Isaac Newton Defeated

 

Isaac Newton's Gravitational Formula. 

First thing to acknowledge is that Isaac Newton does not use a quantitative measure even though mass(quantity of matter) is label as a variable in his equations. His methods are proportional, and I'll link to some statements that I made clarifying differences between quantitative and proportional operations. Once you've understood these instructions, you can easily manipulate symbolic mathematical fabrications to conform to prior results through proportional manipulation. These methods alone don't completely  reproduce reality's outcomes or difficulties managing quantitative operations. Quantitative instructions have limitations and do not easily induce disordered confusion through subtracting, or ill-mannered addition of variables through proportional manipulation. I further that limitation by abandoning use for negative numbers, which removes information. 0.98 acceleration ,for the greater mass, flies into Dialect's face about upward gravitational motions while lower mass remain still. I disregard those approaches that introduce stagnation into time or motion. 

Isaac Newton's Gravitational Formula

Here, I calculate momentum and angular momentum. I notice angular momentum increases proportionally with the radius. That is a weird association to make because it contradicts conservation of angular momentum. There, you see my version on the upper right showing Median Distance's (radius) increasing influence on the size of mass. That size increase degrades velocity(Directional Time's potential) and Clock Time's frequency(Angular momentum in Newton's case). In my case, Clock Time's frequency must always be increasingly faster at outer circumferences in a singular harmonized tune state. This is contrasting for multiple harmonized tune systems. For an example  A, which is a smaller, faster moving body, it can display a higher frequency for its circumferences than a larger B system of the same harmonizing type. This demoting effect on Directional Time's potential(velocity), under influence from clock time rotations( angular momentums), is what I called "a type of induction" in other posts. Regardless of how a circle's size changes, its outer circumferences will elapse faster than its inner circumferences for harmonized tune systems. Size is another thing Newton didn't include, but I can always add the size for r^2, since these are one dimensional operations. That won't work for 2 dimensional and higher objects and systems. Isaac Newton's proportional increase ,influenced by a changing one dimensional radius, is enough to reflect proportional changes in angular momentum but not angular velocity, which is stuck at 9.8m/s and 0.98 m/s in these 1 second examples. If both ends for a mass travel only 9.8m/s downwards, they should be equivalent to a harmonize noise system(chaotic) which doesn't reflect what's seen in the real world. According to Legacy Science, there are proportionally huge space-time gaps between particles. The real world displays harmonized tuning for straight lined falls which should equate to a curved fall understanding that bodies ,like Earth, progress through dynamically curved spaces and orbits. Without an atmosphere, objects stay intact until they hit the ground. According to Newton's formula, the center of mass makes no difference than the surface of mass, since gravitational force is uniform throughout, which is a deception created by proportional values from exercising operations. In my corner of argument against Newtonian descriptions, Vibration( one example is Brownian Motion) occurs in the real world, so a harmonized noise gravitational system will oscillate its particles and transforms into a harmonized tune system due to fluctuating frequencies for any turns made due to vibration during fall. If this isn't more accurate, a body's passage through curved space should amplify particle displacement via increasing distances over periods of its fall.  Additionally, I realize how poorly G's force distributes throughout bodies of mass. If a body consisting of smaller mass each has 9.8 m/s velocity, the whole body has 9.8m/s velocity as seen with falls. This would make Dialect seem more accurate, but it would have to apply to smaller objects making his zero velocity claims invalid. Newton's proportional model does account for greater inertia on larger bodies, but it is inaccurate because it is proportionally done and disagrees with gravity's force applying on any mass of bodies to cause equal velocities, which is 9.8 m/s for these examples. Therefore, the larger body should not have its acceleration equaling 0.98 m/s resulting from its inertia. How? Force distribution is faulty because it is proportionally destructive. It is done in a linear system, not curved, or multi-dimensional.  

Isaac Newton's instructions are not reflective on quantitative operations in the world. They don't conserve angular momentum. It does not consider the size in association with quantity of matter(mass). It does not reflect the Harmonized Tune State. In my work(compatibility 1+2), I developed the Mirage to convert Harmonized Noise States into Harmonized Tune States. 

Extras: Ill-References, Solutions are a Part of Your Answers Ah!? , Non-rational Isolative Assumptions, Recursion and Division Flaws, War With Statistician God , R.I.P Pythagoras

My ,yet to be done, works Compatibility: 1 to 2 Dimension, Compatibility: 0.5 Dimension, Compatibility: 0.5 Plus 1 Dimension

General Contents