Page 2 of 2

Re: Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:25 pm
by bperet
SoverT wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:51 am I thought you had moved to only an increase in RS2, eschewing the "backwards" of Larson
When you rotate forward, you end up going backward. i2 = -1.

What I eschew from Larson (aside from eschewing obfuscatory surfeit of sesquipedalian verbiage), is the concept of the linear "direction reversal," because it is an accelerated motion and cannot be continuous (linear and angular velocity are the only observed, continuous motions).