Re: What would the end velocity be if...?

On Feb 26, 12:53=A0am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2:09 am, finite guy <adamle...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Even neglecting time momentarily,
> > why is E=3Dmc^2 a purely planar equation for spatial (cubic)
> > reality...?
>
> It's a relationship between two scalar quantities.
>
> What do you mean by being a "purely planar equation".
> Surely you aren't saying the power of 2 makes it
> planar, and everything involving 3-space should
> have a power of 3 in it?
>
> For instance F =3D ma is a three-dimensional
> equation, relating two three-dimensional vector
> quantities F and a. It is a short hand for the
> three equations
>
> =A0 =A0Fx =3D m*ax
> =A0 =A0Fy =3D m*ay
> =A0 =A0Fz =3D m*az
>
> and can also be written
>
> (Fx, Fy, Fz) =3D m*(ax, ay, az)
>
> If that isn't 3-D, what is? But nary a
> power of 3 to be found.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- Randy

It isn't '3D/spatial'... actually.
I do understand what you mean but you neglect that Fermat points out
(and Wiles has sort of 'proved') that increasing rational/unitised
cubes do not exist.

That is one key to the understanding of the planar relationships of
'space' and time. x^2 + y^2 =3D e^2 DOES NOT WORK for n > 2.
The ususal suggestion is that you cannot make the e^3 but in actual
fact the x^3 and the y^3 are also impossible.

If you read the Fermats Last Theroem statement - he states that a cube
is a 4th power entity; which it is.
This alone implies a mathematical problem in going from the
traditional (1,1,1) to (2,2,2).

But, hey, that's just the mathematics - not the philosophical
underpinnings...