This post presents the supposition: What if judges applied Newton’s Third Law of Motion to cases involving spousal abuse?Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For very action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” When particle
A exerts a force on particle
B, it causes particle
B to simultaneously exert an equal force on
A with the same magnitude. The key words here are, "simultaneously," "equal," and "magnitude." With couples, both impact each other with the exact same force at the exact same time.
* Any position automatically creates an equal and opposite position. "You're stupid." "No I'm not, you're stupid." Both communications can be delivered verbally or non-verbally, or psychically, either way they have the same effect.
Entanglement: When photon
A, that's "spinning" clockwise, is divided and placed in separate sealed containers, the spins of the two new photons
B and
C is unknown—
until one of them is observed. When one first observes photon
B they observe its spin and discover that photon
C is spinning the opposite direction of photon
B.
For example: If we had placed photons
B and
C in separate sealed containers and put one of those unopened containers on the moon and then opened it we'd know, with absolute certainty, that both are spinning in the same direction; the very observation of one caused the other to spin in the same direction. The communication between
B and
C is always
instant no matter the distance between
B and
C and, it happens faster than the speed of light using no known means of transmission. The word spin does not literally mean rotation, rather it describes certain characteristics that vary.
For example: A couple who both withhold significant thoughts from their parents are said to spin (integrity-wise) the same. A person who communicates honestly and spontaneously with their parents does not attract someone who deceives their parents. If they do attract a withholder they will soon find themselves withholding also.
When anyone first meets another they both automatically, simultaneously-instantaneously, unconsciously try to match the other's spin (their integrity) so as to survive in that moment.
For example: The vast majority are addicted to withholding one or more significant thoughts from their own parents; as such they are driven to magnetically attract a partner who operates with similar integrity; honest but not too honest.
When we first meet, when we first observe each other, we both automatically communicate the way the other is communicating. I.e. If I notice that you're withholding a significant thought from your parents I will automatically non-verbally support you in doing so, because I too am
equally addicted to withholding. I.e. President Trump has no choice other than to lie and deceive us; he mirrors our integrity. You, the reader, are withholding one or more significant thoughts from someone of significance, including President Trump.
Presently the law does not apply to interpersonal communication. It's commonly (and incorrectly) held that words and thoughts are not physical particles (waves of energy) and therefore have no mass and therefore cannot hurt as much as the mass of a fist.
The present legal system presumes that we always operate from choice and therefore have a choice to not react to abusive verbal and non-verbal communications. On the other hand, therapists know that a few choice words delivered by an unconscious parent (not in choice at the moment) have
damaged many a child for life. I.e. "You stupid ass, you'll never amount to anything." If everyone consistently operated from choice we could choose to not be upset within seconds of having an upset.
We all know that it's possible to use our leadership-communication skills to goad and taunt another with words, or psychically via intention, and cause them to react physically (to hit us), and that we can then bring assault charges against them for striking the
first blow. With domestic abuse, only the physical hitter is referred to as the abuser—they are the one who ends up with a police record.
I recall in grammar school a teacher assigned equal punishment to me and another boy who hit me. Unlike other adults she didn't waste time asking who started it. I was miffed because I honestly could not see that I intended it. Since then I've realized that she was an exception, she was clear about responsibility. We all know that not everyone applies Newton’s Law to fights.
What would happen if there was a
NoFaultLaw and judges would automatically (no exceptions) sentence both partners in a domestic violence incident (any time police are called) to equal amounts of communication-skills coaching? And, that the children of the fighters would be assigned to a third party until a communication-skills coach signed off attesting that both partners have acknowledged individually their addiction to abuse and blame and have demonstrated a willingness to communicate responsibly their cause of the incident.
The premise behind removing a child from the influence of either parent is that both parents are impacting the child negatively, teaching him/her how to goad, argue, yell and blame—to both cause and put up with abuse, and to badmouth—by all standards a torturous (unloving) curriculum. Expectant parents are unaware that their abusive verbal and nonverbal communications (the very vibrations emanating between them) are
imprinting the fetus, teaching their child to spin as they do, to be abusive.
Hopefully this supposition will trigger some stimulating conversations for relationship couples.
* Mediocrity as a force: If a couple begins marriage with both contributing energy-wise to the success of each other and then one reverts back to typical high school performance and starts coasting (such as a pot smoking coach potato) that partner begins to affect the other's energy; they begin to exert a drag, a force on the other, a non-verbal communication that doesn't feel good. It's abusive. If someone marries a partner who did not apply him/her self in school, someone who has never
cleaned a window, or worked, even part-time, for a year or more, they are said to be committed to mediocrity. The drag, of standing still when another is trying to make things work, affects their partner's very aliveness.
For example: Most citizens exert a force of mediocrity on their community's Council Members, those trying to improve things (this is referred to as covert thwarting).
With aloha,
Kerry
Last edited 8/13/21
