On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 8:23:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:42:56 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > > > Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
> > > > > If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
> > > > > relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be.. Since
> > > > > in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
> > > > > relativity tells us all that we can know.
> > > >
> > > > Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say:
> > > > https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measu
> > > rement.pdf
> > > >
> > > > I can't decipher it.
> > > In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > You know, Bohm and de Broglie's interpretation of "real wave function" has really
> > seen quite a revival and what was these days all "Multiple-Worlds" and "all stochastic"
> > looks more like "mechanism results observed stochastic, though, also there's some
> > input of extra what were hidden variables or parameters that result anything called
> > non-local, entangled, or after resonance/wave duality above particle/wave duality".
> >
> > "Multiple-Worlds" is like "Dark Matter": a popular, widely received theory in a specialized
> > sub-field of physics that's has no observables, offers no mechanism, and is unscientific.
> >
> > Then these days "resonance theory" and "MOND" and such, though I'm for fall gravity,
> > offer observables and mechanisms to replace such what were popular if useless notions.
> >
> > In other news James Webb Space Telescope more firmly paint-canned to round-file the
> > inflationary cosmology, which though has been coming a long time, since CMBR and 2MASS
> > and such, and the sky survey having a bit more context than 19 plates exposed in Egypt.
> One of the most striking results of quark physics is "asymptotic freedom", that, the center
> of the nucleus, isn't asymptotically bound, but asymptotically free. It belies all finite inputs,
> but it's like a total fall-gravity adds up to it, the strong nuclear force, so making it simple
> that gravity's a force again in quantum theory and quantum field theory.
>
> In mathematics the study of "symmetry flex" is also called "quasi-invariant measure theory".
> Also it's called continuity laws and as a superset of conservation laws, and physics is an open system.
>
> The idea of a unified field theory, is that they all share one space-time, the fields of the forces,
> for basically the kinetic and charge and the radiant nuclear, that these days its strong nuclear
> for the kinetic, charge, then weak for strong nuclear and electroweak for charge, for radiant nuclear.
>
> In this way the force carriers among this sort of tripos exchange in the field that are really potential fields,
> making for a neat descriptive framework of all the things, for a "grand unified theory" that's a
> "unified field theory" that's a "gauge theory" that's a "quantum mechanics" and it's a "continuum mechanics".
>
> This is that the kinetic and charge exchange in the magnetic, and light and the radiant nuclear are the
> other side, about a deconstructive account of things like the optoelectronic effects, in terms of energy,
> what are otherwise exchanges, helping explain state and change, about a theory.
>
> In the quark and gluon physics, which according to experimental physics are a watch's guts,
> asymptotic freedom is like the cosmological constant and mass-energy equivalence in the rotational,
> one of the great things to know.
>
> If you're into that, ....

Ah, it's like the fall gravity point, is the asymptotic freedom,
the other fall gravity point, occluding it in the universe,
its pressure term, eclipsing it.

Here it's now "impulse pressure" as a mathematical object,
one infinity long ray or spike area one called Dirac impulse amount,
in the vertical, and a unit area also one bead, opposite it the origin:
the linear and pressure term, the constants for fall terms,
it's not those under pressure.

"Eclipse darts: like jet bundles also droplets".

Does it have have vectors and arrows? Yes, it is vectors and arrows,
and complementing angle and the bivector with two arrows and double arrow,
the area one together in pressure, pressure sort unit.

Here "the sort" is "the gradient", for example, there is one.

I.e. "momentum and the true centrifugal: is free and at peace".

"Free: as if frozen in a moment of time. At peace: stateful."

"Least action: fall gravity."

The idea that these are the terms gets into the states of matter,
solids and liquids and gases, airs, airs and mixtures of airs, water,
the ground, "the states of matter", Einstein has it as "a large differential
system, differential meaning moving together in time, free and at peace".

Then he says "and inertial systems are in effect in units in time, kinetic"..

Not that I would make him say so - if I could beat him to it.

I.e. he could be "well obviously that fully included in the entire intent of
what I said".

I could smile at that, what is there to do but smile. I rely on Einstein completely
and bring him, though I say only exactly what he says and where.

So, with that for example any Einstein's spin foam, kinetic, then, the Einstein synchronizing,
is in effect in moving terms and in meeting terms. The disastrous failure effects but rather
the notion in upping the ceiling, the only reason spin foam is there is to wash all the way down,
Einstein's could be like "and my entire Dirac positronic sea that Dirac says, and spin foam,
come out as positronic sea and what must be in flow, whether internally there is more
the only less isotonic spin flow: that 'the spin flow's the outside flow, but it's only the
least draft, as what the draft indicates a head, of what could be air, that if it flows all
the way away, it obviously flows, Einstein's's "old quantum mechanics or new", Einstein's
along, "SR or GR".

So, tiny flow draft bundle, and, "the most usual notion of a push gravity, that the outside
universe on the outside of a body, equips the mechanism of force of pull gravity, that
is according to "mutual attraction and gravitation", that massy bodies according to
the theory exactly associate according to large inverse square, as what gravity is
the overall flow of orbits in weightless environments, which is according to "the Geodesy".

(The Geodesy is the world project that went around the world and established the variation,
in the location, of gravity's constant, the geodetic survey or the reference of the world,
at about pretty big distances or "an average of gravity over the Earth", they actually went
out I think and sort of surveyed must have had some "geodetic survey", it's effectively
that there's g and 9.8 meters per second then there's constant g under the square
root of that, measured, it was found to vary only in about the last few units, or
9. dot dot to 9. dot dot, mostly the same but up and down in hundredths and tenths,
gives a constant to the "outside flow", this spin foam in quantum gravity, which in
effect leaves bodies internally weightless.)

Einstein's as "spin foam? Sure, why no spin foam or spin foam, it's the same to my
kinetic or rather inertial systems it rinses the spin foam as gravity is the law. Yes
it's same as any other flow gradient out terms."

I.e., the rest of science is "not Einstein's", "Am I in a fishbowl, this is my bird cage."

It's like "Einstein, at the end of all your theory, I got a picture", then he's like
"it's your picture".

Similarly Einstein could be like "you know I only have two definitions and one of
them is kinetic, anything we both know doesn't apply doesn't apply, I could be
lying if I said I never said the other way - of course as you would know that yourself.

And thusly "Einstein: "SR _or_ GR".

Here it's GR, then SR.

But, here just means from the source, of what to SR is the image, the picture.

Which is also what it looks like, and seeing it.

The light's are out in GR: and really are out, that absorbance, of light,
must be under "sustained exposure".

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 3:52:43 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 8:23:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:42:56 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > > > > Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
> > > > > > If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
> > > > > > relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
> > > > > > in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
> > > > > > relativity tells us all that we can know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say:
> > > > > https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measu
> > > > rement.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't decipher it.
> > > > In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > You know, Bohm and de Broglie's interpretation of "real wave function" has really
> > > seen quite a revival and what was these days all "Multiple-Worlds" and "all stochastic"
> > > looks more like "mechanism results observed stochastic, though, also there's some
> > > input of extra what were hidden variables or parameters that result anything called
> > > non-local, entangled, or after resonance/wave duality above particle/wave duality".
> > >
> > > "Multiple-Worlds" is like "Dark Matter": a popular, widely received theory in a specialized
> > > sub-field of physics that's has no observables, offers no mechanism, and is unscientific.
> > >
> > > Then these days "resonance theory" and "MOND" and such, though I'm for fall gravity,
> > > offer observables and mechanisms to replace such what were popular if useless notions.
> > >
> > > In other news James Webb Space Telescope more firmly paint-canned to round-file the
> > > inflationary cosmology, which though has been coming a long time, since CMBR and 2MASS
> > > and such, and the sky survey having a bit more context than 19 plates exposed in Egypt.
> > One of the most striking results of quark physics is "asymptotic freedom", that, the center
> > of the nucleus, isn't asymptotically bound, but asymptotically free. It belies all finite inputs,
> > but it's like a total fall-gravity adds up to it, the strong nuclear force, so making it simple
> > that gravity's a force again in quantum theory and quantum field theory..
> >
> > In mathematics the study of "symmetry flex" is also called "quasi-invariant measure theory".
> > Also it's called continuity laws and as a superset of conservation laws, and physics is an open system.
> >
> > The idea of a unified field theory, is that they all share one space-time, the fields of the forces,
> > for basically the kinetic and charge and the radiant nuclear, that these days its strong nuclear
> > for the kinetic, charge, then weak for strong nuclear and electroweak for charge, for radiant nuclear.
> >
> > In this way the force carriers among this sort of tripos exchange in the field that are really potential fields,
> > making for a neat descriptive framework of all the things, for a "grand unified theory" that's a
> > "unified field theory" that's a "gauge theory" that's a "quantum mechanics" and it's a "continuum mechanics".
> >
> > This is that the kinetic and charge exchange in the magnetic, and light and the radiant nuclear are the
> > other side, about a deconstructive account of things like the optoelectronic effects, in terms of energy,
> > what are otherwise exchanges, helping explain state and change, about a theory.
> >
> > In the quark and gluon physics, which according to experimental physics are a watch's guts,
> > asymptotic freedom is like the cosmological constant and mass-energy equivalence in the rotational,
> > one of the great things to know.
> >
> > If you're into that, ....
>
>
>
>
> Ah, it's like the fall gravity point, is the asymptotic freedom,
> the other fall gravity point, occluding it in the universe,
> its pressure term, eclipsing it.
>
> Here it's now "impulse pressure" as a mathematical object,
> one infinity long ray or spike area one called Dirac impulse amount,
> in the vertical, and a unit area also one bead, opposite it the origin:
> the linear and pressure term, the constants for fall terms,
> it's not those under pressure.
>
> "Eclipse darts: like jet bundles also droplets".
>
> Does it have have vectors and arrows? Yes, it is vectors and arrows,
> and complementing angle and the bivector with two arrows and double arrow,
> the area one together in pressure, pressure sort unit.
>
> Here "the sort" is "the gradient", for example, there is one.
>
> I.e. "momentum and the true centrifugal: is free and at peace".
>
> "Free: as if frozen in a moment of time. At peace: stateful."
>
> "Least action: fall gravity."
>
> The idea that these are the terms gets into the states of matter,
> solids and liquids and gases, airs, airs and mixtures of airs, water,
> the ground, "the states of matter", Einstein has it as "a large differential
> system, differential meaning moving together in time, free and at peace".
>
> Then he says "and inertial systems are in effect in units in time, kinetic".
>
> Not that I would make him say so - if I could beat him to it.
>
> I.e. he could be "well obviously that fully included in the entire intent of
> what I said".
>
> I could smile at that, what is there to do but smile. I rely on Einstein completely
> and bring him, though I say only exactly what he says and where.
>
> So, with that for example any Einstein's spin foam, kinetic, then, the Einstein synchronizing,
> is in effect in moving terms and in meeting terms. The disastrous failure effects but rather
> the notion in upping the ceiling, the only reason spin foam is there is to wash all the way down,
> Einstein's could be like "and my entire Dirac positronic sea that Dirac says, and spin foam,
> come out as positronic sea and what must be in flow, whether internally there is more
> the only less isotonic spin flow: that 'the spin flow's the outside flow, but it's only the
> least draft, as what the draft indicates a head, of what could be air, that if it flows all
> the way away, it obviously flows, Einstein's's "old quantum mechanics or new", Einstein's
> along, "SR or GR".
>
> So, tiny flow draft bundle, and, "the most usual notion of a push gravity, that the outside
> universe on the outside of a body, equips the mechanism of force of pull gravity, that
> is according to "mutual attraction and gravitation", that massy bodies according to
> the theory exactly associate according to large inverse square, as what gravity is
> the overall flow of orbits in weightless environments, which is according to "the Geodesy".
>
> (The Geodesy is the world project that went around the world and established the variation,
> in the location, of gravity's constant, the geodetic survey or the reference of the world,
> at about pretty big distances or "an average of gravity over the Earth", they actually went
> out I think and sort of surveyed must have had some "geodetic survey", it's effectively
> that there's g and 9.8 meters per second then there's constant g under the square
> root of that, measured, it was found to vary only in about the last few units, or
> 9. dot dot to 9. dot dot, mostly the same but up and down in hundredths and tenths,
> gives a constant to the "outside flow", this spin foam in quantum gravity, which in
> effect leaves bodies internally weightless.)
>
> Einstein's as "spin foam? Sure, why no spin foam or spin foam, it's the same to my
> kinetic or rather inertial systems it rinses the spin foam as gravity is the law. Yes
> it's same as any other flow gradient out terms."
>
> I.e., the rest of science is "not Einstein's", "Am I in a fishbowl, this is my bird cage."
>
> It's like "Einstein, at the end of all your theory, I got a picture", then he's like
> "it's your picture".
>
> Similarly Einstein could be like "you know I only have two definitions and one of
> them is kinetic, anything we both know doesn't apply doesn't apply, I could be
> lying if I said I never said the other way - of course as you would know that yourself.
>
> And thusly "Einstein: "SR _or_ GR".
>
> Here it's GR, then SR.
>
> But, here just means from the source, of what to SR is the image, the picture.
>
> Which is also what it looks like, and seeing it.
>
> The light's are out in GR: and really are out, that absorbance, of light,
> must be under "sustained exposure".
>
> This is not say much "rays" as "a ray, a beam, rays".
>
> Light-like, ....
>
> And Einstein's as "see, light speed", while at the same time, as it absorbs,
> is continued reflection, what absorbed, in the cloud.
>
> Einstein: "What's your theorem?" "Just remove my name, it's their theorem.."
>
> See, when Einstein's theories, become theory, besides his theory, is the
> theories together, and extended, and theories besides each other, like
> SR and GR, where "SR is light-like at all because it's the constant", and
> GR is "this is a kinetic world for example electrodifferential", for example
> a large wheel built into a mountain and using lightning to spin it around..
>
> So, now it: "Einstein: Einstein's theories: Special Relativity, light speed is
> constant, General Relativity: inertial systems are massy bodies, either or
> both, together my way, Maxwell from rest also at c, in a perfect conductor".
>
> I think if Einstein was alive today, he'd say "what's that tremendous noise".
>
> Then at night image, "the sky is entirely filled with satellites and the city light
> leaves no stars", Einstein today, "My God cars are giant in the future."
>
> "How's my theory doing?" -- what I like to imagine Einstein would say,
> if I hope a robot sort of Einstein, which I do not, except "Einstein,
> Einstein's theories, dot dot dot".
>
> I mean in all good faith he has "those are exactly the terms", that
> images pass at passing distance and looks pass at looking distance.
>
> I.e., images pass at 120, look passes at 60, two-way 60, miles per hours,
> any two trains or two cars passing two-way, passing, each at 60.
>
> Then, to catch up to a train, or pass the coffee from one train to
> the other train, is that the train's do not meet at all, they pass,
> or would theoretically compress them to their mirror image,
> it's the usual mode of civic cooperation the utter importance of
> going opposite ways in the same way, not looking at the pass
> but with the eyes on the road.
>
> Still, taking the pass, involves only taking a look, then a look
> over a limited moment or a snapshot, "passing at 60 miles per hour",
> about how to pass a cup of coffee, or tea, from the train going one-way
> to the train going the other way.
>
> The idea is that the transfer happens as close to the front as possible,
> reaching for the look, the automatic waiter is standing exactly where there will
> pass or meet, that of course despite how fast the actual pass is,
> theoretically the automatic waiter has time whle everything else on
> the car is frozen in time, passing, as they fully pass each other,
> obviously symmetrical throughout, identical train cars, as if both
> were at the station, only one instant for the duration of "slowly passing",
> which of course is length over 120, miles per hour.
>
> I.e., passing in opposite direction, they are already miles apart,
> looking back.
>
> Of course, it's never actually frozen in time unless the direction or
> passage of cars, are going same or different direction, how they
> catch up and slow down. No active control look, here is that the
> information from the look, is directly connected to all the terms
> of the steer, according to that "any coffee cup so passed would
> get a 120 MPH acceleration", with acceleration spread out in the
> abstract time.
>
> Then, this is a usual brief second or "0.2, about a fifth of a second,
> or a tenth, look time, where 2 is reaction time", that is whether longer
> or shorter looks, affect reactions, what be the reactions as "steer" and
> "stop". That is, the information, according to the time, has that
> "5 mph could pass the cup, maybe not 10 mph".
>
> Or "everybody stops at the window."
>
>
> There is a general idea though that you can get on the train,
> accelerate with the train, then walk into the car, and get the
> cup of coffee, and get off when it stops, that getting on and
> getting off, the train, is defined as an entire train car or any two
> cars or carriers, is that objects that accelerate together rest
> together. (And decelerate, rest together, falling in orbit together,
> parting and meeting, rest together. Meeting in passing,
>
> I.e., two twins that pass each other regularly, also come to
> rest, that combined acceleration and rest accumulates.
>
> If they stop, ....
>
> And when!
>
> I know I can make pressure in radio space with an antenna in a vacuum, .....
>
> (It directly attenuates in the air.)
>
> These days it's called current.
>
>
>
>
> "Time is always stopped. And then it goes...."
>
> Time only slows, ..., and then it goes.
>
> Time always stops when any two objects pass.
>
> Once!
>
>
>
> Then, information seems in looks, where looks are directional.
>
> "Sensory information."
>
>
> So, Einstein and twin primes is we are all twin primes of course, and work out in effect whether elapsed
> that the twin prime of the planets have not so much necessarily things could go so fast to change the times,
> as that there are times that are very very very long ago.
>
> In SR acceleration it's that "SR's acceleration potential is zero".
>
> It's kinetic, when kinetic is inertial, ..., that though can also be added, in the sense of that
> "objects in GR are free if they don't emit", putting objects into the theory "yes these are
> GR's objects, I expect same when the light's on", in fact you can compute them, about,
> while also my SR interpretation has potential-free imaging, free of potentials or as the
> all classical, indeed to the limits of the theory.
>
>
> The difference between running it and having one? A routine?
>
> So, the reason why I offer this, and it's varied: here is that "objects that accelerate together
> are in time together".
>
>
>
> "Fall gravity: free weightless environment."