## Newton’s Laws of Motion & Inertia

.

#### Newton’s Third Law states, “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.”

• ##### The inertia is always equal and opposite to the natural motion of the disturbance.

Newton’s Laws apply to a level of inertia corresponding to matter. Here structure has become so complex that both wavelength and period have become infinitesimal and give impression of absolute space and time.

Newton’s Laws of motion do not apply to the level of inertia of the electromagnetic fields where wavelength and period are not infinitesimal.

Thus, the Newton’s Laws of motion are not independent of inertia.

The vector addition supported by Newton’s Laws of motion applies to a level of inertia corresponding to matter. The vector addition does not apply to velocities of matter and electromagnetic radiation that are very far apart in their level of inertia.

Where the levels of inertia are far apart by many orders of magnitude, the vector addition is replaced by relativistic addition.

Inertial frames considered in the theory of relativity all have inertia of the same order of magnitude as matter. The relativistic addition works because the difference in their inertia of the inertial frames may be assumed to be negligible when compared to the difference in inertia with that of light.

.

• Alpha  On July 14, 2017 at 6:39 AM

Hi Vin, thanks for your work on all this field of knowledge they are amazing and really helpfull, keep up this amazing work.

I’m a litlle bit (yeah a ton ahah) OT here, but yesterday i saw a video and i wanted to share it with you: this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tVUwjrTwbc&t=520s

• vinaire  On July 14, 2017 at 7:28 AM

He is basically disagreeing with certain speculations made under the heading “consciousness”. His effort is to interface physics with metaphysics. This has been my effort too.

I see brain as hardware and the mind as software. “Consciousness” is a parameter of the refinement of perceptual nodes in the mind. The following article defines my perspective of consciousness.

The Mind as a Matrix

• Alpha  On July 14, 2017 at 8:00 AM

Thanks Vin! Yeah but i don’t get why consciusness shouldn’t exist, just because you don’t find “though or memory” when you examine the brain it doesn’t dismiss is empirical existence (everyone is experimenting consciusness right now).

• vinaire  On July 14, 2017 at 8:44 AM

Consciousness always exists. One just have to clarify its definition with greater objectivity.

• vinaire  On July 14, 2017 at 8:46 AM

You may want to join me here.

• Alpha  On July 14, 2017 at 9:29 AM

Ok i will send you a friend request now (i’m italian).

Yeah i agree! The definitions are important, for example: many talks about “Illusion” saying “oh the free will is an illusion, the universe is an illusion, the “whatever” is an illusion” and often when i read those things i’m here wondering: “yeah but what does it mean “Illusion”? In what frame of reference are they saying illusion?”
If everything is an illusion than how can you tell that it is indeed an illusion? Lack of definition is a real beast.

• vinaire  On July 14, 2017 at 11:16 AM

I see that you are an Italian, but your English is very good. The originial concept for “illusion” is MAYA in Vedas. MAYA means something that is transitory and not permanent. This meaning seems to have gotten lost when it got translated as “illusion”.

I see “thetan” also as Maya though Hubbard postulates it as something permanent.

• Alpha  On July 14, 2017 at 1:09 PM

Thanks Vin 🙂 I don’t have many occasion to practice English writing, but i’m always engage in reading and watch film in English language.

Yeah the word “illusion” is very used and it seems to mean “something that seems to be there, but in fact it doesn’t exist” and the original term Maya is pretty well forgotten. In fact i’m challenging in reading of these guys wich says that consciousness doesn’t exist (or is an illusion), such as the guy in the video or Daniel Dennett.
If i have understand Dennet’s reasoning right, he says that consciousness doesn’t really exist because there is no part in the brain wich have the function of consciusness.
To me it seems a very limited way of looking and a paradox: if it can’t exist how it exist? And if it doesn’t exist than all of his accomplishment (such as science) are what? Fictional?

To me consciousness could be very well Maya and impermanent (so the Thetan or the Atman), but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t real.

This was a litlle bit harder to write, hope i’am making some sense ahah 🙂 .

• vinaire  On July 14, 2017 at 3:04 PM

Your reasoning is very good. And, of course, you are right! I have no difficulty understanding you.

• Alpha  On July 14, 2017 at 4:26 PM

Thank you very much Vin! Glad i came here to share some thoughts! 🙂

PS I’m reading “The Fabric of the Cosmos” by Brian Greene, it is a very good divulgative physic book from Newton to the string theory. I recommend this book to anyone.

• vinaire  On July 14, 2017 at 4:45 PM

Thank you. I wish you the best of understanding!