Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #657151 > unrolled thread

vis-viva and vis-motrix

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-16 19:58 -0700
    Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-09-17 13:34 +0200
      Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-17 11:41 -0700
        Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 09:59 -0700
          Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 11:37 -0700
            Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 13:04 -0700
              Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-25 13:55 -0700
                Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 19:01 -0700
                  Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-26 10:39 -0700
                    Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 13:41 -0700
                      Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 13:42 -0700
                      Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 17:52 -0700
                        Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 19:01 -0700
                          Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 19:38 -0700
                      Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-09-28 10:57 +0200
                        Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-28 14:57 -0700
                          Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-29 18:13 -0700
                          Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-09-30 07:20 +0200
                            Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-30 11:55 -0700
                              Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-10-01 08:48 +0200
                                Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-10-01 13:27 +0000
                                  Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 09:53 -0700
                                  Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-10-02 20:58 +0200
                                    Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-10-02 19:22 -0700
                                Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 17:49 -0700
                                  Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-10-03 13:51 -0700
                                    Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-10-03 19:46 -0700
                                      Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-10-05 18:07 -0700
                                      Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-10-06 20:00 -0700
            Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-09-25 23:23 +0200
              Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 18:54 -0700
                Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-09-26 11:56 +0200
    Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-09-26 11:23 +0000
      Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 13:34 -0700
        Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-09-26 21:19 +0000
        Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-09-26 21:57 +0000
          Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 17:32 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#657151 — vis-viva and vis-motrix

Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-motrix
anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and energy,
and potential and impulse energy?

Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since antiquity?

Several times?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#657165

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-motrix
> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and energy,
> and potential and impulse energy?

Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not corectly
understood.
The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
by showing (for particle collisions)
that momentum conservation and energy conservation
are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,

Jan


> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since antiquity?
> 
> Several times?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657180

On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-motrix
>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and energy,
>> and potential and impulse energy?
>
> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not corectly
> understood.
> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
> by showing (for particle collisions)
> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>
> Jan
>
>
>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since antiquity?
>>
>> Several times?

Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.

Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
"momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
equals infinity seconds/meter".

So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-potentials,
it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.


So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657377

On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-motrix
>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and energy,
>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>
>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not corectly
>> understood.
>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since antiquity?
>>>
>>> Several times?
>
> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>
> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>
> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-potentials,
> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>
>
> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.
>
>

Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY

Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
matching measure, relativity and a difference between
rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo-nouveau.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657380

On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-motrix
>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and energy,
>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>
>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not corectly
>>> understood.
>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since antiquity?
>>>>
>>>> Several times?
>>
>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>>
>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>
>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-potentials,
>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>>
>>
>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.
>>
>>
>
> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>
>
> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo-nouveau.
>
>
>
>



Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
"push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
"pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
"rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
usual unstated assumptions and the severe
abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
with regards to modern theories of mechanics.

Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657489

On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-motrix
>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and energy,
>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>
>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not corectly
>>>> understood.
>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since antiquity?
>>>>>
>>>>> Several times?
>>>
>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>>>
>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>
>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-potentials,
>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>
>>
>>
>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo-nouveau.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>
> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>
>

You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.

Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
"in the limit", and for example with regards to
Lorentzians and these kinds of things.

It's sort of similar with adding more and better
infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
mathematical universe, being that making advances
in physics involves making advances in mathematics.

Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657492

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-motrix
> >>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and energy,
> >>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
> >>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not corectly
> >>>> understood.
> >>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
> >>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
> >>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
> >>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
> >>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
> >>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since antiquity?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Several times?
> >>>
> >>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
> >>>
> >>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
> >>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
> >>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
> >>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
> >>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
> >>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
> >>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
> >>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
> >>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
> >>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
> >>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
> >>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
> >>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
> >>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
> >>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
> >>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
> >>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
> >>>
> >>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
> >>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
> >>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
> >>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-potentials,
> >>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
> >>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
> >>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
> >>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
> >>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
> >> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
> >> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
> >> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
> >> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
> >> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
> >> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
> >> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
> >> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
> >> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
> >> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
> >> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
> >> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
> >> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
> >> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
> >> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
> >> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
> >> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
> >> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
> >> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
> >> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
> >> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
> >> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
> >> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
> >> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
> >> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
> >> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
> >> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
> >> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo-nouveau.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
> > "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
> > gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
> > as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
> > "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
> > "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
> > then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
> > and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
> > rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
> > as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
> > usual unstated assumptions and the severe
> > abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
> > with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
> >
> > Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
> >
> >
> 
> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
> 
> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
> 
> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
> mathematical universe, being that making advances
> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
> 
> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.


"zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????

Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?


'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there are
no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'!


In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.


Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??













-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657500

On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-motrix
>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and energy,
>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not corectly
>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since antiquity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Several times?
>>>>>
>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>>>>>
>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-potentials,
>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo-nouveau.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>>>
>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
>>
>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
>>
>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
>> mathematical universe, being that making advances
>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
>>
>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
>
>
> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
>
> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
>
>
> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there are
> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'!
>
>
> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
>
>
> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5i7CuP80Sg&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY

Under the playlists "Reading from Einstein..." is what he says.



Einstein:  "Is the universe infinite?  What am I, stupid?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657522

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>
> >> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-motrix
> >>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and energy,
> >>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
> >>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not corectly
> >>>>>> understood.
> >>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
> >>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
> >>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
> >>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
> >>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
> >>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since antiquity?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Several times?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
> >>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
> >>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
> >>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
> >>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
> >>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
> >>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
> >>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
> >>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
> >>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
> >>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
> >>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
> >>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
> >>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
> >>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
> >>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
> >>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
> >>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
> >>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
> >>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-potentials,
> >>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
> >>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
> >>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
> >>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
> >>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
> >>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
> >>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
> >>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
> >>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
> >>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
> >>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
> >>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
> >>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
> >>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
> >>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
> >>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
> >>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
> >>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
> >>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
> >>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
> >>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
> >>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
> >>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
> >>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
> >>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
> >>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
> >>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
> >>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
> >>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
> >>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
> >>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
> >>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
> >>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo-nouveau.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
> >>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
> >>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
> >>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
> >>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
> >>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
> >>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
> >>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
> >>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
> >>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
> >>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
> >>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
> >>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
> >>>
> >>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
> >> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
> >> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
> >> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
> >> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
> >> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
> >> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
> >>
> >> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
> >> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
> >> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
> >> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
> >> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
> >> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
> >>
> >> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
> >> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
> >> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
> >> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
> >> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
> >> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
> >> mathematical universe, being that making advances
> >> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
> >>
> >> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
> >> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
> >> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
> >
> >
> > "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
> >
> > Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
> >
> >
> > 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there are
> > no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'!
> >
> >
> > In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
> >
> >
> > Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> "Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"

Oh i see, yous people live in a Mandelbox universe...


i wasn't refering to yours 'numbers' universe..

i was refering to the real universe.

Einstein said he wasn't sure if the universe is infinite or not..

but I'm sure the universe is infinite...just not the one you're
in...only it's surrounding universe that yous are expanding in.


sorry to bust your bubble.










-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657525

On 09/26/2024 10:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-motrix
>>>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and energy,
>>>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not corectly
>>>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
>>>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since antiquity?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Several times?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
>>>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-potentials,
>>>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
>>>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>>>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>>>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>>>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>>>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>>>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>>>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>>>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
>>>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>>>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>>>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>>>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>>>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>>>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>>>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>>>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>>>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>>>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>>>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>>>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>>>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>>>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>>>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>>>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>>>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>>>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>>>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>>>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>>>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo-nouveau.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
>>>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
>>>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
>>>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
>>>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
>>>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
>>>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
>>>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
>>>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
>>>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
>>>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
>>>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
>>>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
>>>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
>>>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
>>>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
>>>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
>>>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
>>>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
>>>>
>>>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
>>>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
>>>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
>>>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
>>>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
>>>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
>>>>
>>>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
>>>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
>>>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
>>>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
>>>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
>>>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
>>>> mathematical universe, being that making advances
>>>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
>>>>
>>>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
>>>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
>>>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
>>>
>>>
>>> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
>>>
>>> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
>>>
>>>
>>> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there are
>>> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'!
>>>
>>>
>>> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
>>>
>>>
>>> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"
>
> Oh i see, yous people live in a Mandelbox universe...
>
>
> i wasn't refering to yours 'numbers' universe..
>
> i was refering to the real universe.
>
> Einstein said he wasn't sure if the universe is infinite or not..
>
> but I'm sure the universe is infinite...just not the one you're
> in...only it's surrounding universe that yous are expanding in.
>
>
> sorry to bust your bubble.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Actually, there's an idea that one way to conceive
the universe, is, as a mathematical continuum, that
these days that's what's called "holograph", or "hologram",
the idea that one mathematical continuum is big enough
to have a number, for each thing, and relation in things.

Then these philosophically are called "plastic numbers,
metal numbers, concrete numbers".

Then, for example, Euclidean space, and, maybe not
Minkowski space, have it that there's only a ray
of time, or 3 + 1/2, with three space dimensions,
rolling and curled up, in the infinities and the
infinitesimals, one continuum.

It might even be reasonable to explain sort of why
there are three dimensions in a mathematical universe
of the space-like, simply courtesy properties of numbers,
because "least action and a gradient" is about the
easiest way to say "it is what it is, and it will
be what it will be".

Then these days it's most usual that people just "add"
dimensions like in superstring/supercorde theory, yet,
that's just some scratch-pad, when the cosmic clockworks
makes its own book-keeping, about time-series data dense
and brief, unique discernibles as sparse and varied,
and combination tuples as of their own sort of topologies,
while the continuous manifold of Space-Time, has its
own sort of mathematical, continuous topology,
why it is so.

Then usual ideas like non-Euclidean geometries
and fractals are sort of a mental playground,
while a "real spiral space-filling curve of
a natural continuum", sort of provides Euclidean
geometry for free from first principles.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657526

On 09/26/2024 01:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/26/2024 10:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus
>>>>>>>>>> vis-motrix
>>>>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and
>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not corectly
>>>>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
>>>>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since
>>>>>>>>>> antiquity?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Several times?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>>>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>>>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>>>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>>>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>>>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>>>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>>>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>>>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>>>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>>>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>>>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>>>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>>>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
>>>>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>>>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>>>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>>>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>>>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or
>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials,
>>>>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
>>>>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>>>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>>>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>>>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>>>>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>>>>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>>>>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>>>>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>>>>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>>>>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
>>>>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>>>>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>>>>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>>>>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>>>>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>>>>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>>>>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>>>>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>>>>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>>>>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>>>>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>>>>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>>>>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>>>>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>>>>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>>>>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>>>>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>>>>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>>>>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>>>>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>>>>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism,
>>>>>>> paleo-nouveau.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
>>>>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
>>>>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
>>>>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
>>>>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
>>>>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
>>>>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
>>>>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
>>>>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
>>>>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
>>>>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
>>>>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
>>>>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
>>>>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
>>>>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
>>>>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
>>>>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
>>>>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
>>>>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
>>>>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
>>>>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
>>>>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
>>>>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
>>>>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
>>>>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
>>>>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
>>>>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
>>>>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
>>>>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
>>>>> mathematical universe, being that making advances
>>>>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
>>>>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
>>>>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
>>>>
>>>> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there are
>>>> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"
>>
>> Oh i see, yous people live in a Mandelbox universe...
>>
>>
>> i wasn't refering to yours 'numbers' universe..
>>
>> i was refering to the real universe.
>>
>> Einstein said he wasn't sure if the universe is infinite or not..
>>
>> but I'm sure the universe is infinite...just not the one you're
>> in...only it's surrounding universe that yous are expanding in.
>>
>>
>> sorry to bust your bubble.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Actually, there's an idea that one way to conceive
> the universe, is, as a mathematical continuum, that
> these days that's what's called "holograph", or "hologram",
> the idea that one mathematical continuum is big enough
> to have a number, for each thing, and relation in things.
>
> Then these philosophically are called "plastic numbers,
> metal numbers, concrete numbers".
>
> Then, for example, Euclidean space, and, maybe not
> Minkowski space, have it that there's only a ray
> of time, or 3 + 1/2, with three space dimensions,
> rolling and curled up, in the infinities and the
> infinitesimals, one continuum.
>
> It might even be reasonable to explain sort of why
> there are three dimensions in a mathematical universe
> of the space-like, simply courtesy properties of numbers,
> because "least action and a gradient" is about the
> easiest way to say "it is what it is, and it will
> be what it will be".
>
> Then these days it's most usual that people just "add"
> dimensions like in superstring/supercorde theory, yet,
> that's just some scratch-pad, when the cosmic clockworks
> makes its own book-keeping, about time-series data dense
> and brief, unique discernibles as sparse and varied,
> and combination tuples as of their own sort of topologies,
> while the continuous manifold of Space-Time, has its
> own sort of mathematical, continuous topology,
> why it is so.
>
> Then usual ideas like non-Euclidean geometries
> and fractals are sort of a mental playground,
> while a "real spiral space-filling curve of
> a natural continuum", sort of provides Euclidean
> geometry for free from first principles.
>
>

And it's like, "do you really think you _need_ Hilbert space?".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657565

On 09/26/2024 01:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/26/2024 10:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus
>>>>>>>>>> vis-motrix
>>>>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and
>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not corectly
>>>>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
>>>>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since
>>>>>>>>>> antiquity?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Several times?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>>>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>>>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>>>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>>>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>>>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>>>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>>>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>>>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>>>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>>>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>>>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>>>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>>>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
>>>>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>>>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>>>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>>>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>>>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or
>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials,
>>>>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
>>>>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>>>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>>>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>>>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>>>>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>>>>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>>>>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>>>>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>>>>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>>>>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
>>>>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>>>>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>>>>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>>>>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>>>>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>>>>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>>>>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>>>>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>>>>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>>>>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>>>>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>>>>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>>>>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>>>>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>>>>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>>>>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>>>>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>>>>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>>>>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>>>>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>>>>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism,
>>>>>>> paleo-nouveau.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
>>>>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
>>>>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
>>>>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
>>>>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
>>>>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
>>>>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
>>>>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
>>>>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
>>>>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
>>>>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
>>>>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
>>>>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
>>>>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
>>>>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
>>>>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
>>>>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
>>>>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
>>>>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
>>>>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
>>>>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
>>>>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
>>>>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
>>>>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
>>>>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
>>>>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
>>>>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
>>>>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
>>>>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
>>>>> mathematical universe, being that making advances
>>>>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
>>>>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
>>>>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
>>>>
>>>> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there are
>>>> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"
>>
>> Oh i see, yous people live in a Mandelbox universe...
>>
>>
>> i wasn't refering to yours 'numbers' universe..
>>
>> i was refering to the real universe.
>>
>> Einstein said he wasn't sure if the universe is infinite or not..
>>
>> but I'm sure the universe is infinite...just not the one you're
>> in...only it's surrounding universe that yous are expanding in.
>>
>>
>> sorry to bust your bubble.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Actually, there's an idea that one way to conceive
> the universe, is, as a mathematical continuum, that
> these days that's what's called "holograph", or "hologram",
> the idea that one mathematical continuum is big enough
> to have a number, for each thing, and relation in things.
>
> Then these philosophically are called "plastic numbers,
> metal numbers, concrete numbers".
>
> Then, for example, Euclidean space, and, maybe not
> Minkowski space, have it that there's only a ray
> of time, or 3 + 1/2, with three space dimensions,
> rolling and curled up, in the infinities and the
> infinitesimals, one continuum.
>
> It might even be reasonable to explain sort of why
> there are three dimensions in a mathematical universe
> of the space-like, simply courtesy properties of numbers,
> because "least action and a gradient" is about the
> easiest way to say "it is what it is, and it will
> be what it will be".
>
> Then these days it's most usual that people just "add"
> dimensions like in superstring/supercorde theory, yet,
> that's just some scratch-pad, when the cosmic clockworks
> makes its own book-keeping, about time-series data dense
> and brief, unique discernibles as sparse and varied,
> and combination tuples as of their own sort of topologies,
> while the continuous manifold of Space-Time, has its
> own sort of mathematical, continuous topology,
> why it is so.
>
> Then usual ideas like non-Euclidean geometries
> and fractals are sort of a mental playground,
> while a "real spiral space-filling curve of
> a natural continuum", sort of provides Euclidean
> geometry for free from first principles.
>
>


Applying Torque and Driving Torque



There is making a turn while walking,
and immediately making a 90-degree turn,
while holding 90-degree's either way how much,
that the alternate route is as close as the current route.

Then there's whether straightening-out or
turning 90-degrees the other way, when
for example when walking a path,
turns have the feet going in different directions,
or side-stepping.

It's like "on the sidewalk you can always go out of your way",
stepping around and past and to, with stepping
and stopping, walking.

Then it is as to where the actual guidance
of the path, is direction when walking,
the angle to make shortest angle when
instantly comparing a path, with an
alternate, with respect to destination,
formally at the end of the path.

It's figure that walking is in paths,
then with "torque is in quarts",
then "quarts are in cubes", then
as with regards to sub-atomically:
"torque is in quarks", angular torque,
as a static concern when "torque is static".

Quarks are in fields, ....

I.e., here the torque, in quadrants,
torque of the walk, is forward/stop
left/right, forward and side-to-side,
in terms of that "quarts are in cubes",
reflecting that as a "four-volume",
meaning simply only an equi-partition
into 4, that the graphs where cubes
run out, for power in size, reflecting
going forward and left to right,
what arrives, at stops then as what
results when, how and whether stops
restore inertia, from its virtual sense,
again to "rest frame minus direction".
Then direction is included, that direction
always includes the inertia, "displaced
inertia", what results equilibrium, "free-free",
next decision in direction.  (Feet.)

This is where it's figured orientation is
either standing or face down, at rest
or moving, either or both feet.


This way it's a simple model that lives
in machines, a complex machine, two feet.


Here's a thought experiment, for example,
"tripping".  If a step is too high and encounters
a trip, then there is either tripping to face-down,
standing, or otherwise choosing the next destination.
Face-down involves walking, standing involves stopping,
and choosing involves not tripping.

Then there's stepping, for example, establishing
any change in height, vis-a-vis grade, and stepping
up grade, where on steps, it's figured height is
average 45-degrees up, left-per-right, while driving
is _maximum_, where for example a lift might be
straight up, a step.  Uphill grade is step with regards
to making or maintaining power up the grade,
feet on grade or wheels on grade.

Then the idea, for example, to always have the forward
free/free left/right, "in quarts", is that a gallon, is a unit
cube, and quarts, mean an edquipartition, where the
quarts are in the direction of the flow, of the walk power.

Then each adds and makes magic squares when walking,
random,
and accordingly turning left and right, and usually not
turning, in turning by stepping when stopped, step
and side-step and turning shuffle, eg the two-step shuffle.

The idea is that "magic squares", divide the torque into
cubes, that it is in eights, vis-a-vis, that "quarts", in the
model, make the cubes or in eighths, in terms of
power versus mass ratio, between squares in mass
ratio and cubes in mass.

Then usually the rest of the dynamics makes "flow",
as with regards to it being only one-way, as there's
only standing and face-down, magic squares, and flow,
that it works out the cubes, in "lift, step, and grade",
uphill and not face-down, then for example as with
regards to downhill, and gradient descent according
to current path and future path, where the decision
according to drive, results that starting and stopping
in drive are power train, while walking are that steps
are free, standing and walking (and stepping).


Then the magic squares, where adding up any
row and column make the same numbers, has
that they can be any size how many numbers
in the magic square, that for the larger the magic
squares, how those add up makes "the density of
magic squares in grids is small", yet, "power flow
transfer", changes grids freely, dense/least to sparse/most,
magic square flow, while still that it is free in the flow,
and only a continuous transform, from real flow to
real flow, the anti- or reverse "flux" the flow, just pointing
out that magic square to magic square, sitting where
the quarts are linear transform being maintained in parallel
overall, has that going straight it's also the same,
while there's always formally turning, the 'as far out'
next square, is whatever none zero of those averages
out as ringing, in as regards to ringing and out.

That is to say, a magic square flow, as cubes, is
two magic squares coming and going, while
the torque vector, is a four-vector, is moving quarts.


Driving is about same with power, drive, and
train, resulting turning is a higher exercise
with steering and power steering, while
"walking and step is zero power", the idea
that the steps are free.



Then, "torque is in quarts", is just a convenient
way to say that steps, usually make for that
being "inertia-less", in terms of that standing
results both feet stepping at once, non-zero,
then standing, while walking is both the "both
feet standing at once, at stepping", and the
"one foot standing, one foot stepping", the
entire otherwise contribution of the main stress frame,
then where running is drive, and for example jogging
is walking and running, either way up/down.


Here the feet are always moving in different directions,
for example with stepping, and walking, where the
steps set in the same direction, left/right, here where
the left/right are let out on the "torque squares",
where the quadrants of the quarts, have left/right
and the not-falling-down, steps left right and up and down.

Steps are usually picked down before up.
Then otherwise is being able to stop the step on the way up,
otherwise "overstep".

When both feet are in the air then the only way to step
is "over the stop", as with regards to the half of the plane,
the quadrant's quadrants, in the "magic square flow",
where it's the properties of numbers that result "in magic
square and laminate and toroidal flows, the 'different series',
have the magic square difference series 'potential in torque'",
the applying torque and driving torque.



Then, there's "quarts and quartz", not really relating,
quartz time and quart equi-partition, that a quartz time
is classical in effect in time-keeping, a perfectly accurate
quartz timer is figure that temperature-controlled oscillators,
result that quartz time is classical as kinetic, vis-a-vis the
digital quartz, representing quartz as dielectric, the usual
idea of that with regards to power, that clearly the paths
share the same clock.

The clock might go slower than one or the other,
yet then they wouldn't be the "equivalent paths"
with regards to destinations and differences in
outcomes, any one or two paths, when estimating
or changing direction.

I.e. then it would be as for "turning 'on the dime'",
as with regards to power, that "steps don't turn
the other" and "drive does turn the earth".  (Non-zero.)

I.e., the walking turn is free then free/free or changing
the direction and powering up and down, while the
drive is free to keep going while driving in steering,
that steering is free under power and wheels.


Then, "magic square flow", has then for that it is
what results that minimizing, differences, happens
both before and after in step or while driving, while
walking then either makes stops or doesn't make stops.
The laminar and toroidal flow work out in those,
layers usually or wash, corners.  This then is for that
corners, whether turn is turning or not turning,
corners are turned, while as with regards to closing
corners, and making changes, that it's laminar in
one dimension and also the same toroidal in that
one dimension and also the magic, flow of the object,
walking or being driven.

Then that works out to that is as above the costant
turning over time, which in steps in free while in
driving is turning-radius.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657569

On 09/27/2024 05:52 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/26/2024 01:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 09/26/2024 10:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus
>>>>>>>>>>> vis-motrix
>>>>>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and
>>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>>>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not
>>>>>>>>>> corectly
>>>>>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>>>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>>>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>>>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
>>>>>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>>>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since
>>>>>>>>>>> antiquity?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Several times?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>>>>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>>>>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>>>>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>>>>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>>>>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>>>>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>>>>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>>>>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>>>>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>>>>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>>>>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>>>>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>>>>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
>>>>>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>>>>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>>>>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>>>>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>>>>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or
>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials,
>>>>>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
>>>>>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>>>>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>>>>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>>>>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>>>>>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>>>>>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>>>>>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>>>>>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>>>>>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>>>>>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
>>>>>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>>>>>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>>>>>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>>>>>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>>>>>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>>>>>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>>>>>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>>>>>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>>>>>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>>>>>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>>>>>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>>>>>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>>>>>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>>>>>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>>>>>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>>>>>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>>>>>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>>>>>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>>>>>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>>>>>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>>>>>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism,
>>>>>>>> paleo-nouveau.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
>>>>>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
>>>>>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
>>>>>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
>>>>>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
>>>>>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
>>>>>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
>>>>>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
>>>>>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
>>>>>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
>>>>>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
>>>>>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
>>>>>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
>>>>>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
>>>>>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
>>>>>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
>>>>>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
>>>>>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
>>>>>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
>>>>>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
>>>>>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
>>>>>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
>>>>>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
>>>>>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
>>>>>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
>>>>>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
>>>>>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
>>>>>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
>>>>>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
>>>>>> mathematical universe, being that making advances
>>>>>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
>>>>>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
>>>>>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there
>>>>> are
>>>>> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"
>>>
>>> Oh i see, yous people live in a Mandelbox universe...
>>>
>>>
>>> i wasn't refering to yours 'numbers' universe..
>>>
>>> i was refering to the real universe.
>>>
>>> Einstein said he wasn't sure if the universe is infinite or not..
>>>
>>> but I'm sure the universe is infinite...just not the one you're
>>> in...only it's surrounding universe that yous are expanding in.
>>>
>>>
>>> sorry to bust your bubble.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, there's an idea that one way to conceive
>> the universe, is, as a mathematical continuum, that
>> these days that's what's called "holograph", or "hologram",
>> the idea that one mathematical continuum is big enough
>> to have a number, for each thing, and relation in things.
>>
>> Then these philosophically are called "plastic numbers,
>> metal numbers, concrete numbers".
>>
>> Then, for example, Euclidean space, and, maybe not
>> Minkowski space, have it that there's only a ray
>> of time, or 3 + 1/2, with three space dimensions,
>> rolling and curled up, in the infinities and the
>> infinitesimals, one continuum.
>>
>> It might even be reasonable to explain sort of why
>> there are three dimensions in a mathematical universe
>> of the space-like, simply courtesy properties of numbers,
>> because "least action and a gradient" is about the
>> easiest way to say "it is what it is, and it will
>> be what it will be".
>>
>> Then these days it's most usual that people just "add"
>> dimensions like in superstring/supercorde theory, yet,
>> that's just some scratch-pad, when the cosmic clockworks
>> makes its own book-keeping, about time-series data dense
>> and brief, unique discernibles as sparse and varied,
>> and combination tuples as of their own sort of topologies,
>> while the continuous manifold of Space-Time, has its
>> own sort of mathematical, continuous topology,
>> why it is so.
>>
>> Then usual ideas like non-Euclidean geometries
>> and fractals are sort of a mental playground,
>> while a "real spiral space-filling curve of
>> a natural continuum", sort of provides Euclidean
>> geometry for free from first principles.
>>
>>
>
>
> Applying Torque and Driving Torque
>
>
>
> There is making a turn while walking,
> and immediately making a 90-degree turn,
> while holding 90-degree's either way how much,
> that the alternate route is as close as the current route.
>
> Then there's whether straightening-out or
> turning 90-degrees the other way, when
> for example when walking a path,
> turns have the feet going in different directions,
> or side-stepping.
>
> It's like "on the sidewalk you can always go out of your way",
> stepping around and past and to, with stepping
> and stopping, walking.
>
> Then it is as to where the actual guidance
> of the path, is direction when walking,
> the angle to make shortest angle when
> instantly comparing a path, with an
> alternate, with respect to destination,
> formally at the end of the path.
>
> It's figure that walking is in paths,
> then with "torque is in quarts",
> then "quarts are in cubes", then
> as with regards to sub-atomically:
> "torque is in quarks", angular torque,
> as a static concern when "torque is static".
>
> Quarks are in fields, ....
>
> I.e., here the torque, in quadrants,
> torque of the walk, is forward/stop
> left/right, forward and side-to-side,
> in terms of that "quarts are in cubes",
> reflecting that as a "four-volume",
> meaning simply only an equi-partition
> into 4, that the graphs where cubes
> run out, for power in size, reflecting
> going forward and left to right,
> what arrives, at stops then as what
> results when, how and whether stops
> restore inertia, from its virtual sense,
> again to "rest frame minus direction".
> Then direction is included, that direction
> always includes the inertia, "displaced
> inertia", what results equilibrium, "free-free",
> next decision in direction.  (Feet.)
>
> This is where it's figured orientation is
> either standing or face down, at rest
> or moving, either or both feet.
>
>
> This way it's a simple model that lives
> in machines, a complex machine, two feet.
>
>
> Here's a thought experiment, for example,
> "tripping".  If a step is too high and encounters
> a trip, then there is either tripping to face-down,
> standing, or otherwise choosing the next destination.
> Face-down involves walking, standing involves stopping,
> and choosing involves not tripping.
>
> Then there's stepping, for example, establishing
> any change in height, vis-a-vis grade, and stepping
> up grade, where on steps, it's figured height is
> average 45-degrees up, left-per-right, while driving
> is _maximum_, where for example a lift might be
> straight up, a step.  Uphill grade is step with regards
> to making or maintaining power up the grade,
> feet on grade or wheels on grade.
>
> Then the idea, for example, to always have the forward
> free/free left/right, "in quarts", is that a gallon, is a unit
> cube, and quarts, mean an edquipartition, where the
> quarts are in the direction of the flow, of the walk power.
>
> Then each adds and makes magic squares when walking,
> random,
> and accordingly turning left and right, and usually not
> turning, in turning by stepping when stopped, step
> and side-step and turning shuffle, eg the two-step shuffle.
>
> The idea is that "magic squares", divide the torque into
> cubes, that it is in eights, vis-a-vis, that "quarts", in the
> model, make the cubes or in eighths, in terms of
> power versus mass ratio, between squares in mass
> ratio and cubes in mass.
>
> Then usually the rest of the dynamics makes "flow",
> as with regards to it being only one-way, as there's
> only standing and face-down, magic squares, and flow,
> that it works out the cubes, in "lift, step, and grade",
> uphill and not face-down, then for example as with
> regards to downhill, and gradient descent according
> to current path and future path, where the decision
> according to drive, results that starting and stopping
> in drive are power train, while walking are that steps
> are free, standing and walking (and stepping).
>
>
> Then the magic squares, where adding up any
> row and column make the same numbers, has
> that they can be any size how many numbers
> in the magic square, that for the larger the magic
> squares, how those add up makes "the density of
> magic squares in grids is small", yet, "power flow
> transfer", changes grids freely, dense/least to sparse/most,
> magic square flow, while still that it is free in the flow,
> and only a continuous transform, from real flow to
> real flow, the anti- or reverse "flux" the flow, just pointing
> out that magic square to magic square, sitting where
> the quarts are linear transform being maintained in parallel
> overall, has that going straight it's also the same,
> while there's always formally turning, the 'as far out'
> next square, is whatever none zero of those averages
> out as ringing, in as regards to ringing and out.
>
> That is to say, a magic square flow, as cubes, is
> two magic squares coming and going, while
> the torque vector, is a four-vector, is moving quarts.
>
>
> Driving is about same with power, drive, and
> train, resulting turning is a higher exercise
> with steering and power steering, while
> "walking and step is zero power", the idea
> that the steps are free.
>
>
>
> Then, "torque is in quarts", is just a convenient
> way to say that steps, usually make for that
> being "inertia-less", in terms of that standing
> results both feet stepping at once, non-zero,
> then standing, while walking is both the "both
> feet standing at once, at stepping", and the
> "one foot standing, one foot stepping", the
> entire otherwise contribution of the main stress frame,
> then where running is drive, and for example jogging
> is walking and running, either way up/down.
>
>
> Here the feet are always moving in different directions,
> for example with stepping, and walking, where the
> steps set in the same direction, left/right, here where
> the left/right are let out on the "torque squares",
> where the quadrants of the quarts, have left/right
> and the not-falling-down, steps left right and up and down.
>
> Steps are usually picked down before up.
> Then otherwise is being able to stop the step on the way up,
> otherwise "overstep".
>
> When both feet are in the air then the only way to step
> is "over the stop", as with regards to the half of the plane,
> the quadrant's quadrants, in the "magic square flow",
> where it's the properties of numbers that result "in magic
> square and laminate and toroidal flows, the 'different series',
> have the magic square difference series 'potential in torque'",
> the applying torque and driving torque.
>
>
>
> Then, there's "quarts and quartz", not really relating,
> quartz time and quart equi-partition, that a quartz time
> is classical in effect in time-keeping, a perfectly accurate
> quartz timer is figure that temperature-controlled oscillators,
> result that quartz time is classical as kinetic, vis-a-vis the
> digital quartz, representing quartz as dielectric, the usual
> idea of that with regards to power, that clearly the paths
> share the same clock.
>
> The clock might go slower than one or the other,
> yet then they wouldn't be the "equivalent paths"
> with regards to destinations and differences in
> outcomes, any one or two paths, when estimating
> or changing direction.
>
> I.e. then it would be as for "turning 'on the dime'",
> as with regards to power, that "steps don't turn
> the other" and "drive does turn the earth".  (Non-zero.)
>
> I.e., the walking turn is free then free/free or changing
> the direction and powering up and down, while the
> drive is free to keep going while driving in steering,
> that steering is free under power and wheels.
>
>
> Then, "magic square flow", has then for that it is
> what results that minimizing, differences, happens
> both before and after in step or while driving, while
> walking then either makes stops or doesn't make stops.
> The laminar and toroidal flow work out in those,
> layers usually or wash, corners.  This then is for that
> corners, whether turn is turning or not turning,
> corners are turned, while as with regards to closing
> corners, and making changes, that it's laminar in
> one dimension and also the same toroidal in that
> one dimension and also the magic, flow of the object,
> walking or being driven.
>
> Then that works out to that is as above the costant
> turning over time, which in steps in free while in
> driving is turning-radius.
>
>
>
>




The reason "why quarts", is because "liquids slosh",
then with regards to the kinematic is amorphous,
a standing body with feet and momentum, has that
slosh in the sense of "moving feet, or, feet pushing
on the ground", has that standing up is under slosh,
as with regards to "slosh", being that solids don't
slosh while liquids always slosh, while turns slosh,
that in walking all slosh is contained via the center
of balance, while in turning slosh is out and tractive.

Then the constant inputs what result "drive is
input on the train", is about whether it's feet
or wheels, making centripetal and centrifugal,
as with regards to that under wheels and running is truck,
with driving under wheels, while walking is also
rolling freely, stepping under foot.


Then it's that keeping the traffic is fishtail and slosh,
with fishtailing and slosh and wiping out, vis-a-vis
walking or running and side to side or unbalancing slosh,
that liquids wash and it makes slosh, then for example
that a kinematic body, has an abstract center of motion,
of a spherical liquid centroid, though it's the shape of
the upright or standing body, that also it's the shape
of the moving body, with regards to all the kinematics
centers or centers of rotation, as those all orbit while
either leveraging or floating each other.

Then, collisions, seems sort of result when there's
momentum, and energy, and those about the derivative
terms, that acceleration, is out into squares, while,
the power ratio, is out into cubes, that being classical.
Then, there's incident and there's follow-through,
with rigid and the stress tensor, "kinematic", and
"kinetic", or "wreck in motion", "meeting in motion",
otherwise "orbits, while tracks", that passing is
always peripheral, about "equal and opposite reaction",
something about that being "crashing" or "glancing"
or "missing", passing, then "passing apace" or "passing opposite",
then I suppose there's "t-bone" or "crossing", here just
pointing out collisions, have two decisions involved,
where otherwise there's the idea that the steps of
walking and the steering or driving, as moving massy
standing and walking and running and driving bodies,
has either "there are no head-on collisions" or "they
are all head-on collisions".

I.e. it's figured usually enough that collisions cause
either wrecks or falling face-down, not usually carrying.

Here the point is momentum, what's being conserved
is the centroid, its potential to be walked or steered,
also what's being summed, that the potential in running,
has the static torque and the static inertia, "conversed",
with the completed un-deformed, and not re-formed,
and the completly deformed, and re-formed.

I.e., the formation otherwise on the main lever or mover,
the feet or wheels their contact and into lift and riding,
has for the wheels and feet in motion, that the body and
cars are or aren't in motion, with respect to the wheels,
or feet, it's figure that individual motive force and power,
of a walking or rolling body, according to power and force
to the ball or wheel, of the foot or wheel, it's figured applied
drive or not, motion in bodies besides idling.



Mostly this is about making turns and turning, and
making turns and constantly turning either way,
instead of resulting making turns in motion,
between start and stop of any two paths that
aren't the same path yet have same start and stop.



Then it's figured quarks usually have no torque except
holding together.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657571

On 09/27/2024 07:01 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/27/2024 05:52 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 09/26/2024 01:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 09/26/2024 10:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus
>>>>>>>>>>>> vis-motrix
>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>>>>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not
>>>>>>>>>>> corectly
>>>>>>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>>>>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>>>>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>>>>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia
>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>>>>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since
>>>>>>>>>>>> antiquity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Several times?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>>>>>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>>>>>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>>>>>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>>>>>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>>>>>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>>>>>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>>>>>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>>>>>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>>>>>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>>>>>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>>>>>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>>>>>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>>>>>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the
>>>>>>>>>> "infinitely-many
>>>>>>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>>>>>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>>>>>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>>>>>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>>>>>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or
>>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials,
>>>>>>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain
>>>>>>>>>> laws
>>>>>>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>>>>>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>>>>>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>>>>>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on
>>>>>>>>>> Newton'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>>>>>>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>>>>>>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>>>>>>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>>>>>>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>>>>>>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>>>>>>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
>>>>>>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>>>>>>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>>>>>>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>>>>>>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>>>>>>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>>>>>>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>>>>>>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>>>>>>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>>>>>>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>>>>>>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>>>>>>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>>>>>>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>>>>>>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>>>>>>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>>>>>>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>>>>>>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>>>>>>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>>>>>>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>>>>>>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>>>>>>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>>>>>>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism,
>>>>>>>>> paleo-nouveau.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
>>>>>>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
>>>>>>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
>>>>>>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
>>>>>>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
>>>>>>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
>>>>>>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
>>>>>>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
>>>>>>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
>>>>>>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
>>>>>>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
>>>>>>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
>>>>>>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
>>>>>>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
>>>>>>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
>>>>>>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
>>>>>>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
>>>>>>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
>>>>>>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
>>>>>>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
>>>>>>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
>>>>>>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
>>>>>>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
>>>>>>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
>>>>>>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
>>>>>>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
>>>>>>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
>>>>>>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
>>>>>>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
>>>>>>> mathematical universe, being that making advances
>>>>>>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
>>>>>>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
>>>>>>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"
>>>>
>>>> Oh i see, yous people live in a Mandelbox universe...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i wasn't refering to yours 'numbers' universe..
>>>>
>>>> i was refering to the real universe.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein said he wasn't sure if the universe is infinite or not..
>>>>
>>>> but I'm sure the universe is infinite...just not the one you're
>>>> in...only it's surrounding universe that yous are expanding in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sorry to bust your bubble.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, there's an idea that one way to conceive
>>> the universe, is, as a mathematical continuum, that
>>> these days that's what's called "holograph", or "hologram",
>>> the idea that one mathematical continuum is big enough
>>> to have a number, for each thing, and relation in things.
>>>
>>> Then these philosophically are called "plastic numbers,
>>> metal numbers, concrete numbers".
>>>
>>> Then, for example, Euclidean space, and, maybe not
>>> Minkowski space, have it that there's only a ray
>>> of time, or 3 + 1/2, with three space dimensions,
>>> rolling and curled up, in the infinities and the
>>> infinitesimals, one continuum.
>>>
>>> It might even be reasonable to explain sort of why
>>> there are three dimensions in a mathematical universe
>>> of the space-like, simply courtesy properties of numbers,
>>> because "least action and a gradient" is about the
>>> easiest way to say "it is what it is, and it will
>>> be what it will be".
>>>
>>> Then these days it's most usual that people just "add"
>>> dimensions like in superstring/supercorde theory, yet,
>>> that's just some scratch-pad, when the cosmic clockworks
>>> makes its own book-keeping, about time-series data dense
>>> and brief, unique discernibles as sparse and varied,
>>> and combination tuples as of their own sort of topologies,
>>> while the continuous manifold of Space-Time, has its
>>> own sort of mathematical, continuous topology,
>>> why it is so.
>>>
>>> Then usual ideas like non-Euclidean geometries
>>> and fractals are sort of a mental playground,
>>> while a "real spiral space-filling curve of
>>> a natural continuum", sort of provides Euclidean
>>> geometry for free from first principles.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Applying Torque and Driving Torque
>>
>>
>>
>> There is making a turn while walking,
>> and immediately making a 90-degree turn,
>> while holding 90-degree's either way how much,
>> that the alternate route is as close as the current route.
>>
>> Then there's whether straightening-out or
>> turning 90-degrees the other way, when
>> for example when walking a path,
>> turns have the feet going in different directions,
>> or side-stepping.
>>
>> It's like "on the sidewalk you can always go out of your way",
>> stepping around and past and to, with stepping
>> and stopping, walking.
>>
>> Then it is as to where the actual guidance
>> of the path, is direction when walking,
>> the angle to make shortest angle when
>> instantly comparing a path, with an
>> alternate, with respect to destination,
>> formally at the end of the path.
>>
>> It's figure that walking is in paths,
>> then with "torque is in quarts",
>> then "quarts are in cubes", then
>> as with regards to sub-atomically:
>> "torque is in quarks", angular torque,
>> as a static concern when "torque is static".
>>
>> Quarks are in fields, ....
>>
>> I.e., here the torque, in quadrants,
>> torque of the walk, is forward/stop
>> left/right, forward and side-to-side,
>> in terms of that "quarts are in cubes",
>> reflecting that as a "four-volume",
>> meaning simply only an equi-partition
>> into 4, that the graphs where cubes
>> run out, for power in size, reflecting
>> going forward and left to right,
>> what arrives, at stops then as what
>> results when, how and whether stops
>> restore inertia, from its virtual sense,
>> again to "rest frame minus direction".
>> Then direction is included, that direction
>> always includes the inertia, "displaced
>> inertia", what results equilibrium, "free-free",
>> next decision in direction.  (Feet.)
>>
>> This is where it's figured orientation is
>> either standing or face down, at rest
>> or moving, either or both feet.
>>
>>
>> This way it's a simple model that lives
>> in machines, a complex machine, two feet.
>>
>>
>> Here's a thought experiment, for example,
>> "tripping".  If a step is too high and encounters
>> a trip, then there is either tripping to face-down,
>> standing, or otherwise choosing the next destination.
>> Face-down involves walking, standing involves stopping,
>> and choosing involves not tripping.
>>
>> Then there's stepping, for example, establishing
>> any change in height, vis-a-vis grade, and stepping
>> up grade, where on steps, it's figured height is
>> average 45-degrees up, left-per-right, while driving
>> is _maximum_, where for example a lift might be
>> straight up, a step.  Uphill grade is step with regards
>> to making or maintaining power up the grade,
>> feet on grade or wheels on grade.
>>
>> Then the idea, for example, to always have the forward
>> free/free left/right, "in quarts", is that a gallon, is a unit
>> cube, and quarts, mean an edquipartition, where the
>> quarts are in the direction of the flow, of the walk power.
>>
>> Then each adds and makes magic squares when walking,
>> random,
>> and accordingly turning left and right, and usually not
>> turning, in turning by stepping when stopped, step
>> and side-step and turning shuffle, eg the two-step shuffle.
>>
>> The idea is that "magic squares", divide the torque into
>> cubes, that it is in eights, vis-a-vis, that "quarts", in the
>> model, make the cubes or in eighths, in terms of
>> power versus mass ratio, between squares in mass
>> ratio and cubes in mass.
>>
>> Then usually the rest of the dynamics makes "flow",
>> as with regards to it being only one-way, as there's
>> only standing and face-down, magic squares, and flow,
>> that it works out the cubes, in "lift, step, and grade",
>> uphill and not face-down, then for example as with
>> regards to downhill, and gradient descent according
>> to current path and future path, where the decision
>> according to drive, results that starting and stopping
>> in drive are power train, while walking are that steps
>> are free, standing and walking (and stepping).
>>
>>
>> Then the magic squares, where adding up any
>> row and column make the same numbers, has
>> that they can be any size how many numbers
>> in the magic square, that for the larger the magic
>> squares, how those add up makes "the density of
>> magic squares in grids is small", yet, "power flow
>> transfer", changes grids freely, dense/least to sparse/most,
>> magic square flow, while still that it is free in the flow,
>> and only a continuous transform, from real flow to
>> real flow, the anti- or reverse "flux" the flow, just pointing
>> out that magic square to magic square, sitting where
>> the quarts are linear transform being maintained in parallel
>> overall, has that going straight it's also the same,
>> while there's always formally turning, the 'as far out'
>> next square, is whatever none zero of those averages
>> out as ringing, in as regards to ringing and out.
>>
>> That is to say, a magic square flow, as cubes, is
>> two magic squares coming and going, while
>> the torque vector, is a four-vector, is moving quarts.
>>
>>
>> Driving is about same with power, drive, and
>> train, resulting turning is a higher exercise
>> with steering and power steering, while
>> "walking and step is zero power", the idea
>> that the steps are free.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then, "torque is in quarts", is just a convenient
>> way to say that steps, usually make for that
>> being "inertia-less", in terms of that standing
>> results both feet stepping at once, non-zero,
>> then standing, while walking is both the "both
>> feet standing at once, at stepping", and the
>> "one foot standing, one foot stepping", the
>> entire otherwise contribution of the main stress frame,
>> then where running is drive, and for example jogging
>> is walking and running, either way up/down.
>>
>>
>> Here the feet are always moving in different directions,
>> for example with stepping, and walking, where the
>> steps set in the same direction, left/right, here where
>> the left/right are let out on the "torque squares",
>> where the quadrants of the quarts, have left/right
>> and the not-falling-down, steps left right and up and down.
>>
>> Steps are usually picked down before up.
>> Then otherwise is being able to stop the step on the way up,
>> otherwise "overstep".
>>
>> When both feet are in the air then the only way to step
>> is "over the stop", as with regards to the half of the plane,
>> the quadrant's quadrants, in the "magic square flow",
>> where it's the properties of numbers that result "in magic
>> square and laminate and toroidal flows, the 'different series',
>> have the magic square difference series 'potential in torque'",
>> the applying torque and driving torque.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then, there's "quarts and quartz", not really relating,
>> quartz time and quart equi-partition, that a quartz time
>> is classical in effect in time-keeping, a perfectly accurate
>> quartz timer is figure that temperature-controlled oscillators,
>> result that quartz time is classical as kinetic, vis-a-vis the
>> digital quartz, representing quartz as dielectric, the usual
>> idea of that with regards to power, that clearly the paths
>> share the same clock.
>>
>> The clock might go slower than one or the other,
>> yet then they wouldn't be the "equivalent paths"
>> with regards to destinations and differences in
>> outcomes, any one or two paths, when estimating
>> or changing direction.
>>
>> I.e. then it would be as for "turning 'on the dime'",
>> as with regards to power, that "steps don't turn
>> the other" and "drive does turn the earth".  (Non-zero.)
>>
>> I.e., the walking turn is free then free/free or changing
>> the direction and powering up and down, while the
>> drive is free to keep going while driving in steering,
>> that steering is free under power and wheels.
>>
>>
>> Then, "magic square flow", has then for that it is
>> what results that minimizing, differences, happens
>> both before and after in step or while driving, while
>> walking then either makes stops or doesn't make stops.
>> The laminar and toroidal flow work out in those,
>> layers usually or wash, corners.  This then is for that
>> corners, whether turn is turning or not turning,
>> corners are turned, while as with regards to closing
>> corners, and making changes, that it's laminar in
>> one dimension and also the same toroidal in that
>> one dimension and also the magic, flow of the object,
>> walking or being driven.
>>
>> Then that works out to that is as above the costant
>> turning over time, which in steps in free while in
>> driving is turning-radius.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> The reason "why quarts", is because "liquids slosh",
> then with regards to the kinematic is amorphous,
> a standing body with feet and momentum, has that
> slosh in the sense of "moving feet, or, feet pushing
> on the ground", has that standing up is under slosh,
> as with regards to "slosh", being that solids don't
> slosh while liquids always slosh, while turns slosh,
> that in walking all slosh is contained via the center
> of balance, while in turning slosh is out and tractive.
>
> Then the constant inputs what result "drive is
> input on the train", is about whether it's feet
> or wheels, making centripetal and centrifugal,
> as with regards to that under wheels and running is truck,
> with driving under wheels, while walking is also
> rolling freely, stepping under foot.
>
>
> Then it's that keeping the traffic is fishtail and slosh,
> with fishtailing and slosh and wiping out, vis-a-vis
> walking or running and side to side or unbalancing slosh,
> that liquids wash and it makes slosh, then for example
> that a kinematic body, has an abstract center of motion,
> of a spherical liquid centroid, though it's the shape of
> the upright or standing body, that also it's the shape
> of the moving body, with regards to all the kinematics
> centers or centers of rotation, as those all orbit while
> either leveraging or floating each other.
>
> Then, collisions, seems sort of result when there's
> momentum, and energy, and those about the derivative
> terms, that acceleration, is out into squares, while,
> the power ratio, is out into cubes, that being classical.
> Then, there's incident and there's follow-through,
> with rigid and the stress tensor, "kinematic", and
> "kinetic", or "wreck in motion", "meeting in motion",
> otherwise "orbits, while tracks", that passing is
> always peripheral, about "equal and opposite reaction",
> something about that being "crashing" or "glancing"
> or "missing", passing, then "passing apace" or "passing opposite",
> then I suppose there's "t-bone" or "crossing", here just
> pointing out collisions, have two decisions involved,
> where otherwise there's the idea that the steps of
> walking and the steering or driving, as moving massy
> standing and walking and running and driving bodies,
> has either "there are no head-on collisions" or "they
> are all head-on collisions".
>
> I.e. it's figured usually enough that collisions cause
> either wrecks or falling face-down, not usually carrying.
>
> Here the point is momentum, what's being conserved
> is the centroid, its potential to be walked or steered,
> also what's being summed, that the potential in running,
> has the static torque and the static inertia, "conversed",
> with the completed un-deformed, and not re-formed,
> and the completly deformed, and re-formed.
>
> I.e., the formation otherwise on the main lever or mover,
> the feet or wheels their contact and into lift and riding,
> has for the wheels and feet in motion, that the body and
> cars are or aren't in motion, with respect to the wheels,
> or feet, it's figure that individual motive force and power,
> of a walking or rolling body, according to power and force
> to the ball or wheel, of the foot or wheel, it's figured applied
> drive or not, motion in bodies besides idling.
>
>
>
> Mostly this is about making turns and turning, and
> making turns and constantly turning either way,
> instead of resulting making turns in motion,
> between start and stop of any two paths that
> aren't the same path yet have same start and stop.
>
>
>
> Then it's figured quarks usually have no torque except
> holding together.
>
>



About Lambda Cold CDM and Lambda 50 and Lambda 85,
what it is that it's free in a model of expansion a Big Bang
model, that it lines up in the large, with what expansion
would be, so, the catalog, is gather in position and velocity,
about redshift mostly expanding, vis-a-vis blue-shoft, contracting.

So, ..., then the outer sky survey, gets for enough and then
what it reults is that through that, there's the given model
of expanding, what resulting the values among the +7 / -7,
meaning by that what's measured red-shift/blue-shift,
is from 0-14 much like the "pH" scale", with regards to
the logarithmetic, just pointing out that the "85, Lambda,
Cold CDM", is that the default is "50" when "expanding, uniform",
while "85, when expanding, definitely significant expansion",
then as with regards to that it's assumed that's right to give
the number what results in the catalog, so that "all the numbers
in the catalog are or were in red-shift", and they are, all through
the period of the sky survey between ground telescopes and
orbital telescopes. So, today, then some of those are considered
"most have been blue-shift component, not expanding", when
it results near and far objects, whence considering nearer
and farther objects, that the data, in that sense, gets interpreted
as basically reducing the power of the greater confirmation,
that as Lambda goes to 100, percent, about Lambda 50 the
zero standard deviations, Lambda 85 (or 65) the one standard
deviations, that it would be, up to the Lambda 100 the seven
and all the standard deviations, where the normal is only
seven variances wide, is about the Lambda terms in the Cold
CDM or Cold Dark Matter, about that _higher_ values in the
catalog, absolute, may also reflect higher _differences_,
when they are out, when expansions are usually either
meeting or there is a boundary of them, that solar systems
and arms as it were and galaxies and clusters and superclusters,
orbit, and orbit each other, about the measure rates of expansion
and the measured value of g, which is a constant, figuring that
g is the constant in combined g-forces, while though, moving
bodies have their wells along with them, their spaces, naturally
enough laying in their basins, gravity's, what results stately expansion
or diffuse expansion, with regards to usually enough not contraction,
except with regards to accretion, then to drift and falling apart
as expanding (falling away while not changing scale, that "expanding
is really changing size and thus also density, not scale").

Then the idea is that galaxies on their own naturally are not
expanding, ditto solar systems and for that matter other
sorts of "geologically epochal" explaining why there's
not dark matter the massy matter, why otherwise _gravity_
would have to explain the galaxy holding together, has
merely the galaxy is not falling apart, itself, while though
it falls apart, from the galaxies it was with, that it's
centroidal and tidal, why gravity's equation doesn't have
to change exactly to explain what would (or, wouldn't)
add up for the required noticed missing dark matter,
why the galaxy holds together, then similarly also for the
dark energy, why the galaxies fall apart, then figuring as
galaxies collide, it is slow-motion yet as with regards to
the arbitrarily high-motion, that galaxies always collide
head-on, otherwise as that they're rotating together independently.

I.e. not expanding means the galaxy in the model already
has it to hold itself together, while, outside the galaxies,
then the model also has that they don't hold each other
together, while, they each hold themselves together as
much as any other, independent rotating frame, galactic
rotating frame, and galactic point frame.

Then these are always "most orthogonal", when two galaxies
are either constructive a center or destructive a center what
they share, whether or not a glaxy collisions results one or
the other or one bigger galaxy, or, two or more smaller galaxies.

Then the idea seems that "expanding galaxies are usually
smaller, they're already going apart".


So, it sort of works out that "inverse square", is still in effect,
with regards to sort of "shallowing of basins and steepening of wells",
the idea being that rotating frames, i.e. two independent rotating
frames _do_ share a clock with respect to each other and any other,
why g is constant and clocks are "constant", as with regards to
clocks always in effect, while g has where it "zeroes out",
and whether it does or is in the "shadow cone" (light cone
of future, shadow cone of inverse potential and "inverse square"),
is to be helping that these tensors these gauges, make the
"gravific", still making a way that it makes sense within the
galaxy to treat it as not moving because held together by
an axis the center, and, moving with regards to when two
galaxies collide, that they don't, only whether they are one
or two.

Then, all the orbital models, as with regards to "g" and scales,
i.e. the principle "g is a universal constant", it's figured
that larger is slower, and smaller is faster, orbits.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657578

Am Donnerstag000026, 26.09.2024 um 22:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> On 09/26/2024 10:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis- 
>>>>>>>>>> motrix
>>>>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and 
>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not corectly
>>>>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
>>>>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since 
>>>>>>>>>> antiquity?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Several times?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>>>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>>>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>>>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>>>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>>>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>>>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>>>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>>>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>>>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>>>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>>>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>>>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>>>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
>>>>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>>>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>>>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>>>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>>>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of- 
>>>>>>>> potentials,
>>>>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
>>>>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>>>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>>>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>>>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh- 
>>>>>>> bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>>>>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>>>>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>>>>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>>>>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>>>>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>>>>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
>>>>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>>>>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>>>>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>>>>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>>>>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>>>>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>>>>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>>>>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>>>>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>>>>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>>>>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>>>>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>>>>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>>>>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>>>>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>>>>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>>>>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>>>>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>>>>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>>>>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>>>>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo- 
>>>>>>> nouveau.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
>>>>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
>>>>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
>>>>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
>>>>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
>>>>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
>>>>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
>>>>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
>>>>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
>>>>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
>>>>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
>>>>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
>>>>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
>>>>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
>>>>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
>>>>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
>>>>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
>>>>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
>>>>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
>>>>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
>>>>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
>>>>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
>>>>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
>>>>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
>>>>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
>>>>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
>>>>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
>>>>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
>>>>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
>>>>> mathematical universe, being that making advances
>>>>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
>>>>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
>>>>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
>>>>
>>>> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there are
>>>> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"
>>
>> Oh i see, yous people live in a Mandelbox universe...
>>
>>
>> i wasn't refering to yours 'numbers' universe..
>>
>> i was refering to the real universe.
>>
>> Einstein said he wasn't sure if the universe is infinite or not..
>>
>> but I'm sure the universe is infinite...just not the one you're
>> in...only it's surrounding universe that yous are expanding in.
>>
>>
>> sorry to bust your bubble.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Actually, there's an idea that one way to conceive
> the universe, is, as a mathematical continuum, that
> these days that's what's called "holograph", or "hologram",
> the idea that one mathematical continuum is big enough
> to have a number, for each thing, and relation in things.
> 
> Then these philosophically are called "plastic numbers,
> metal numbers, concrete numbers".
> 
> Then, for example, Euclidean space, and, maybe not
> Minkowski space, have it that there's only a ray
> of time, or 3 + 1/2, with three space dimensions,
> rolling and curled up, in the infinities and the
> infinitesimals, one continuum.
> 
> It might even be reasonable to explain sort of why
> there are three dimensions in a mathematical universe
> of the space-like, simply courtesy properties of numbers,
> because "least action and a gradient" is about the
> easiest way to say "it is what it is, and it will
> be what it will be".


I had the idea, that this picture is actually correct and written kind 
of 'book' about this concept.

(you find it here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing 
)

The idea is called 'structured spacetime'.

The spacetime of GR is assumed to exist and being a real physical entity.

It is a continuum build from 'pointlike elements'.

These 'elements' are something you may call 'points with features'.

The math behind it is quite unusal, but already known and not 
particularily difficult.

It is so called 'Pauli algebra' applied to so called 'bi-quaternions 
(aka 'complex four-vectors').

...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657588

On 09/28/2024 01:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.09.2024 um 22:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>> On 09/26/2024 10:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-
>>>>>>>>>>> motrix
>>>>>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and
>>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>>>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not
>>>>>>>>>> corectly
>>>>>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>>>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>>>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>>>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia change
>>>>>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>>>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since
>>>>>>>>>>> antiquity?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Several times?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>>>>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>>>>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>>>>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>>>>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>>>>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>>>>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>>>>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>>>>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>>>>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>>>>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>>>>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>>>>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>>>>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely-many
>>>>>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>>>>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>>>>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>>>>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>>>>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-
>>>>>>>>> potentials,
>>>>>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain laws
>>>>>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>>>>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>>>>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>>>>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on Newton'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-
>>>>>>>> bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>>>>>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>>>>>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>>>>>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>>>>>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>>>>>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>>>>>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
>>>>>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>>>>>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>>>>>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>>>>>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>>>>>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>>>>>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>>>>>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>>>>>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>>>>>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>>>>>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>>>>>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>>>>>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>>>>>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>>>>>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>>>>>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>>>>>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>>>>>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>>>>>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>>>>>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>>>>>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>>>>>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo-
>>>>>>>> nouveau.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
>>>>>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
>>>>>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
>>>>>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
>>>>>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
>>>>>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
>>>>>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
>>>>>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
>>>>>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
>>>>>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
>>>>>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
>>>>>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
>>>>>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
>>>>>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
>>>>>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
>>>>>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
>>>>>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
>>>>>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
>>>>>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
>>>>>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
>>>>>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
>>>>>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
>>>>>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
>>>>>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
>>>>>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
>>>>>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
>>>>>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
>>>>>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
>>>>>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
>>>>>> mathematical universe, being that making advances
>>>>>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
>>>>>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
>>>>>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there
>>>>> are
>>>>> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"
>>>
>>> Oh i see, yous people live in a Mandelbox universe...
>>>
>>>
>>> i wasn't refering to yours 'numbers' universe..
>>>
>>> i was refering to the real universe.
>>>
>>> Einstein said he wasn't sure if the universe is infinite or not..
>>>
>>> but I'm sure the universe is infinite...just not the one you're
>>> in...only it's surrounding universe that yous are expanding in.
>>>
>>>
>>> sorry to bust your bubble.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, there's an idea that one way to conceive
>> the universe, is, as a mathematical continuum, that
>> these days that's what's called "holograph", or "hologram",
>> the idea that one mathematical continuum is big enough
>> to have a number, for each thing, and relation in things.
>>
>> Then these philosophically are called "plastic numbers,
>> metal numbers, concrete numbers".
>>
>> Then, for example, Euclidean space, and, maybe not
>> Minkowski space, have it that there's only a ray
>> of time, or 3 + 1/2, with three space dimensions,
>> rolling and curled up, in the infinities and the
>> infinitesimals, one continuum.
>>
>> It might even be reasonable to explain sort of why
>> there are three dimensions in a mathematical universe
>> of the space-like, simply courtesy properties of numbers,
>> because "least action and a gradient" is about the
>> easiest way to say "it is what it is, and it will
>> be what it will be".
>
>
> I had the idea, that this picture is actually correct and written kind
> of 'book' about this concept.
>
> (you find it here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
> )
>
> The idea is called 'structured spacetime'.
>
> The spacetime of GR is assumed to exist and being a real physical entity.
>
> It is a continuum build from 'pointlike elements'.
>
> These 'elements' are something you may call 'points with features'.
>
> The math behind it is quite unusal, but already known and not
> particularily difficult.
>
> It is so called 'Pauli algebra' applied to so called 'bi-quaternions
> (aka 'complex four-vectors').
>
> ...
>
>
> TH
>



It kind of is, kind of isn't.

A "tetrad" in physics helps fill out complementary duals,
and, their complementary duals, so that notions of

oscillation and restitution
dissipation and attenuation

make for

tendencies and propensities

what's the consistitutive
and reconstitutive and deconstitutive,

why three legs is enough to hold up the table,
then for something on it.

So, tetrads like

proton electron neutron photon,

mass charge light-speed neutron-lifetime

strong+gravity electromagnetic electro-weak optical-weak

help establish usual sorts of setups like field theory,
models of forces, and pretty much for theories where
the potential fields are the real field, for example

3 + 1 dimensions, or 3 + 1/2 "space and a ray of time",

then there's a tetrad

point projection perspective space

as with regards to

point local global total.



Then, this being usually a field theory, there's
that the theory is always "three space dimensions",
and, that being some "real Euclidean space".

People make a lot of the complex, and also the
hyper-complex like geometric algebras, then
there are also approaches like Kodaira and Zariski,
that include without, that the same sorts of setups
of rotations and reflections and analyticity with
respect to a "diagram", have that there are all sorts
of diagrams, considered mathematical models.


Then the idea that there is a numerical resource,
a continuum, that just sort of naturally results
three dimensions and a ray of time, and also then
as with regards to tetrads and information in
the space-time, the "Space-Time", with its contents,
is a thing actually looking to equip a mathematical
model as being a resource and book-kept in this way,
about deriving most of the theory from least,
and that that's a very principled approach.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657618

On 09/28/2024 02:57 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/28/2024 01:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.09.2024 um 22:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>> On 09/26/2024 10:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-
>>>>>>>>>>>> motrix
>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>>>>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not
>>>>>>>>>>> corectly
>>>>>>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>>>>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>>>>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>>>>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia
>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>>>>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since
>>>>>>>>>>>> antiquity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Several times?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>>>>>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>>>>>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>>>>>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>>>>>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>>>>>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>>>>>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>>>>>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>>>>>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>>>>>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>>>>>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>>>>>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>>>>>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>>>>>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the
>>>>>>>>>> "infinitely-many
>>>>>>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>>>>>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>>>>>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>>>>>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>>>>>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-
>>>>>>>>>> potentials,
>>>>>>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain
>>>>>>>>>> laws
>>>>>>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>>>>>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>>>>>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>>>>>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on
>>>>>>>>>> Newton'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-
>>>>>>>>> bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>>>>>>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>>>>>>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>>>>>>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>>>>>>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>>>>>>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>>>>>>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
>>>>>>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>>>>>>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>>>>>>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>>>>>>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>>>>>>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>>>>>>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>>>>>>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>>>>>>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>>>>>>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>>>>>>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>>>>>>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>>>>>>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>>>>>>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>>>>>>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>>>>>>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>>>>>>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>>>>>>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>>>>>>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>>>>>>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>>>>>>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>>>>>>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo-
>>>>>>>>> nouveau.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
>>>>>>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
>>>>>>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
>>>>>>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
>>>>>>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
>>>>>>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
>>>>>>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
>>>>>>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
>>>>>>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
>>>>>>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
>>>>>>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
>>>>>>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
>>>>>>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
>>>>>>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
>>>>>>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
>>>>>>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
>>>>>>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
>>>>>>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
>>>>>>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
>>>>>>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
>>>>>>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
>>>>>>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
>>>>>>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
>>>>>>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
>>>>>>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
>>>>>>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
>>>>>>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
>>>>>>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
>>>>>>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
>>>>>>> mathematical universe, being that making advances
>>>>>>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
>>>>>>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
>>>>>>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"
>>>>
>>>> Oh i see, yous people live in a Mandelbox universe...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i wasn't refering to yours 'numbers' universe..
>>>>
>>>> i was refering to the real universe.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein said he wasn't sure if the universe is infinite or not..
>>>>
>>>> but I'm sure the universe is infinite...just not the one you're
>>>> in...only it's surrounding universe that yous are expanding in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sorry to bust your bubble.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, there's an idea that one way to conceive
>>> the universe, is, as a mathematical continuum, that
>>> these days that's what's called "holograph", or "hologram",
>>> the idea that one mathematical continuum is big enough
>>> to have a number, for each thing, and relation in things.
>>>
>>> Then these philosophically are called "plastic numbers,
>>> metal numbers, concrete numbers".
>>>
>>> Then, for example, Euclidean space, and, maybe not
>>> Minkowski space, have it that there's only a ray
>>> of time, or 3 + 1/2, with three space dimensions,
>>> rolling and curled up, in the infinities and the
>>> infinitesimals, one continuum.
>>>
>>> It might even be reasonable to explain sort of why
>>> there are three dimensions in a mathematical universe
>>> of the space-like, simply courtesy properties of numbers,
>>> because "least action and a gradient" is about the
>>> easiest way to say "it is what it is, and it will
>>> be what it will be".
>>
>>
>> I had the idea, that this picture is actually correct and written kind
>> of 'book' about this concept.
>>
>> (you find it here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> )
>>
>> The idea is called 'structured spacetime'.
>>
>> The spacetime of GR is assumed to exist and being a real physical entity.
>>
>> It is a continuum build from 'pointlike elements'.
>>
>> These 'elements' are something you may call 'points with features'.
>>
>> The math behind it is quite unusal, but already known and not
>> particularily difficult.
>>
>> It is so called 'Pauli algebra' applied to so called 'bi-quaternions
>> (aka 'complex four-vectors').
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> TH
>>
>
>
>
> It kind of is, kind of isn't.
>
> A "tetrad" in physics helps fill out complementary duals,
> and, their complementary duals, so that notions of
>
> oscillation and restitution
> dissipation and attenuation
>
> make for
>
> tendencies and propensities
>
> what's the consistitutive
> and reconstitutive and deconstitutive,
>
> why three legs is enough to hold up the table,
> then for something on it.
>
> So, tetrads like
>
> proton electron neutron photon,
>
> mass charge light-speed neutron-lifetime
>
> strong+gravity electromagnetic electro-weak optical-weak
>
> help establish usual sorts of setups like field theory,
> models of forces, and pretty much for theories where
> the potential fields are the real field, for example
>
> 3 + 1 dimensions, or 3 + 1/2 "space and a ray of time",
>
> then there's a tetrad
>
> point projection perspective space
>
> as with regards to
>
> point local global total.
>
>
>
> Then, this being usually a field theory, there's
> that the theory is always "three space dimensions",
> and, that being some "real Euclidean space".
>
> People make a lot of the complex, and also the
> hyper-complex like geometric algebras, then
> there are also approaches like Kodaira and Zariski,
> that include without, that the same sorts of setups
> of rotations and reflections and analyticity with
> respect to a "diagram", have that there are all sorts
> of diagrams, considered mathematical models.
>
>
> Then the idea that there is a numerical resource,
> a continuum, that just sort of naturally results
> three dimensions and a ray of time, and also then
> as with regards to tetrads and information in
> the space-time, the "Space-Time", with its contents,
> is a thing actually looking to equip a mathematical
> model as being a resource and book-kept in this way,
> about deriving most of the theory from least,
> and that that's a very principled approach.
>
>
>
>

Moment and Motion: ideals and foundation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKgI-mSlPUg

Defining moment and motion, moment as not motion
and motion as not moment, complementary duals and
reflective duality, geometry and lines and points, pencil
and paper, The Philosophers, canon and bibliography,
Aristotle's un-moved mover, principles and cause, the
mediaeval, the Islamic Enlightenment, Avicenna and
Averroes and Maimonides, philosophy and voluntary
submission and monism, Augustine, fuller Aristotleanism,
Aquinas and Duns Scotus and Occam, theology and teleology,
the supreme, primality of causality, Scotus, the catholic church,
the 0-AD world cross-roads, religion and authority, a thorough
technical philosophy, the omnia and universals, the absolute
and relative, Scotus and complementary duals, Scotus and
infinity and deductive completion, limits and the finite,
Scotus and the super-classical, church doctrine, infinitely-many
higher orders of acceleration and Aristotle's un-moved mover,
global theory, Platonism and ideals, ideals and an ideal,
perspective and projection, ideal laws, empirical laws,
ideals and regularities, the ideal of the classical formalism,
abstraction and reduction, ideals and wider ideals,
ideals and controls, laws of emergence extra laws of
convergence, history of technical theory and foundations,
ideals and relativity, absolute and relative in theory,
subjectivity, conscious voluntary submission and
ontological commitment, Scotus and Scotus' logic,
induction and deduction, modality and 'yet', complementary
definition, ruliality and regularity and ideal, truisms when
conflated/confused/confounded, contemplation and
deliberation, universals and absolutes, academy, logicist
positivism, Scotus on the super-natural, absolute natural,
logic and laws, law and logic, hubris and belief, absolutism
and relativity, mechanics as relativistic and Einstein's question
and specific relativity in mechanics and the Mach-ian and ideals,
joining and foundation, ideals and duals, ideal theory and foundations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657620

Am Samstag000028, 28.09.2024 um 23:57 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> On 09/28/2024 01:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.09.2024 um 22:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>> On 09/26/2024 10:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-
>>>>>>>>>>>> motrix
>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>>>>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not
>>>>>>>>>>> corectly
>>>>>>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>>>>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>>>>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>>>>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia 
>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>>>>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since
>>>>>>>>>>>> antiquity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Several times?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>>>>>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>>>>>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>>>>>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>>>>>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>>>>>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>>>>>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>>>>>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>>>>>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>>>>>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>>>>>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>>>>>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>>>>>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>>>>>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely- 
>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>>>>>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>>>>>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>>>>>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>>>>>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-
>>>>>>>>>> potentials,
>>>>>>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain 
>>>>>>>>>> laws
>>>>>>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>>>>>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>>>>>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>>>>>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on 
>>>>>>>>>> Newton'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-
>>>>>>>>> bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>>>>>>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>>>>>>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>>>>>>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>>>>>>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>>>>>>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>>>>>>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large
>>>>>>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>>>>>>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>>>>>>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>>>>>>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>>>>>>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>>>>>>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>>>>>>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>>>>>>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>>>>>>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>>>>>>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>>>>>>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>>>>>>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>>>>>>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>>>>>>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>>>>>>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>>>>>>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>>>>>>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>>>>>>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>>>>>>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>>>>>>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>>>>>>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo-
>>>>>>>>> nouveau.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
>>>>>>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
>>>>>>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
>>>>>>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
>>>>>>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
>>>>>>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
>>>>>>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
>>>>>>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
>>>>>>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
>>>>>>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
>>>>>>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
>>>>>>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
>>>>>>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
>>>>>>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
>>>>>>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
>>>>>>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
>>>>>>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
>>>>>>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
>>>>>>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
>>>>>>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
>>>>>>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
>>>>>>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
>>>>>>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
>>>>>>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
>>>>>>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
>>>>>>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
>>>>>>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
>>>>>>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
>>>>>>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
>>>>>>> mathematical universe, being that making advances
>>>>>>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
>>>>>>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
>>>>>>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"
>>>>
>>>> Oh i see, yous people live in a Mandelbox universe...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i wasn't refering to yours 'numbers' universe..
>>>>
>>>> i was refering to the real universe.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein said he wasn't sure if the universe is infinite or not..
>>>>
>>>> but I'm sure the universe is infinite...just not the one you're
>>>> in...only it's surrounding universe that yous are expanding in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sorry to bust your bubble.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, there's an idea that one way to conceive
>>> the universe, is, as a mathematical continuum, that
>>> these days that's what's called "holograph", or "hologram",
>>> the idea that one mathematical continuum is big enough
>>> to have a number, for each thing, and relation in things.
>>>
>>> Then these philosophically are called "plastic numbers,
>>> metal numbers, concrete numbers".
>>>
>>> Then, for example, Euclidean space, and, maybe not
>>> Minkowski space, have it that there's only a ray
>>> of time, or 3 + 1/2, with three space dimensions,
>>> rolling and curled up, in the infinities and the
>>> infinitesimals, one continuum.
>>>
>>> It might even be reasonable to explain sort of why
>>> there are three dimensions in a mathematical universe
>>> of the space-like, simply courtesy properties of numbers,
>>> because "least action and a gradient" is about the
>>> easiest way to say "it is what it is, and it will
>>> be what it will be".
>>
>>
>> I had the idea, that this picture is actually correct and written kind
>> of 'book' about this concept.
>>
>> (you find it here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/ 
>> d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>> )
>>
>> The idea is called 'structured spacetime'.
>>
>> The spacetime of GR is assumed to exist and being a real physical entity.
>>
>> It is a continuum build from 'pointlike elements'.
>>
>> These 'elements' are something you may call 'points with features'.
>>
>> The math behind it is quite unusal, but already known and not
>> particularily difficult.
>>
>> It is so called 'Pauli algebra' applied to so called 'bi-quaternions
>> (aka 'complex four-vectors').
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> TH
>>
> 
> 
> 
> It kind of is, kind of isn't.
> 
> A "tetrad" in physics helps fill out complementary duals,
> and, their complementary duals, so that notions of
> 
> oscillation and restitution
> dissipation and attenuation
> 
> make for
> 
> tendencies and propensities
> 
> what's the consistitutive
> and reconstitutive and deconstitutive,
> 
> why three legs is enough to hold up the table,
> then for something on it.
> 
> So, tetrads like
> 
> proton electron neutron photon,
> 
> mass charge light-speed neutron-lifetime
> 
> strong+gravity electromagnetic electro-weak optical-weak
> 
> help establish usual sorts of setups like field theory,
> models of forces, and pretty much for theories where
> the potential fields are the real field, for example
> 
> 3 + 1 dimensions, or 3 + 1/2 "space and a ray of time",
> 
> then there's a tetrad
> 
> point projection perspective space
> 
> as with regards to
> 
> point local global total.


We need 'three axes of space and one scalar for time' at a single point 
only.

Moving to another point would require the same stuff, but not the same axes!

Iow: the (imaginary) axis of time does not need to be parallel 
throughout the entire universe!

Actually time MUST be local and measures some sort of rythm of causality.

Other places can have actually other timelines and actually a local 
time, which runs backwards from our perspective.


This is important, because that would allow to understand certain 
behaviours of nature.

This would result in a double tetrahedron, where forward flowing time 
with three real axes and a backwards flow time with the axes of kind of 
world behind the mirror would overlap to a double tetrahedron.

Since we belong to these results, too, we can only live in our own world 
and cannot look behind that mirror.

 From this we have drawn the conclusion, that our own world is all that 
would exist.

But that is just an optical illusion and as wrong as 'flat Earth'.

But we know already, that things can leave our own 'world' and disappear 
into black holes or pop out of nothing in 'white holes'.

> 
> 
> Then, this being usually a field theory, there's
> that the theory is always "three space dimensions",
> and, that being some "real Euclidean space".
> 
> People make a lot of the complex, and also the
> hyper-complex like geometric algebras, then
> there are also approaches like Kodaira and Zariski,
> that include without, that the same sorts of setups
> of rotations and reflections and analyticity with
> respect to a "diagram", have that there are all sorts
> of diagrams, considered mathematical models.
> 


Well, my own guess was a clifford algebra with the name CL_3, also known 
as 'Pauli algebra'.


This uses 'bi-quaternions' and that shall be symbolised by a double 
tetrahedron (because of the eight components of this construct).



> Then the idea that there is a numerical resource,
> a continuum, that just sort of naturally results
> three dimensions and a ray of time, and also then
> as with regards to tetrads and information in
> the space-time, the "Space-Time", with its contents,
> is a thing actually looking to equip a mathematical
> model as being a resource and book-kept in this way,
> about deriving most of the theory from least,
> and that that's a very principled approach.
> 

'Ray of time' is a dangerous concept.

Time is depicted as a ray, but usually time is an imaginary pseudoscalar.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657627

On 09/29/2024 10:20 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Samstag000028, 28.09.2024 um 23:57 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>> On 09/28/2024 01:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.09.2024 um 22:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>> On 09/26/2024 10:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> motrix
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>>>>>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not
>>>>>>>>>>>> corectly
>>>>>>>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>>>>>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>>>>>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>>>>>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest
>>>>>>>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> antiquity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several times?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it
>>>>>>>>>>> were.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>>>>>>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>>>>>>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>>>>>>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>>>>>>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>>>>>>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>>>>>>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>>>>>>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>>>>>>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>>>>>>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>>>>>>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>>>>>>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>>>>>>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>>>>>>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the
>>>>>>>>>>> "infinitely- many
>>>>>>>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>>>>>>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>>>>>>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>>>>>>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>>>>>>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course
>>>>>>>>>>> sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-
>>>>>>>>>>> potentials,
>>>>>>>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain
>>>>>>>>>>> laws
>>>>>>>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>>>>>>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>>>>>>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these
>>>>>>>>>>> projections.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>>>>>>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on
>>>>>>>>>>> Newton'.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-
>>>>>>>>>> bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>>>>>>>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>>>>>>>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>>>>>>>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>>>>>>>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>>>>>>>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>>>>>>>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of
>>>>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>>>>>>>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>>>>>>>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>>>>>>>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>>>>>>>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>>>>>>>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>>>>>>>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>>>>>>>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>>>>>>>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>>>>>>>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>>>>>>>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>>>>>>>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>>>>>>>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>>>>>>>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>>>>>>>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>>>>>>>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>>>>>>>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>>>>>>>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>>>>>>>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>>>>>>>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>>>>>>>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo-
>>>>>>>>>> nouveau.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
>>>>>>>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
>>>>>>>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
>>>>>>>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
>>>>>>>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
>>>>>>>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
>>>>>>>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
>>>>>>>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
>>>>>>>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
>>>>>>>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
>>>>>>>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
>>>>>>>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
>>>>>>>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
>>>>>>>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
>>>>>>>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
>>>>>>>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
>>>>>>>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
>>>>>>>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
>>>>>>>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
>>>>>>>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
>>>>>>>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
>>>>>>>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
>>>>>>>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
>>>>>>>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
>>>>>>>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
>>>>>>>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
>>>>>>>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
>>>>>>>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
>>>>>>>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
>>>>>>>> mathematical universe, being that making advances
>>>>>>>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
>>>>>>>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
>>>>>>>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in
>>>>>>> "infinity'!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh i see, yous people live in a Mandelbox universe...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> i wasn't refering to yours 'numbers' universe..
>>>>>
>>>>> i was refering to the real universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein said he wasn't sure if the universe is infinite or not..
>>>>>
>>>>> but I'm sure the universe is infinite...just not the one you're
>>>>> in...only it's surrounding universe that yous are expanding in.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry to bust your bubble.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, there's an idea that one way to conceive
>>>> the universe, is, as a mathematical continuum, that
>>>> these days that's what's called "holograph", or "hologram",
>>>> the idea that one mathematical continuum is big enough
>>>> to have a number, for each thing, and relation in things.
>>>>
>>>> Then these philosophically are called "plastic numbers,
>>>> metal numbers, concrete numbers".
>>>>
>>>> Then, for example, Euclidean space, and, maybe not
>>>> Minkowski space, have it that there's only a ray
>>>> of time, or 3 + 1/2, with three space dimensions,
>>>> rolling and curled up, in the infinities and the
>>>> infinitesimals, one continuum.
>>>>
>>>> It might even be reasonable to explain sort of why
>>>> there are three dimensions in a mathematical universe
>>>> of the space-like, simply courtesy properties of numbers,
>>>> because "least action and a gradient" is about the
>>>> easiest way to say "it is what it is, and it will
>>>> be what it will be".
>>>
>>>
>>> I had the idea, that this picture is actually correct and written kind
>>> of 'book' about this concept.
>>>
>>> (you find it here:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/
>>> d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>> )
>>>
>>> The idea is called 'structured spacetime'.
>>>
>>> The spacetime of GR is assumed to exist and being a real physical
>>> entity.
>>>
>>> It is a continuum build from 'pointlike elements'.
>>>
>>> These 'elements' are something you may call 'points with features'.
>>>
>>> The math behind it is quite unusal, but already known and not
>>> particularily difficult.
>>>
>>> It is so called 'Pauli algebra' applied to so called 'bi-quaternions
>>> (aka 'complex four-vectors').
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It kind of is, kind of isn't.
>>
>> A "tetrad" in physics helps fill out complementary duals,
>> and, their complementary duals, so that notions of
>>
>> oscillation and restitution
>> dissipation and attenuation
>>
>> make for
>>
>> tendencies and propensities
>>
>> what's the consistitutive
>> and reconstitutive and deconstitutive,
>>
>> why three legs is enough to hold up the table,
>> then for something on it.
>>
>> So, tetrads like
>>
>> proton electron neutron photon,
>>
>> mass charge light-speed neutron-lifetime
>>
>> strong+gravity electromagnetic electro-weak optical-weak
>>
>> help establish usual sorts of setups like field theory,
>> models of forces, and pretty much for theories where
>> the potential fields are the real field, for example
>>
>> 3 + 1 dimensions, or 3 + 1/2 "space and a ray of time",
>>
>> then there's a tetrad
>>
>> point projection perspective space
>>
>> as with regards to
>>
>> point local global total.
>
>
> We need 'three axes of space and one scalar for time' at a single point
> only.
>
> Moving to another point would require the same stuff, but not the same
> axes!
>
> Iow: the (imaginary) axis of time does not need to be parallel
> throughout the entire universe!
>
> Actually time MUST be local and measures some sort of rythm of causality.
>
> Other places can have actually other timelines and actually a local
> time, which runs backwards from our perspective.
>
>
> This is important, because that would allow to understand certain
> behaviours of nature.
>
> This would result in a double tetrahedron, where forward flowing time
> with three real axes and a backwards flow time with the axes of kind of
> world behind the mirror would overlap to a double tetrahedron.
>
> Since we belong to these results, too, we can only live in our own world
> and cannot look behind that mirror.
>
>  From this we have drawn the conclusion, that our own world is all that
> would exist.
>
> But that is just an optical illusion and as wrong as 'flat Earth'.
>
> But we know already, that things can leave our own 'world' and disappear
> into black holes or pop out of nothing in 'white holes'.
>
>>
>>
>> Then, this being usually a field theory, there's
>> that the theory is always "three space dimensions",
>> and, that being some "real Euclidean space".
>>
>> People make a lot of the complex, and also the
>> hyper-complex like geometric algebras, then
>> there are also approaches like Kodaira and Zariski,
>> that include without, that the same sorts of setups
>> of rotations and reflections and analyticity with
>> respect to a "diagram", have that there are all sorts
>> of diagrams, considered mathematical models.
>>
>
>
> Well, my own guess was a clifford algebra with the name CL_3, also known
> as 'Pauli algebra'.
>
>
> This uses 'bi-quaternions' and that shall be symbolised by a double
> tetrahedron (because of the eight components of this construct).
>
>
>
>> Then the idea that there is a numerical resource,
>> a continuum, that just sort of naturally results
>> three dimensions and a ray of time, and also then
>> as with regards to tetrads and information in
>> the space-time, the "Space-Time", with its contents,
>> is a thing actually looking to equip a mathematical
>> model as being a resource and book-kept in this way,
>> about deriving most of the theory from least,
>> and that that's a very principled approach.
>>
>
> 'Ray of time' is a dangerous concept.
>
> Time is depicted as a ray, but usually time is an imaginary pseudoscalar.
>
> TH
>

It's matters of perspective and projection.

The "time parity" has never been falsified in physics,
so there's never any real "negative time" in physics
as a quantity, so, it's considered a real quantity.
When the perspective/projection is unduly rigid instead
of optical, geometric instead of optical, then it lets out,
yet, that is a limitation of the mathematical model not
an ever falsified aspect of the physical model.


It's interesting, though, I encourage you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657636

Am Montag000030, 30.09.2024 um 20:55 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> On 09/29/2024 10:20 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Samstag000028, 28.09.2024 um 23:57 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>> On 09/28/2024 01:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.09.2024 um 22:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>>> On 09/26/2024 10:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motrix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> corectly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> antiquity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several times?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it
>>>>>>>>>>>> were.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory
>>>>>>>>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical
>>>>>>>>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or
>>>>>>>>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and
>>>>>>>>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion
>>>>>>>>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to
>>>>>>>>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each
>>>>>>>>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism
>>>>>>>>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into
>>>>>>>>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "infinitely- many
>>>>>>>>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second
>>>>>>>>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative
>>>>>>>>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course
>>>>>>>>>>>> sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of-
>>>>>>>>>>>> potentials,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain
>>>>>>>>>>>> laws
>>>>>>>>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety
>>>>>>>>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or
>>>>>>>>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these
>>>>>>>>>>>> projections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times",
>>>>>>>>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Newton'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh-
>>>>>>>>>>> bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories
>>>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia
>>>>>>>>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics,
>>>>>>>>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum,
>>>>>>>>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2,
>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses,
>>>>>>>>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum
>>>>>>>>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of
>>>>>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>>>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations,
>>>>>>>>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later
>>>>>>>>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity,
>>>>>>>>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits,
>>>>>>>>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight
>>>>>>>>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and
>>>>>>>>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between
>>>>>>>>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and
>>>>>>>>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens,
>>>>>>>>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors,
>>>>>>>>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices,
>>>>>>>>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both
>>>>>>>>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange,
>>>>>>>>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss
>>>>>>>>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes
>>>>>>>>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical
>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real,
>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and
>>>>>>>>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles,
>>>>>>>>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo-
>>>>>>>>>>> nouveau.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or
>>>>>>>>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral"
>>>>>>>>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity,
>>>>>>>>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of
>>>>>>>>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the
>>>>>>>>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein,
>>>>>>>>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes
>>>>>>>>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the
>>>>>>>>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round,
>>>>>>>>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of
>>>>>>>>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe
>>>>>>>>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as
>>>>>>>>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
>>>>>>>>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the
>>>>>>>>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and,
>>>>>>>>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very
>>>>>>>>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model,
>>>>>>>>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are
>>>>>>>>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher
>>>>>>>>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory,
>>>>>>>>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being
>>>>>>>>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian,
>>>>>>>>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to
>>>>>>>>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better
>>>>>>>>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics.
>>>>>>>>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion
>>>>>>>>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above
>>>>>>>>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards
>>>>>>>>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's
>>>>>>>>> mathematical universe, being that making advances
>>>>>>>>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting
>>>>>>>>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction",
>>>>>>>>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"????
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in
>>>>>>>> "infinity'!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh i see, yous people live in a Mandelbox universe...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i wasn't refering to yours 'numbers' universe..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i was refering to the real universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein said he wasn't sure if the universe is infinite or not..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but I'm sure the universe is infinite...just not the one you're
>>>>>> in...only it's surrounding universe that yous are expanding in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sorry to bust your bubble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, there's an idea that one way to conceive
>>>>> the universe, is, as a mathematical continuum, that
>>>>> these days that's what's called "holograph", or "hologram",
>>>>> the idea that one mathematical continuum is big enough
>>>>> to have a number, for each thing, and relation in things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then these philosophically are called "plastic numbers,
>>>>> metal numbers, concrete numbers".
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, for example, Euclidean space, and, maybe not
>>>>> Minkowski space, have it that there's only a ray
>>>>> of time, or 3 + 1/2, with three space dimensions,
>>>>> rolling and curled up, in the infinities and the
>>>>> infinitesimals, one continuum.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might even be reasonable to explain sort of why
>>>>> there are three dimensions in a mathematical universe
>>>>> of the space-like, simply courtesy properties of numbers,
>>>>> because "least action and a gradient" is about the
>>>>> easiest way to say "it is what it is, and it will
>>>>> be what it will be".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had the idea, that this picture is actually correct and written kind
>>>> of 'book' about this concept.
>>>>
>>>> (you find it here:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/
>>>> d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> )
>>>>
>>>> The idea is called 'structured spacetime'.
>>>>
>>>> The spacetime of GR is assumed to exist and being a real physical
>>>> entity.
>>>>
>>>> It is a continuum build from 'pointlike elements'.
>>>>
>>>> These 'elements' are something you may call 'points with features'.
>>>>
>>>> The math behind it is quite unusal, but already known and not
>>>> particularily difficult.
>>>>
>>>> It is so called 'Pauli algebra' applied to so called 'bi-quaternions
>>>> (aka 'complex four-vectors').
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It kind of is, kind of isn't.
>>>
>>> A "tetrad" in physics helps fill out complementary duals,
>>> and, their complementary duals, so that notions of
>>>
>>> oscillation and restitution
>>> dissipation and attenuation
>>>
>>> make for
>>>
>>> tendencies and propensities
>>>
>>> what's the consistitutive
>>> and reconstitutive and deconstitutive,
>>>
>>> why three legs is enough to hold up the table,
>>> then for something on it.
>>>
>>> So, tetrads like
>>>
>>> proton electron neutron photon,
>>>
>>> mass charge light-speed neutron-lifetime
>>>
>>> strong+gravity electromagnetic electro-weak optical-weak
>>>
>>> help establish usual sorts of setups like field theory,
>>> models of forces, and pretty much for theories where
>>> the potential fields are the real field, for example
>>>
>>> 3 + 1 dimensions, or 3 + 1/2 "space and a ray of time",
>>>
>>> then there's a tetrad
>>>
>>> point projection perspective space
>>>
>>> as with regards to
>>>
>>> point local global total.
>>
>>
>> We need 'three axes of space and one scalar for time' at a single point
>> only.
>>
>> Moving to another point would require the same stuff, but not the same
>> axes!
>>
>> Iow: the (imaginary) axis of time does not need to be parallel
>> throughout the entire universe!
>>
>> Actually time MUST be local and measures some sort of rythm of causality.
>>
>> Other places can have actually other timelines and actually a local
>> time, which runs backwards from our perspective.
>>
>>
>> This is important, because that would allow to understand certain
>> behaviours of nature.
>>
>> This would result in a double tetrahedron, where forward flowing time
>> with three real axes and a backwards flow time with the axes of kind of
>> world behind the mirror would overlap to a double tetrahedron.
>>
>> Since we belong to these results, too, we can only live in our own world
>> and cannot look behind that mirror.
>>
>>  From this we have drawn the conclusion, that our own world is all that
>> would exist.
>>
>> But that is just an optical illusion and as wrong as 'flat Earth'.
>>
>> But we know already, that things can leave our own 'world' and disappear
>> into black holes or pop out of nothing in 'white holes'.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then, this being usually a field theory, there's
>>> that the theory is always "three space dimensions",
>>> and, that being some "real Euclidean space".
>>>
>>> People make a lot of the complex, and also the
>>> hyper-complex like geometric algebras, then
>>> there are also approaches like Kodaira and Zariski,
>>> that include without, that the same sorts of setups
>>> of rotations and reflections and analyticity with
>>> respect to a "diagram", have that there are all sorts
>>> of diagrams, considered mathematical models.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, my own guess was a clifford algebra with the name CL_3, also known
>> as 'Pauli algebra'.
>>
>>
>> This uses 'bi-quaternions' and that shall be symbolised by a double
>> tetrahedron (because of the eight components of this construct).
>>
>>
>>
>>> Then the idea that there is a numerical resource,
>>> a continuum, that just sort of naturally results
>>> three dimensions and a ray of time, and also then
>>> as with regards to tetrads and information in
>>> the space-time, the "Space-Time", with its contents,
>>> is a thing actually looking to equip a mathematical
>>> model as being a resource and book-kept in this way,
>>> about deriving most of the theory from least,
>>> and that that's a very principled approach.
>>>
>>
>> 'Ray of time' is a dangerous concept.
>>
>> Time is depicted as a ray, but usually time is an imaginary pseudoscalar.
>>
>> TH
>>
> 
> It's matters of perspective and projection.
> 
> The "time parity" has never been falsified in physics,
> so there's never any real "negative time" in physics
> as a quantity, so, it's considered a real quantity.
> When the perspective/projection is unduly rigid instead
> of optical, geometric instead of optical, then it lets out,
> yet, that is a limitation of the mathematical model not
> an ever falsified aspect of the physical model.

'negative time' is impossible.

You need to treet time 'relative'.

This means:
time is positive everywhere

Where clocks tick at the same rate and you are able to use the same kind 
of clocks, that is what I call 'time domain'.

This is on planet Earth a spherical shell around the planet of equal hight.

this is the set of points, sharing the same (positive!) time.

Now other time domains may exist, where time there is locally positive, 
while in our view negative.

This is possible, because the very word 'negative' makes sense only for 
us as remote observers, while locally time must be positive.

Besides of this, we have the effects of 'anti-symmetry' of spacetime.

This causes a 'mirror world', which exists invisble 'behind the mirror'.

There time runs backwards from our perspective as well as our time there.

This is similar to a Moebius strip, which has only one side, but with 
two directions pointing 'up' locally.


TH


> 
> It's interesting, though, I encourage you.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web