JaKiri

The proper fashion[/i']? What do you mean?

Recorded in a manner which lets us know about it today, which even includes things like talking to people about it. As we lack evidence for a prior example, it's pretty safe to assume that it didn't exist, and even if it had existed, it wouldn't affect us anyway because we don't know about it.

Which us[/i'] are you talking about?

People in general, I presume.

So no one before Newton had thought of the concept?

If they had, it certainly lacked any mathematics to go with it.

Newton introduced the concept of a relative spatial system.

See now?

Entirely? So what was Newton thinking when he wrote about Absolute space?

You appear to be having a problem with the english language.

First of all, conservative media? Since when did we have a concervative media? It's very liberal as I see it.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

they'd both be pretty damaging, but the drop would be severely limited because, whilst 'powerful', it would run out of reactant fairly quickly.

It's also fairly likely in the short term unless a reliable and cheap antiagapic is discovered.

So, when a Photon is in motion does it emit more intense light?

I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

Would that mean the assumed[/i'] inherent randomness in the quantum description?

No, that would be the empirically evidenced inherent randomness.

Your assertion was "Actually, the big difference with Newton was entirely relative space" So what do you[/i'] mean?

Space which is entirely relative. Durr.

we Know...

the Hat`s a dead giveaway

Yes indeed!

I understand that the things going on here are way out of my league, but I would like to point out that Photons actually do have mass

We're talking about rest (or invariant) mass here using shorthand.

Are we all eventually doomed?

If we weren't accelerating at that rate, we'd either be pulled into the sun or fly off at a tangent. It's the centripetal acceleration.

Would you? What IYHO is the chief[/i'] feature of this incompatibility?

The quantum foam. Or fuzz. Or whatever term you wish to use.

How does the existence of forces between particles allow the energy of a system to change?

Forces and energies are connected at a fundamental level. One is the integrated other, with respect to displacement.

Newton wouldn't entirely agree with you. He wrote [i']Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable.[/i]

Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces, which our senses determine by its position to bodies and which is commonly taken for immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterraneous, an aerial, or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the earth. Absolute and relative space are the same in figure and magnitude, but they do not remain always numerically the same. For if the earth, for instance, moves, a space of our air, which relatively and in respect of the earth remains always the same, will at one time be one part of the absolute space into which the air passes; at another time it will be another part of the same, and so, absolutely understood, it will be continually changed.

From the start of the Principia, I believe.

Oh, and it seems you've missed off the rather critical second sentance, and beyond.

If I've done my calculation right, the earth is accelerating at about 6 mm/s^{2[/sup'] toward the sun.}

^{You have.}

!

I'm a trendsetter!

Or possibly a definition of relative notions.

Or a definition of relative ootions.

I think we've reached the limit of this trend.

I'd argue that the main problem of QM is its incompatability with GR.

Frequency and wavelength are two aspects of a wave.

Mass and (any given other form of energy, for example, kinetic or gravitational) are two aspects of 'energy' entire.

It's because, when you're talking about changing energy into mass and vice versa, the equation in question is (delta)E = (delta)mc^2.

No such equation exists for mass and volume; E=mc^2 doesn't mean that mass can be changed into energy per se, just like volume = mass / density doesnt' mean that volume can be changed into mass.

If I could answer that I would know why the tortoise doesn't beat the hare..

The definition of relative motion.

So if i was to say that it was less than 0.1s and more than 0s would that be incorrect?

Replace the 0.1 with any positive real number and that's true as well.

Orbital Motion isnt SHM its Periodic Motion !

Huge difference between Periodic motion and SHM !

It's a simple harmonic motion when referring to a 1 dimensional view of the orbit, technically it isn't of course.