just have to get past
the solar system physics of
Galileo and Newton.
The world could be going a lot
better than what it is. That's the
point.
Anyone who has had truck with physicists will know that the only criticism allowable about Newton's law of gravity has to be couched with mention that Albert Einstein made it more accurate. For a physics professor to reach a point of encouraging publication against Newton's law of gravity after a personal meeting can only be taken to mean a penny half dropped in the professor's mind about the convoluted mess Sir Isaac has made about our understanding of the gravity of the universe the day after the hard to obtain meeting.
I don't know if professor Quinney is playing. Or has had half a penny drop about Sir Isaac Newton sending planet earth down the wrong path. Neither assessment fits neatly.
The other possibility is he was seeing a non academic more or less off the street as interesting and wanted me to explain in full what I had begun during our half hour meeting the previous day. The email was received late March 2023 and it is now nine months later.
email turn rates
intro qualification
gravity mistake how he came up with it.
tides turn rates.
Whatever your discipline, which solution to the second high did you learn at school. Currently you have two. Here you are about to be presented with a third and simpler one. If this solution makes sense to you, it will mean that you have something akin to the Copernican revolution to begin. Educational institutions needing to correct a long term mistaken relationship of the earth with the universe beyond. There is something profound to take up any intellectual sheepishness this causes or would cause you. And that is a most probable relationship between turn rates of gravity fields and the turn rates of the planets within. Professor Quinney would have seen this probability after our meeting and that is possibly where the motivation of email stems from. He can explain his email that further if he wants.
So, if academic trust is being put in me, I am not much of writer, and when talking am not much to listen to or look at as I jumble and stumble with words. The background is rural and am now retired. The main point is ever since school I have known that physics has a problem when it comes to understanding why one high tide is an ascension of water away from the moon. If there is two solutions omn offer at the secondary school level, that can be said without dispute. The other problem of physics that can be picked up at the secondary level is Galileo's solution to why the planets are in a suspended motion above the sun. The Galilean solution requires consideration of where the planets would go if the sun's gravity was absent. When the sun is known to always have its gravity, the solution to planets above the sun must lie elsewhere. The problem I approached professor Quinney with was that of the tides and that is what will be dealt with here in the main. But it is atrocious that I was not taught the superior motion of the sun at secondary school and in recent times have had daughters and a son go through secondary without being taught the motion of the sun. The issue goes beyond Australia but there is something educationally sick about that. You cannot understand the motions of the planets around the sun without first knowing about the superior motion of the sun and its gravity field.
The other possibility is he was seeing a non academic more or less off the street as interesting and wanted me to explain in full what I had begun during our half hour meeting the previous day. The email was received late March 2023 and it is now nine months later.
email turn rates
intro qualification
gravity mistake how he came up with it.
tides turn rates.
Whatever your discipline, which solution to the second high did you learn at school. Currently you have two. Here you are about to be presented with a third and simpler one. If this solution makes sense to you, it will mean that you have something akin to the Copernican revolution to begin. Educational institutions needing to correct a long term mistaken relationship of the earth with the universe beyond. There is something profound to take up any intellectual sheepishness this causes or would cause you. And that is a most probable relationship between turn rates of gravity fields and the turn rates of the planets within. Professor Quinney would have seen this probability after our meeting and that is possibly where the motivation of email stems from. He can explain his email that further if he wants.
So, if academic trust is being put in me, I am not much of writer, and when talking am not much to listen to or look at as I jumble and stumble with words. The background is rural and am now retired. The main point is ever since school I have known that physics has a problem when it comes to understanding why one high tide is an ascension of water away from the moon. If there is two solutions omn offer at the secondary school level, that can be said without dispute. The other problem of physics that can be picked up at the secondary level is Galileo's solution to why the planets are in a suspended motion above the sun. The Galilean solution requires consideration of where the planets would go if the sun's gravity was absent. When the sun is known to always have its gravity, the solution to planets above the sun must lie elsewhere. The problem I approached professor Quinney with was that of the tides and that is what will be dealt with here in the main. But it is atrocious that I was not taught the superior motion of the sun at secondary school and in recent times have had daughters and a son go through secondary without being taught the motion of the sun. The issue goes beyond Australia but there is something educationally sick about that. You cannot understand the motions of the planets around the sun without first knowing about the superior motion of the sun and its gravity field.
brisbane inertial mass gravitational mass
Darwin production values
intro earth year
Italy Galileos lifting force required
Gaborrone mm/d2 assemblage
Gold coast undoing newton's first law
Greenland me talking undoing NLG aristotle also
Haare mm/d2 assembalage
longeath year earth year
melbournef me talking saying poliicians rofesspr
Montana structure of F = M.m/d2
nevis definition of weight
osj earth year moving sun
pretoria apple falling
St kitts expanding circle inverse square law
St lucia expanding circle inverse square law
Tanzania conservation of momentum nfl
Tuvalu inner planet a 1/4 orbit post transit
Uluru aristotle last will and testament
vermont men on moon mutual gravitation increase
Wyoming Structure of F = M.m/d2
Vaduz high tide calculation
Darwin production values
intro earth year
Italy Galileos lifting force required
Gaborrone mm/d2 assemblage
Gold coast undoing newton's first law
Greenland me talking undoing NLG aristotle also
Haare mm/d2 assembalage
longeath year earth year
melbournef me talking saying poliicians rofesspr
Montana structure of F = M.m/d2
nevis definition of weight
osj earth year moving sun
pretoria apple falling
St kitts expanding circle inverse square law
St lucia expanding circle inverse square law
Tanzania conservation of momentum nfl
Tuvalu inner planet a 1/4 orbit post transit
Uluru aristotle last will and testament
vermont men on moon mutual gravitation increase
Wyoming Structure of F = M.m/d2
Vaduz high tide calculation
The email represents a higher scholarship acknowledgement that we may be indulging in an untrue relationship with the universe we are part. That untrue
You have to wonder how man walked on the moon, developed nuclear energy, etc. The foundation of Einstein's general theory of relativity is legitimately stupid.
Since the B.C. period the explanation of motion has been a much ado about nothing. Aristotle's basic idea was motion requires an external cause, a push or a pull, to continue. Without such, an Aristotelian motion deteriorates to a motionlessness. Aristotle wasn’t understanding that the slowing of the motions he was observing was caused by effect of external influences.
Possibly earlier by others, definitely some sixteen hundred years later a solution to this dilemma began to be found. A Frenchman by the name of Jean Buridan began an understanding of what we call momentum today. He described a body having an impetus to continue moving once set moving. Sixteen hundred years beyond the life of Aristotle, this supposition was there to move science past the false teachings of a B.C. personality.
Momentum is the product of mass of a body and its velocity. The greater the value of either, the greater the momentum value of the body under consideration. Momentum = mass x velocity. That is the momentum formula.
Known but not much scientifically stated, momentum is self conserving. Mathematically this is a truth. Any two numbers, including ones representing mass and velocity, multiplied together produce a single unalterable answer. The measurable phenomena of the combined momentum of two bodies before and after a collision being equal proves the conservation of the momentum of each body before and after the collision. The conservation of momentum is a well established phenomena.
If that foundation block of mathematical physics had been understood and accepted by scholarship prior to the Copernican revolution, then scholarship would have been ready to see that resistance to a change of momentum is a Newton third law force. As in Newton's first law, the Copernican revolution decided the resistance was present in mass whether or not an external force was applied. What is missing from the Copernican revolution understanding is an acceleration in one direction causes the accelerated body to be measurably weighted in the opposite direction to the acceleration. That resistance to acceleration is the equal and opposite force to the force that caused the acceleration.
Beyond clearly stating resistance to a change of state of motion is as spontaneously born as any other Newton third law force and is not a quality inherent of matter, only hard scholastic work is needed to conclude the motion saga began by Aristotle began over 2000 years ago.
Since the B.C. period the explanation of motion has been a much ado about nothing. Aristotle's basic idea was motion requires an external cause, a push or a pull, to continue. Without such, an Aristotelian motion deteriorates to a motionlessness. Aristotle wasn’t understanding that the slowing of the motions he was observing was caused by effect of external influences.
Possibly earlier by others, definitely some sixteen hundred years later a solution to this dilemma began to be found. A Frenchman by the name of Jean Buridan began an understanding of what we call momentum today. He described a body having an impetus to continue moving once set moving. Sixteen hundred years beyond the life of Aristotle, this supposition was there to move science past the false teachings of a B.C. personality.
Momentum is the product of mass of a body and its velocity. The greater the value of either, the greater the momentum value of the body under consideration. Momentum = mass x velocity. That is the momentum formula.
Known but not much scientifically stated, momentum is self conserving. Mathematically this is a truth. Any two numbers, including ones representing mass and velocity, multiplied together produce a single unalterable answer. The measurable phenomena of the combined momentum of two bodies before and after a collision being equal proves the conservation of the momentum of each body before and after the collision. The conservation of momentum is a well established phenomena.
If that foundation block of mathematical physics had been understood and accepted by scholarship prior to the Copernican revolution, then scholarship would have been ready to see that resistance to a change of momentum is a Newton third law force. As in Newton's first law, the Copernican revolution decided the resistance was present in mass whether or not an external force was applied. What is missing from the Copernican revolution understanding is an acceleration in one direction causes the accelerated body to be measurably weighted in the opposite direction to the acceleration. That resistance to acceleration is the equal and opposite force to the force that caused the acceleration.
Beyond clearly stating resistance to a change of state of motion is as spontaneously born as any other Newton third law force and is not a quality inherent of matter, only hard scholastic work is needed to conclude the motion saga began by Aristotle began over 2000 years ago.
You have to wonder how man walked on the moon, developed nuclear energy, etc. The foundation of Einstein's general theory of relativity is legitimately stupid.
Since the B.C. period the explanation of motion has been a much ado about nothing. Aristotle's basic idea was motion requires an external cause, a push or a pull, to continue. Without such, an Aristotelian motion deteriorates to a motionless state. Aristotle wasn’t understanding that the slowing of the motions he was observing was caused by external forces.
Possibly earlier by others, definitely some sixteen hundred years later a solution to this dilemma began to be found. A Frenchman by the name of Jean Buridan began an understanding of what we call momentum today. He described a body having an impetus to continue moving once set moving. Sixteen hundred years beyond the life of Aristotle, this supposition was there to move scholarship past the false teachings of a B.C. personality.
Momentum is a combination of the mass of a body and its velocity. The greater the value of either, the greater the momentum value of the body under consideration. Momentum = mass x velocity. That is the momentum formula.
Known but not scholastically stated, momentum is self conserving. Mathematically this is an obvious truth. Any two numbers, including ones representing mass and velocity, multiplied together equal a single unalterable answer. The measurable phenomena of the combined momentum of two bodies before and after a collision being equal proves the conservation of the momentum of each body before and after the collision. The conservation of momentum is a well established phenomena.
If that foundation block of mathematical physics had been understood and accepted by scholarship prior to the Copernican revolution, then scholarship would have been ready to see that resistance to a change of momentum is a Newton third law force. As in Newton's first law, the Copernican revolution decided the resistance was present in mass whether or not an external force was applied. What is missing from the Copernican revolution understanding is an acceleration in one direction causes the accelerated body to be measurably weighted in the opposite direction to the acceleration. That resistance to acceleration is the equal and opposite force to the force that caused the acceleration.
Beyond clearly stating resistance to a change of state of motion is as spontaneously born as any other Newton third law force and is not a quality inherent of matter, only hard scholastic work is needed to conclude the motion saga began by Aristotle began over 2000 years ago.
Since the B.C. period the explanation of motion has been a much ado about nothing. Aristotle's basic idea was motion requires an external cause, a push or a pull, to continue. Without such, an Aristotelian motion deteriorates to a motionless state. Aristotle wasn’t understanding that the slowing of the motions he was observing was caused by external forces.
Possibly earlier by others, definitely some sixteen hundred years later a solution to this dilemma began to be found. A Frenchman by the name of Jean Buridan began an understanding of what we call momentum today. He described a body having an impetus to continue moving once set moving. Sixteen hundred years beyond the life of Aristotle, this supposition was there to move scholarship past the false teachings of a B.C. personality.
Momentum is a combination of the mass of a body and its velocity. The greater the value of either, the greater the momentum value of the body under consideration. Momentum = mass x velocity. That is the momentum formula.
Known but not scholastically stated, momentum is self conserving. Mathematically this is an obvious truth. Any two numbers, including ones representing mass and velocity, multiplied together equal a single unalterable answer. The measurable phenomena of the combined momentum of two bodies before and after a collision being equal proves the conservation of the momentum of each body before and after the collision. The conservation of momentum is a well established phenomena.
If that foundation block of mathematical physics had been understood and accepted by scholarship prior to the Copernican revolution, then scholarship would have been ready to see that resistance to a change of momentum is a Newton third law force. As in Newton's first law, the Copernican revolution decided the resistance was present in mass whether or not an external force was applied. What is missing from the Copernican revolution understanding is an acceleration in one direction causes the accelerated body to be measurably weighted in the opposite direction to the acceleration. That resistance to acceleration is the equal and opposite force to the force that caused the acceleration.
Beyond clearly stating resistance to a change of state of motion is as spontaneously born as any other Newton third law force and is not a quality inherent of matter, only hard scholastic work is needed to conclude the motion saga began by Aristotle began over 2000 years ago.
Rule 1 We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Sir Isaac Newton's first rule of scientific reasoning. Mathematical aficionados, scholars and common sense people accepting the rule with application preparedness and Newton's first law of motion in full view, the result should be a fresh breath of worldly common sense. The law is not a pre requisite for landing a man on the moon, splitting the atom or cleaning up after a bog. It’s an indictment on every civilised desire there has ever been.
Newton's first law of motion. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction UNLESS acted upon by an unbalanced force.
For better or worse, pass marks generationally maintain what scholastic truth is. Once one generation is ticked off, that generation parlays its tick it the next generation and so.
As a language construct Newton's motion law words are truth. As a stand alone law of physics they are a lie in conflict with Newton's first rule of scientific reasoning.
The necessity of an exception to make a language construct a truth divides this Newtonian construct into two parts. An actual a law of physics and then a consideration of a second law of physics. The actual law of physics is the result of the product of a mass magnitude and the velocity magnitude of that mass is uniform momentum. That law of physics was finding its feet before the Copernican revolution. The exception consideration is what happens when an external or Newton second law force is applied to uniform momentum. During classroom settings, societal pass mark desire of students assimilates the law of uniform momentum and the consideration of what happens when an external force is applied to uniform momentum into a word not contained within the law but said to be the overarching explanation of the law. That word being one introduced into scholarship at the time of the introduction of the Copernican revolution into scholarship to get past a troublesome 2,000 year old Aristotelian view of motion and to explain why the earth is suspended above the sun. That word being inertia.
What is stated in Newton's first law prior to UNLESS is perfectly explained (sufficiently with respect of Newton's first rule of scientific reasoning) by the product of mass and velocity. In true mathematical physics, the product of mass and velocity being a constant is the reason momentum is conserved both prior to and after a collision.
What follows UNLESS is structurally disallowed from being relevant to the substantive reason of uniform momentum/the conservation of momentum. Only comes into effect if an external force is applied to state of uniform momentum.
Within the totality of the law without being mentioned is the belief that an inertial force of resistance to the change of a state of uniform momentum resides with matter.
During the Copernican revolution this force hashe other half of the foundation of general relativity is gravitational mass. Mass does cause an observable acceleration towards its self.
Not force as the Copernican revolution scholastically intones. Sir Isaac was perplexed about there could such a phenomena as force at a distance. His dilemma was really how could there be such a thing as acceleration at a distance. Through strange and contorted circumstances, Albert Einstein made a slight advancement in this area. He saw space and time as the medium between massive body like the earth and an acceleration towards the earth. Space the obvious medium that causes the acceleration. The relationship between space and a spherical massive body in space is a sphere of increasing size around the mass. The curved surface area of a sphere around such a mass increases in size as a square of the distance moved away from the mass. This increase in size of the curved surface area is coincidental with the decrease in rate of fall towards the mass. The beginning point to understand acceleration through space towards mass is a consideration of how the presence of a mass in space affected space in such a way. Einstein did make a start in this area. Time would not be part of the consideration though. Einstein was seeing time in the vein of a fourth dimension and what makes a clock function or causes the ageing process. Time is just an agreed method of counting cycles. Without intelligence time becomes meaningless. No one is counting.
and today is what is needed to correct another motion idea that gained scholastic currency some three hundred years after the life of this Frenchman. That idea is that uniform momentum has an origin inherent of a moving body. Any two numbers multiplied together give one answer and one answer alone. Momentum by its very product union of two numbers is uniform motion. If this wasn't so the momentum before and after the collision of two free moving bodies would not be conserved. Uniform motion is simply the conservation of the momentum of any body not subject to any external influence. The momentum is not internally acquired or internally maintained. It is externally acquired through a Newton third law force and is maintained by the nature of the combination of mass and velocity. Not by some quasi force that emanates from the interior of matter as scholarship came to accept during the Copernican revolution.
The Italian astronomer, Galileo Galilei is the one whose name is attributed to the uniform motion being a quality inherent of matter. He called the quality inertia. He stated mass or matter not subject to an external force has an unalterable velocity. This was correct. The problem was Galileo devised a non mathematical and incoherent physical explanation of this phenomena. He used a word to explain unchanging motion.
That word Galileo employed is inertia. Inert means lacking the strength or ability to move. It may be appropriate word to use to enter into scientific reasoning of why a stationary object remains stationary. By its own definition, it falls short of being an appropriate word to use to enter into scientific reasoning that explains the changing location of any motion. Something inert does not move. The motion science that Galileo began is matter has a quality within that disallows motion. Bring in Newton r 1
To make his science sensible, the inert concept is applied not to motion. But to a change of a rate of motion. It is thus said that mass works to make the acceleration of
The dimensions of velocity are distance and time, Velocity is defined as the the distance an object travels per unit time. from changing. In lieu of a Frenchman by the name of Jean Buriand had begun the required movement away from Aristotle with a quality he called impetus but by today we call momentum. Momentum is defined as the product of the mass of a body and its velocity. If we are to believe in mathematics, that is perfect the solution to why motion is constant unless it is subject to an external force. When two numbers are multiplied together you get one answer and one answer alone. because of its inertia. Beyond being an innate quality of matter, physics has never been able to explain how inertia works and has neveer resolved the problem of mass being a scalar quanity and not a vector quanity.
This is Aristotle had been doubted for a few centuries. Galileo was able to swing scholarship his way with his involvement with the observation of the earth being a planet in motion around the sun. Previously the earth had been believed to be fixed in the centre of the universe. Galileo overplayed his hand though. Or was tragically intimidated by the year on year hold Aristotle had had on scholarship. You can only imagine his grip was Einstein by ten. Anyway he introduced sleight of hand physics that Sir Isaac Newton was to make an art form out of one hundred years later. His cheating explanation of planetary motion required a consideration of where the earth would go if the sun’s gravity didn’t exist. By now you can say these guys got up to too many thought experiments and lost their functioning minds in the ether of the universe. But using the absence of something that always exists in plain unscientific. Stupid. descent of mass towards other mass. From these guess ins theories of equality between the guess ins sprung into academic action. Then the theories are noticed or connived to fit with celestial observations. Then the champagne. The universe has been conquered and the answer was 1 = 1. The right answer is likely to be geometrical with a touch of mathematics. Circumference/Diameter = 3.1459……. Is likely to be the answer to all of time space and matter. That won’t mean much until we examine whether or not 1 = 1 is a meaningful path to academic champagne.
One of the qualities attributed to matter is a force that maintains and resist change to a state of motion. This quality is scholastically downgraded from force to the word inertia during uniform motion and upgraded to force when an external force is applied to a state of motion. Whether seen The largess of the mistake scholarship has here is teaching that this quality is inherent of matter. This is mathematically unneeded and also in conflict with Newton’s third law.
The most use Sir Isaac Newton is to sorting
The correct answer to persistence is a word in most vocabularys. Momentum.simply the conservation of momentum. Not an inherent quality of mass quaintly referred to as its inertia. The correct answer to resistance to a change of state of momentum is the equal and opposite force to the force causing the change.
The problem began with Aristotle in the B.C. period. He had the persistence of a state of motion down as the continuous application of an external force with a few
The foundation is an equivalence between an apple and the same apple. The planet may not have much of a future anyway. Definitely limiting itself when intelligent animals cult away with the doorway to understanding the universe is as intellectually as pathetic as a door know equaling itself.
To get on top of the stupidity, we have to go back about two and half thousand years. To Aristotle. First a rudimentary lesson in science for anyone who has passed a physics exam that dealt with mass types. If you measure the mass of an apple using two different methods and get the same result each time, you don’t have proof that the apple coexists in the two forms that only a genius can understand. Your main evidence is both of your measuring methods are scientifically sound. If you are to be a good scientist you have to find more sound proof that mas exists in two forms that are the same. Otherwise your conclusion should be there may only be the mass type of mass and you are dealing with false or meaningless constructs.
Sir Isaac Newton's first rule of scientific reasoning. Mathematical aficionados, scholars and common sense people accepting the rule with application preparedness and Newton's first law of motion in full view, the result should be a fresh breath of worldly common sense. The law is not a pre requisite for landing a man on the moon, splitting the atom or cleaning up after a bog. It’s an indictment on every civilised desire there has ever been.
Newton's first law of motion. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction UNLESS acted upon by an unbalanced force.
For better or worse, pass marks generationally maintain what scholastic truth is. Once one generation is ticked off, that generation parlays its tick it the next generation and so.
As a language construct Newton's motion law words are truth. As a stand alone law of physics they are a lie in conflict with Newton's first rule of scientific reasoning.
The necessity of an exception to make a language construct a truth divides this Newtonian construct into two parts. An actual a law of physics and then a consideration of a second law of physics. The actual law of physics is the result of the product of a mass magnitude and the velocity magnitude of that mass is uniform momentum. That law of physics was finding its feet before the Copernican revolution. The exception consideration is what happens when an external or Newton second law force is applied to uniform momentum. During classroom settings, societal pass mark desire of students assimilates the law of uniform momentum and the consideration of what happens when an external force is applied to uniform momentum into a word not contained within the law but said to be the overarching explanation of the law. That word being one introduced into scholarship at the time of the introduction of the Copernican revolution into scholarship to get past a troublesome 2,000 year old Aristotelian view of motion and to explain why the earth is suspended above the sun. That word being inertia.
What is stated in Newton's first law prior to UNLESS is perfectly explained (sufficiently with respect of Newton's first rule of scientific reasoning) by the product of mass and velocity. In true mathematical physics, the product of mass and velocity being a constant is the reason momentum is conserved both prior to and after a collision.
What follows UNLESS is structurally disallowed from being relevant to the substantive reason of uniform momentum/the conservation of momentum. Only comes into effect if an external force is applied to state of uniform momentum.
Within the totality of the law without being mentioned is the belief that an inertial force of resistance to the change of a state of uniform momentum resides with matter.
During the Copernican revolution this force hashe other half of the foundation of general relativity is gravitational mass. Mass does cause an observable acceleration towards its self.
Not force as the Copernican revolution scholastically intones. Sir Isaac was perplexed about there could such a phenomena as force at a distance. His dilemma was really how could there be such a thing as acceleration at a distance. Through strange and contorted circumstances, Albert Einstein made a slight advancement in this area. He saw space and time as the medium between massive body like the earth and an acceleration towards the earth. Space the obvious medium that causes the acceleration. The relationship between space and a spherical massive body in space is a sphere of increasing size around the mass. The curved surface area of a sphere around such a mass increases in size as a square of the distance moved away from the mass. This increase in size of the curved surface area is coincidental with the decrease in rate of fall towards the mass. The beginning point to understand acceleration through space towards mass is a consideration of how the presence of a mass in space affected space in such a way. Einstein did make a start in this area. Time would not be part of the consideration though. Einstein was seeing time in the vein of a fourth dimension and what makes a clock function or causes the ageing process. Time is just an agreed method of counting cycles. Without intelligence time becomes meaningless. No one is counting.
and today is what is needed to correct another motion idea that gained scholastic currency some three hundred years after the life of this Frenchman. That idea is that uniform momentum has an origin inherent of a moving body. Any two numbers multiplied together give one answer and one answer alone. Momentum by its very product union of two numbers is uniform motion. If this wasn't so the momentum before and after the collision of two free moving bodies would not be conserved. Uniform motion is simply the conservation of the momentum of any body not subject to any external influence. The momentum is not internally acquired or internally maintained. It is externally acquired through a Newton third law force and is maintained by the nature of the combination of mass and velocity. Not by some quasi force that emanates from the interior of matter as scholarship came to accept during the Copernican revolution.
The Italian astronomer, Galileo Galilei is the one whose name is attributed to the uniform motion being a quality inherent of matter. He called the quality inertia. He stated mass or matter not subject to an external force has an unalterable velocity. This was correct. The problem was Galileo devised a non mathematical and incoherent physical explanation of this phenomena. He used a word to explain unchanging motion.
That word Galileo employed is inertia. Inert means lacking the strength or ability to move. It may be appropriate word to use to enter into scientific reasoning of why a stationary object remains stationary. By its own definition, it falls short of being an appropriate word to use to enter into scientific reasoning that explains the changing location of any motion. Something inert does not move. The motion science that Galileo began is matter has a quality within that disallows motion. Bring in Newton r 1
To make his science sensible, the inert concept is applied not to motion. But to a change of a rate of motion. It is thus said that mass works to make the acceleration of
The dimensions of velocity are distance and time, Velocity is defined as the the distance an object travels per unit time. from changing. In lieu of a Frenchman by the name of Jean Buriand had begun the required movement away from Aristotle with a quality he called impetus but by today we call momentum. Momentum is defined as the product of the mass of a body and its velocity. If we are to believe in mathematics, that is perfect the solution to why motion is constant unless it is subject to an external force. When two numbers are multiplied together you get one answer and one answer alone. because of its inertia. Beyond being an innate quality of matter, physics has never been able to explain how inertia works and has neveer resolved the problem of mass being a scalar quanity and not a vector quanity.
This is Aristotle had been doubted for a few centuries. Galileo was able to swing scholarship his way with his involvement with the observation of the earth being a planet in motion around the sun. Previously the earth had been believed to be fixed in the centre of the universe. Galileo overplayed his hand though. Or was tragically intimidated by the year on year hold Aristotle had had on scholarship. You can only imagine his grip was Einstein by ten. Anyway he introduced sleight of hand physics that Sir Isaac Newton was to make an art form out of one hundred years later. His cheating explanation of planetary motion required a consideration of where the earth would go if the sun’s gravity didn’t exist. By now you can say these guys got up to too many thought experiments and lost their functioning minds in the ether of the universe. But using the absence of something that always exists in plain unscientific. Stupid. descent of mass towards other mass. From these guess ins theories of equality between the guess ins sprung into academic action. Then the theories are noticed or connived to fit with celestial observations. Then the champagne. The universe has been conquered and the answer was 1 = 1. The right answer is likely to be geometrical with a touch of mathematics. Circumference/Diameter = 3.1459……. Is likely to be the answer to all of time space and matter. That won’t mean much until we examine whether or not 1 = 1 is a meaningful path to academic champagne.
One of the qualities attributed to matter is a force that maintains and resist change to a state of motion. This quality is scholastically downgraded from force to the word inertia during uniform motion and upgraded to force when an external force is applied to a state of motion. Whether seen The largess of the mistake scholarship has here is teaching that this quality is inherent of matter. This is mathematically unneeded and also in conflict with Newton’s third law.
The most use Sir Isaac Newton is to sorting
The correct answer to persistence is a word in most vocabularys. Momentum.simply the conservation of momentum. Not an inherent quality of mass quaintly referred to as its inertia. The correct answer to resistance to a change of state of momentum is the equal and opposite force to the force causing the change.
The problem began with Aristotle in the B.C. period. He had the persistence of a state of motion down as the continuous application of an external force with a few
The foundation is an equivalence between an apple and the same apple. The planet may not have much of a future anyway. Definitely limiting itself when intelligent animals cult away with the doorway to understanding the universe is as intellectually as pathetic as a door know equaling itself.
To get on top of the stupidity, we have to go back about two and half thousand years. To Aristotle. First a rudimentary lesson in science for anyone who has passed a physics exam that dealt with mass types. If you measure the mass of an apple using two different methods and get the same result each time, you don’t have proof that the apple coexists in the two forms that only a genius can understand. Your main evidence is both of your measuring methods are scientifically sound. If you are to be a good scientist you have to find more sound proof that mas exists in two forms that are the same. Otherwise your conclusion should be there may only be the mass type of mass and you are dealing with false or meaningless constructs.
Rule 1 We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Sir Isaac Newton's first rule of scientific reasoning. Mathematical aficionados and other scholars accepting the rule with preparedness to apply to Newton's first law of motion, the result should be humanity getting a fresh start.
Newton's first law of motion. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction UNLESS acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Pass marks generationally maintain what scholastic truth is. Once one generation is ticked off, that generation parlays it the next and so.
As a language construct Newton's motion law words are truth. As a stand alone law of physics they are a lie in conflict with Newton's first rule of scientific reasoning.
The necessity of an exception to make a language construct a truth divides this Newtonian construct into two parts. An actual a law of physics and then a consideration of a second law of physics. The actual law of physics is the result of the product of a mass magnitude and the velocity magnitude of that mass is uniform momentum. That law of physics was finding its feet before the Copernican revolution. The exception consideration is what happens when an external or Newton second law force is applied to uniform momentum. Societal pass mark desire of students assimilates the law of uniform momentum and the consideration of what happens when an external force is applied to uniform momentum into a word not contained within the law but said to be the overarching explanation of the law. That word being one introduced into scholarship at the time of the introduction of the Copernican revolution into scholarship to get past a troublesome 2,000 year old Aristotelian view of motion and to explain why the earth is suspended above the sun. That word being inertia.
What is stated in Newton's first law prior to UNLESS is perfectly explained (sufficiently with respect of Newton's first rule of scientific reasoning) by the product of mass and velocity. Scientifically, the product of mass and velocity being a constant is the reason momentum is conserved both prior to and after a collision.
Sir Isaac Newton's first rule of scientific reasoning. Mathematical aficionados and other scholars accepting the rule with preparedness to apply to Newton's first law of motion, the result should be humanity getting a fresh start.
Newton's first law of motion. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction UNLESS acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Pass marks generationally maintain what scholastic truth is. Once one generation is ticked off, that generation parlays it the next and so.
As a language construct Newton's motion law words are truth. As a stand alone law of physics they are a lie in conflict with Newton's first rule of scientific reasoning.
The necessity of an exception to make a language construct a truth divides this Newtonian construct into two parts. An actual a law of physics and then a consideration of a second law of physics. The actual law of physics is the result of the product of a mass magnitude and the velocity magnitude of that mass is uniform momentum. That law of physics was finding its feet before the Copernican revolution. The exception consideration is what happens when an external or Newton second law force is applied to uniform momentum. Societal pass mark desire of students assimilates the law of uniform momentum and the consideration of what happens when an external force is applied to uniform momentum into a word not contained within the law but said to be the overarching explanation of the law. That word being one introduced into scholarship at the time of the introduction of the Copernican revolution into scholarship to get past a troublesome 2,000 year old Aristotelian view of motion and to explain why the earth is suspended above the sun. That word being inertia.
What is stated in Newton's first law prior to UNLESS is perfectly explained (sufficiently with respect of Newton's first rule of scientific reasoning) by the product of mass and velocity. Scientifically, the product of mass and velocity being a constant is the reason momentum is conserved both prior to and after a collision.
12th fly to Christchurch
13th queenstown
14th queenstown
15th Queenstown
16th queenstown
17th christchurch
18thst fiji nadi
21st suva
24thvolvoli
26th nadi
26th
27th brisbane
13th queenstown
14th queenstown
15th Queenstown
16th queenstown
17th christchurch
18thst fiji nadi
21st suva
24thvolvoli
26th nadi
26th
27th brisbane
Dear George,
I was pleased to meet with you yesterday and thank you for your email. If you remain convinced that you are in possession of the one true theory of gravity and that Newton and everyone else that has followed since 1687 are wrong, then I encourage you to publish your ideas.
Kind regards,
H
I was pleased to meet with you yesterday and thank you for your email. If you remain convinced that you are in possession of the one true theory of gravity and that Newton and everyone else that has followed since 1687 are wrong, then I encourage you to publish your ideas.
Kind regards,
H
1 newton's law of gravity basic problem how made
2 newton's first law of motion
2 newton's first law of motion
This email is dated 28 of March 2023. It may be sufficient to change the course of life on earth for the better. It is from a professor Harry Quiney, the head of the Melbourne university physics department after a half hour or so meeting the dat before. would have preferred if the professor had taken the matter over. But there it was. An allowance that if not wrong, then Newton could have been wrong about the apple causing the earth fall towards the apple as the apple fell to the earth. I had made it clear to the professor that the inverse square law of gravity strength diminish or of a correlation between gravity strength and the magnitude of the body causing the gravity were not being questioned. All that was being pointed out as a mistake was the presumption that gravity fields are indefinite extensions from their source particle. The professors starting position was they must be. We have landed men on the moon and taken photos of the distant planets of the solar system. Then when taken to the high probability of a relationship between both the turn rate of a gravity field and the turn rate of the planet within and also between the turn rates of adjacent gravity fields the scientist in him must have opened up after we parted company. The turn rate of a planet is its day length so if an understanding of turn rates had been cracked, then the world would be in a position to visit the universe through fresh eyes.
All that has to be done in the first instant is to understand the high tide under the moon through the mathematical analysis that demonstrates that the apple did not cause the earth to fall in the slightest. Then understand the high tide on the other side of the earth through through Sir Isaac newton's third law. To every force there is an equal and opposite force is that law.
I will do the tide sort out and Newton's mistake in the next video. This is an introductory video that outlines the high probability of a relationship between turns rates of planets and moon and the turn rates of their gravity fields that had apparently intrigued the professor after we parted company.
The same face of the moon is always towards the earth. The moon being turned directly by its gravity field explains that. But these tables that the telescope has procured in the las centyury pr so
All that has to be done in the first instant is to understand the high tide under the moon through the mathematical analysis that demonstrates that the apple did not cause the earth to fall in the slightest. Then understand the high tide on the other side of the earth through through Sir Isaac newton's third law. To every force there is an equal and opposite force is that law.
I will do the tide sort out and Newton's mistake in the next video. This is an introductory video that outlines the high probability of a relationship between turns rates of planets and moon and the turn rates of their gravity fields that had apparently intrigued the professor after we parted company.
The same face of the moon is always towards the earth. The moon being turned directly by its gravity field explains that. But these tables that the telescope has procured in the las centyury pr so
This 28th of March 2023 email is from Professor Harry Quiney, head of the physics department of the Melbourne university. The email that the thanks refer had to do with the rotation rates of the planets of the solar system. I had forgotten to highlight this during our brief meeting the previous day. A meeting that had been arranged to point out that Newton's law of gravity in its totality is holding us in an ignorance about the universe. The Australian government educational institutions need to get beyond its sleight of hand wording and to get to the high and low tides of the earth through equal and opposite planetary forces and to then consider that the turn rates of the planets have to do with the turn rates of their gravity fields in a way that locks the elements of the solar system together. Whether that was the reason of the return email, who knows but I was reasonably satisfied with the go I had had at explaining to the Australian government through this professor where the world's educational problems in what had been a hard to obtain appointment. The professor's reply showed signs of being uncertain that the Newtonian track was on the right track with respect of why the planet we are on turns at a rate similar to Mars for instance.
As you can see the professor's email ends with publication encouragement. However without specific direction from a professor, what publishing company is going to publish against what amounts to the government. So I replied that I would prefer making a video. My sometimes speech impediment aside, I had liked the calm way I had been able to talk when the professor and I had brought the necessary diagrams up on his computer. The mistake in the government endorsed gravity theory is very straight forward. All that is needed to understand the mistake in the first instance is acknowledgement that, along the axis that runs between the earth and the moon, the direction of fall alternates. The professor accused me of being obsessive about the alternation. Which arguably I am given that no one else seems to be.
Allowing that a video on the internet is only self published, the professor is thanked for his encouragement. Importantly the viewer should be able to see that the institutions of the Australian government are not being held in any form of seditious contempt. There is no desire to unmoor the basic way of Australian academic life from itself just because that way of life is espousing a 336 year old errant law of gravity to the students it undertakes to honestly educate about the universe. Much needed as it is, the only hope is for a calm academic sort out of itself. To reach an understanding that landing a man on the moon does not mean or prove that every particle in the univers is attracting every other particle in the universe.
So as much as Kepler's third law table became the basis of what is known as the Copernican revolution, all things equal the turn rate tables and ratios that the telescope has more recently procured should become the basis of the Venus transit sort out for modern academia.