The gang is all here! Argyle Street, Hobart. February 2012.
Maybe I posted this on Theme Thursday to get a REACTION. My face is so rarely seen on this here blog that it usually causes a flurry of judgements, whispers and
Yet that little internal conversation set me thinking (understandably) about the third of Newton's laws of motion. You know, the one about how forces occur in pairs. Actio et reactio. "Every action is accompanied by a REACTION of equal magnitude but opposite direction."
So then I wanted to write it down. First, I thought that it looks like this:
Action → REACTION
But then I thought that it might be better expressed like this:
Action ↔ REACTION
That is not right though. Therefore, I thought that it must be.
Action → REACTION ↔ REACTION
However, even that does not seem right. Ultimately, I have settled for:
Action → REACTION ↔ REACTION ↔ REACTION ↔ REACTION ↔ REACTION ↔ REACTION [repeat to infinity]
But I'm still not certain. Are there any physicists out there you can help a brother out?
13 comments:
For some reason, I imagine it's a moebius strip of action - rather than going to the step of including a reaction. Not that I'm arguing with Newton, of course - dude knows his shit, knowmasayin'?
I am with you about the fact that there had to be a first action and then after that everything else was a reaction to a previous reaction. The real question is what was the first action and in which galaxy it first occurred. And is there a first galaxy somewhere so far out there that we humans have no clue that it exists? Strange how we both came to the same conclusion. I guess it is true that great minds do think alike.
And are you sure that is you? I'm just saying because if you took the picture, which does not seem like a reflection then who is the dude in the pic? Just kidding, well I think so.
God bless.
That's a complicated analysis of Reaction...liked the picture.
Interesting, chess-wendy piece made my head hurt, which means it was (probably) clever.
Kudos to you for being able to write/soar at such heights. =)
Wow, very thought provoking. I'm no physicist, but your argument seems to make sense. Loved the pic too!
Smile! You look kike Laurie Oakes.
Sorry! That is LIKE, Laurie Oakes.
I need to ponder this. Let me put on my thinking cap...
i think it may be a chicken or the egg sort of thing. nice to see you, said by the guy who's rarely more than a shadow
A very innovative piece. I like this. A great deal to do with our writing life.
I think I'm most impressed by the photo and your ability to get your family on board with your self portrait.
My reaction is: great shot! ;)
My reaction is that I like seeing the whole family even with a frowny face dad.
I can't help. That is to much theory for me. But here are my impressions. Just a reaction following an action.
First: Nice to see you all four together. A great shot!
I was a bit surprised of your pants. You are so tall, aren't you? Henry does look tall too.
Post a Comment