andrewcellini

explain charge of quark which is a fundamental particle.

yes but depending on the charge's sign, the force is attractive or repulsive. this is not the case with gravity given observation and in the meaning of newtons equation; two massive objects (that is mass is positive) attract each other.

the magnitude of the force on a massive body m from another massive body M is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportion to the square of the distance between them. by calling this new property negative mass, but by using the equations in such a way as all the mass is positive, you are essentially giving the static approximation of gravity between two massive bodies (which is what i said above). correct my understanding of what you are saying if this is not what you are saying.

you're going to need different equations then, because that's not what these mean, and your application of them by keeping the absolute values of the masses is indistinguishable from describing the gravitational force of two (conventionally) massive points r meters from each other.

great, though i'm not sure that mass per surface area relates to the acceleration due to gravity in that way. now that that's cleared up, what does this have to do with negative mass? what do you mean by negative mass? how does energy get taken from the vacuum and converted into, say, a hydrogen atom? this isn't addressed in your math. this looks like a pointless and convoluted way to set up F=mg, and if you know m and g, why even care about this new constant k? you can solve the problem just as well presumably as your ρ terms cancel leaving mg.

how can k be constant when g is not always 9.8 m/s^2? that is only a near earth approximation of the gravitational field.

they don't seem totally different. perhaps you can explain, though that may be off topic.

i'm not sure who "we" is in this situation as you are the one proposing this new definition of time. sequence would not be the "right word" given its usage in the mathematics. i guess you could call it a parameter if you're so opposed to dimension, but that word would probably not be appropriate given its usage in Special and General Relativity. i'm not sure how to respond to the rest of your post. you don't provide any reasons why swapping words would resolve any problems, or any clear examples of real problems that terminology seems to be causing.

motion and time are not the same. you need time to describe motion, for example the speed of an object is given in distance/time. time =/= distance/time the rest of your post uses words in an unconventional sense. i don't know what you mean when you say time describes universal motion.

what do you mean by 4 dimension scan?

How did you go from this to concluding that the heart sends a "thought-prompt?"

what would you like to discuss? are you attempting to justify the quote in your title?

http://is.muni.cz/el/1431/podzim2013/Bi7630/um/Nemcova_Cmelaci_a_elektricka_pole_kvetu_Science.pdf - the full paper, not just the abstract. pretty neat stuff.

what would good places to start learning about what we do know?

more like you are trying to chip away at a strong foundation without any tools (evidence).

what do you mean by dimensions then? it seems you may be using this term in an unconventional way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics

this leaves out all of pure mathematics and doesn't really begin to describe what math is.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(13)01043-9?cc=y- elephants http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030913- dogs compared to common chimpanzees

recall that reducing sugars have free aldehyde/ketone groups which can be oxidized to carboxylic acids. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_sugar the reverse doesn't happen because opening the ring isn't stable and there is no hydroxyl on the anomeric carbon.

but that makes almost too much sense.

where else would you put socks in the equation?

second that, khan also offers exercises in math that you can do if you make an account.

have you determined the morphology?

who is they? citation needed. presumably you meant ceases to exist. it does? citation needed