Raul Rodrigo wrote:
Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand him, but it seems to me that Erick's formulation adds a level of complexity that doesn't really add to my understanding of the movement. In the language of physicists, it might be regarded as an "empty formalism," a restatement that doesnt help us get any deeper into the heart of the matter.
If it does not add to your understanding then I would not try to use it.
I use the memory of a spinning top that would topple when the spinning stopped as a basis of understanding what Erik is describing.