F equals am, you wanna defend it or watt?

[Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi]

i was the first one to criticize Newton's divided mechanics but i
don't really mean to be mean with Newton. the best thing about him
(besides that he is Capricorn like me) is that he together with
Galileo and Kepler was the pioneer in laying the foundations of modern
physics. Newton did what i was doing for the past 10 years: form
opinion, launch it in the public domain and wait for the critics. the
one to blame for Newton's or my mistakes is the rest of humanity
because if we were told where our mistakes might be and why we would
have known what to correct and evidently no one from the rest of the
humanity was capable of finding errors in our deeds. how could they,
they didn't even taught about it. now i want you to rethink Newton's F
= am this way: MAKE FORCE OVER MASS RATIO BE SOME SUM OF AN INFINITE
ORDER THAT IS

F/M = sum_{i=1}^{infinity} {A_i}

your job is to define/find that A_i element of the order. i am not
sure were it might lead us but it seems to me very promising so do it.

[Igor]

On Nov 3, 3:41 am, Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi

Post by Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi
i was the first one to criticize Newton's divided mechanics but i
don't really mean to be mean with Newton. the best thing about him
(besides that he is Capricorn like me) is that he together with
Galileo and Kepler was the pioneer in laying the foundations of modern
physics. Newton did what i was doing for the past 10 years: form
opinion, launch it in the public domain and wait for the critics. the
one to blame for Newton's or my mistakes is the rest of humanity
because if we were told where our mistakes might be and why we would
have known what to correct and evidently no one from the rest of the
humanity was capable of finding errors in our deeds. how could they,
they didn't even taught about it. now i want you to rethink Newton's F
= am this way: MAKE FORCE OVER MASS RATIO BE SOME SUM OF AN INFINITE
ORDER THAT IS
F/M = sum_{i=1}^{infinity} {A_i}
your job is to define/find that A_i element of the order. i am not
sure were it might lead us but it seems to me very promising so do it.

Except that Newton DEFINED Force as the derivative of inertial
monentum wrt time. If you have some perverse need to redefine it, be
my guest, but no one else will even care.

[Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi]

Post by Igor
On Nov 3, 3:41 am, Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi

Post by Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi
i was the first one to criticize Newton's divided mechanics but i
don't really mean to be mean with Newton. the best thing about him
(besides that he is Capricorn like me) is that he together with
Galileo and Kepler was the pioneer in laying the foundations of modern
physics. Newton did what i was doing for the past 10 years: form
opinion, launch it in the public domain and wait for the critics. the
one to blame for Newton's or my mistakes is the rest of humanity
because if we were told where our mistakes might be and why we would
have known what to correct and evidently no one from the rest of the
humanity was capable of finding errors in our deeds. how could they,
they didn't even taught about it. now i want you to rethink Newton's F
= am this way: MAKE FORCE OVER MASS RATIO BE SOME SUM OF AN INFINITE
ORDER THAT IS
F/M = sum_{i=1}^{infinity} {A_i}
your job is to define/find that A_i element of the order. i am not
sure were it might lead us but it seems to me very promising so do it.

Except that Newton DEFINED Force as the derivative of inertial
monentum wrt time.  If you have some perverse need to redefine it, be
my guest, but no one else will even care.

the time in which i live outlives newton's time and my definition for
force is "force is potential equidynalibrium distance from the center
of chao-balance". the force over mass ratio must be sum of an infinite
convergent order or array.

[Igor]

On Nov 5, 1:20 am, Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi

Post by Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi

Post by Igor
On Nov 3, 3:41 am, Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi

Post by Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi
i was the first one to criticize Newton's divided mechanics but i
don't really mean to be mean with Newton. the best thing about him
(besides that he is Capricorn like me) is that he together with
Galileo and Kepler was the pioneer in laying the foundations of modern
physics. Newton did what i was doing for the past 10 years: form
opinion, launch it in the public domain and wait for the critics. the
one to blame for Newton's or my mistakes is the rest of humanity
because if we were told where our mistakes might be and why we would
have known what to correct and evidently no one from the rest of the
humanity was capable of finding errors in our deeds. how could they,
they didn't even taught about it. now i want you to rethink Newton's F
= am this way: MAKE FORCE OVER MASS RATIO BE SOME SUM OF AN INFINITE
ORDER THAT IS
F/M = sum_{i=1}^{infinity} {A_i}
your job is to define/find that A_i element of the order. i am not
sure were it might lead us but it seems to me very promising so do it.

Except that Newton DEFINED Force as the derivative of inertial
monentum wrt time.  If you have some perverse need to redefine it, be
my guest, but no one else will even care.

the time in which i live outlives newton's time and my definition for
force is "force is potential equidynalibrium distance from the center
of chao-balance". the force over mass ratio must be sum of an infinite
convergent order or array.

But you must also agree that the zizzernoof outzozzes the zinderflagen
almost every time.

[z***@netscape.net]

Post by Igor
On Nov 3, 3:41 am, Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi

Post by Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi
i was the first one to criticize Newton's divided mechanics but i
don't really mean to be mean with Newton. the best thing about him
(besides that he is Capricorn like me) is that he together with
Galileo and Kepler was the pioneer in laying the foundations of modern
physics. Newton did what i was doing for the past 10 years: form
opinion, launch it in the public domain and wait for the critics. the
one to blame for Newton's or my mistakes is the rest of humanity
because if we were told where our mistakes might be and why we would
have known what to correct and evidently no one from the rest of the
humanity was capable of finding errors in our deeds. how could they,
they didn't even taught about it. now i want you to rethink Newton's F
= am this way: MAKE FORCE OVER MASS RATIO BE SOME SUM OF AN INFINITE
ORDER THAT IS
F/M = sum_{i=1}^{infinity} {A_i}
your job is to define/find that A_i element of the order. i am not
sure were it might lead us but it seems to me very promising so do it.

Except that Newton DEFINED Force as the derivative of inertial
monentum wrt time.

Well, idiots like scientists are constantly reminded that he
DEFINED it that, since he was a PHILOSOPHER
DEFINIING ACTION-AT-A-DISTANCE.

So, the non-idiot people still work on post jupiter time zones,
atomic clock wristwaches, light sticks,
data fusion, gps, laser-guided phasors, reverse compilers, desktop
publishing, holographics,
on-line publishing, post halley rants, digital books, self-
replicating machines,
and the 21st Century.







 If you have some perverse need to redefine it, be

Post by Igor
my guest, but no one else will even care.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -