A changing rate would contradict an assumption regarding invariant absolution acceleration.Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
Only if it turns out mutable.Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
I went back to the future and read your thought.Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
Should have turn on the black light so to see in the dark.Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
What if there are no repulsive forces at all?Prehaps we misunderstand what we "think" we
see and fail to make a vital connection?Energy is either spinning to the left or to the right,
it is always spinning towards a imaginary goal,the operative word here is towards,now
what if when we "think" we see the act of repelling,we are only actually seeing half of a complete rotation!It is just rotating through a complete circle,or prehaps more accurately
a corkscrew motion.
What I am really trying to get across is the in absolute reality there is just attraction,and
within relative reality there is the illusion of repulsion?
regards michael.
Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)