Right - it's the centripetal not centrifugal,
and above where I wrote centrifugal it would
be struck through and corrected.

The true centrifugal would result from a theory
where the gravitic is gravific, for example some
fall gravity, not the usual massy bodies of Newton
constantly working to attract each other throughout
the universe nor the curved space-time of Newton
where the massy bodies constantly work to stake
down their curvature at any instant and from instant
to instant, work together to immediately recompute
the entire fields' curvature and re-stake space-time.

I.e., that would be a gravific theory where the
massy bodies throughout the universe are
fundamentally at rest (here in their frames).

(Aqualung)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghi3JERO8_A&list=PLzEG2f9QAl8OyT-ILMN-8OnMic9I8DrSK

"You'll be praying to next Thursday
to all the gods that you can count."

Wikipedia has many great articles,
including one on the Book of Proverbs,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Proverbs ,
with for example
"... in contrast to the other books of the Hebrew bible,
which appeal to divine revelation for their authority
("Thus says the Lord!"), wisdom appeals to human
reason and observation."

"[Proverbs] is an example of the Biblical wisdom tradition, ...".

Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_tradition

Church.

SHOCK

Spiritual (mystical) Perennialism
follows Platonism and neo-Platonism
as about mathematical platonism and
a strong mathematical platonism,
and its technical content, reason.

Or, you know, "G-d willing".

31:10

God rest ye, merry gentlemen.

Martin Gardner is a very well-known writer
in mathematics, often for his column in
"Scientific American". In "The Ambidextrous
Universe", 1964, he talks about parity and the
inherent complementarity and indistinguishability
of left and right.

(Do all solar systems have planets revolve all
the same direction as to establish for a solar
system a reference of direction? This is for
the usual question Gardner raises as to how
to distinguish left and right to aliens.
Do all the planets spin the same direction?)

"In any case, the neutron does have a magnetic field...".

"At the time this was written, not a single antiatom
or antimatter has been discovered or created in the
laboratory... [footnote]."

Footnote reads: The antiproton, the nucleaus of
antihydrogen, has been observed, but not with a
positron around it in stable orbit to make an atom
of antihydrogen. The nucleus of antideuterium,
or heavy hydrogen, has also been observed. Russian
physicists have reported observing the nucleus of
antitritium (tritium is another isotope of hydrogen),
and the nucleus of an isotope of antihelium. But no
stable atom of antimatter has yet been observed."

https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2012/03/07/measure-antiatom/

"In a recent series of trials, the ALPHA researchers created
and captured hundreds of antihydrogen atoms in a
magnetic bottle, then probed their internal states by
bahting them in microwave radiation that flipped the
spins of the positrons, causing the immediate ejection
of the atoms from the magnetic trap and their annihilation
on the trap wall."

Gardner begins: "''The year 1957 was perhaps one of the
most exciting years in the history of nuclear physics,''
writes D.Y. Bugg (reviewing a book on beta decay) in
_The New Scientist_, August 16, 1962. ''Early that year
the news flashed from laboratory to laboratory that
parity is not conserved. Professors waved their arms
and talked excitedly about spin, about mirrors, and
anti-worlds, and even undergraduates sensed that
something remarkable was afoot.''"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_(physics)

"If we can show that the vacuum state is invariant under parity, [...]
the Hamiltonian is parity invariant [...]
and the quantization conditions remain unchanged under parity,
then it follows that every state has good parity,
and this parity is conserved in any reaction."

Gardner: "It is important to note that the discovery of antiparticles
did not in any way violate the law of parity."

"The concept of particles of matter as bubbles of nothing
in a sea of particles is older than Dirac's theory. It was used
by the Irish physicist Osborne Reynolds in his granular
theory of the universe...".

E=mc^2, according to theory,
matter anti-matter annihilation
results in a wave of energy.

This corresponds with usual theories of zero-point
energy in the aether of the free field.