One thing I've been trying to figure out is
"the infinite higher-orders of acceleration".

This is where for example that classically
there's that "rest is rest and motion is motion",
and it's that v is dp/dt, rest 0 and motion non-zero,
it's meters/second, and in seconds/meter, it's
that motion is non-zero and rest is infinity.

So I'm wondering about v', v'', v''', that being
acceleration and its higher orders, out to v^prime-infty,
that at an instant, help figure this out.

What I have in mind is an idea of a "stop-derivative",
basically to reflect m/s and s/m, time-to-motion
and distance-to-rest, for linear inputs, about that
the derivatives of the powers on down as C^infinty
the continuous functions differentiable come down
to zero, while integrating the negative powers,
comes up, but not to zero, sort of what results 0/1,
vis-a-vis, 1/0, the differences to target rest and target
motion.

Acceleration, deceleration, time-to-motion time-to-rest,
distance-to-motion distance-to-rest, the difference
between rest and motion is rather underdefined.

What mathematics addresses all the infinite higher
or respectively lower orders?

How might you suggest to think about this?

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> One thing I've been trying to figure out is "the infinite higher-orders
> of acceleration".
> This is where for example that classically there's that "rest is rest
> and motion is motion", and it's that v is dp/dt, rest 0 and motion
> non-zero, it's meters/second, and in seconds/meter, it's that motion is
> non-zero and rest is infinity.

this relativity is nonsense. You cannot make the infinity dividing by
zero. That's an error, which is more than mistake.

https://t%68%65%70eopl%65%73%76oice.tv/

𝗠𝗧𝗚_𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗨𝗞_𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝘁𝗼_‘𝗙***_𝗢𝗳𝗳’
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene had a couple of words for a British podcast
host thisweek who was trying to smear MAGA by aligning Donald Trump with
conspiracy theorists. MTG slapped down the former BBC reporter […]

𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀_𝗨𝗽_𝗧𝗼_3_𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗜𝗻_𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗙𝗼𝗿_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰_𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺
A Spanish priest is facing up to three years in jail on hate crime charges
for an article he wrote nearly eight years ago that criticized Islam.
Father Custodio Ballester and two other individuals received […]

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗠𝗣_𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗧𝗼_𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄
The deputy chairman of the German parliament’s oversight committee
Roderich Kiesewetter believes that Ukraine should start attacking targets
inside Russia. According to the German MP, Russia’s Ministry of Defense
building or the HQ of the […]

𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗧𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗦_𝗔𝗿𝗺𝘆’𝘀_𝗕𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁_𝗧𝗼_𝗔𝗶𝗱_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
US president Joe Biden is reportedly looking for alternative ways to fund
Ukraine as his foreign aid bill remains stalled in Congress. According to
a report this week by Bloomberg, the US government is considering […]

𝗙𝗼𝘅_𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀_𝗝𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗗𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗯𝗼_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗩𝗔𝗜𝗗𝗦_𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗺𝗥𝗡𝗔_𝗝𝗮𝗯
Fox News journalist Ashley Papa has been diagnosed with turbo cancer and
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS) after being forced to take the
mRNA vaccine by her employer. The respected journalist and mother of one
said […]

9_𝗖𝗗𝗖_𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁_𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗛𝘂𝗴𝗲_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝘀_𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗕𝗶𝗴_𝗣𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗮_𝗧𝗼_𝗣𝘂𝘀𝗵_𝗺𝗥𝗡𝗔_𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀
Nine new members appointed to the committee that advises the CDC on
vaccine recommendations have taken huge bribes from Big Pharma companies
to push the deadly mRNA vaccines, according to a new investigation. The
U.S. […]

𝗗𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘀_𝗖𝗼𝘄𝗯𝗼𝘆𝘀_𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿-𝗥𝗼𝗻_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗲𝘆_𝗦𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗙𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲_𝗗𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗺𝗥𝗡𝗔_𝗕𝗼𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿
Former Cowboys lineman and Florida State national champion Char-Ron Dorsey
died Monday following a massive stroke, just days after receiving the mRNA
booster. “Just at a loss for words thinking about my brother,” said Terry
[…]

On 03/07/2024 10:21 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>
> One thing I've been trying to figure out is
> "the infinite higher-orders of acceleration".
>
> This is where for example that classically
> there's that "rest is rest and motion is motion",
> and it's that v is dp/dt, rest 0 and motion non-zero,
> it's meters/second, and in seconds/meter, it's
> that motion is non-zero and rest is infinity.
>
> So I'm wondering about v', v'', v''', that being
> acceleration and its higher orders, out to v^prime-infty,
> that at an instant, help figure this out.
>
>
> What I have in mind is an idea of a "stop-derivative",
> basically to reflect m/s and s/m, time-to-motion
> and distance-to-rest, for linear inputs, about that
> the derivatives of the powers on down as C^infinty
> the continuous functions differentiable come down
> to zero, while integrating the negative powers,
> comes up, but not to zero, sort of what results 0/1,
> vis-a-vis, 1/0, the differences to target rest and target
> motion.
>
> Acceleration, deceleration, time-to-motion time-to-rest,
> distance-to-motion distance-to-rest, the difference
> between rest and motion is rather underdefined.
>
> What mathematics addresses all the infinite higher
> or respectively lower orders?
>
> How might you suggest to think about this?
>

Of course this is "there goes old Zeno again ...".

There's "infinite-derivative gravity" an idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_derivative_gravity

The basic ideas seems about "singularities", where a
singularity is a singular type of a singular type,
where a singular type is like a singular point, where
a singular point, is often either a branch or a span,
the branch as a bifurcation, or a span as a contraction.

So, "singularity theory", is as much, "multiplicity theory",
vis-a-vis "absolute singularities", which result, then,
that the classical and linear, has its issues with the
singularities that are asymptotes, un-touched, and the
singularities that are origins, the source.

Then, the higher orders of acceleration, have that
there are infinitely-many or unboundedly-many higher
orders of acceleration, then that at some point, an
arbitrarily high order of acceleration, reflects an
infinitesimal, while all its lower orders reflect
finite values, that then integrating those builds
up "constant acceleration", and any given instant.

Then, ideas like this "stop-derivative", start getting
into the mathematical machinery, which isn't just
"how fast does Zeno's turtle go" or "does anything
get anywhere at all" to "abstractly, acceleration is smooth".

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

On 03/08/2024 10:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/07/2024 10:21 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> One thing I've been trying to figure out is
>> "the infinite higher-orders of acceleration".
>>
>> This is where for example that classically
>> there's that "rest is rest and motion is motion",
>> and it's that v is dp/dt, rest 0 and motion non-zero,
>> it's meters/second, and in seconds/meter, it's
>> that motion is non-zero and rest is infinity.
>>
>> So I'm wondering about v', v'', v''', that being
>> acceleration and its higher orders, out to v^prime-infty,
>> that at an instant, help figure this out.
>>
>>
>> What I have in mind is an idea of a "stop-derivative",
>> basically to reflect m/s and s/m, time-to-motion
>> and distance-to-rest, for linear inputs, about that
>> the derivatives of the powers on down as C^infinty
>> the continuous functions differentiable come down
>> to zero, while integrating the negative powers,
>> comes up, but not to zero, sort of what results 0/1,
>> vis-a-vis, 1/0, the differences to target rest and target
>> motion.
>>
>> Acceleration, deceleration, time-to-motion time-to-rest,
>> distance-to-motion distance-to-rest, the difference
>> between rest and motion is rather underdefined.
>>
>> What mathematics addresses all the infinite higher
>> or respectively lower orders?
>>
>> How might you suggest to think about this?
>>
>
> Of course this is "there goes old Zeno again ...".
>
>
> There's "infinite-derivative gravity" an idea.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_derivative_gravity
>
>
> The basic ideas seems about "singularities", where a
> singularity is a singular type of a singular type,
> where a singular type is like a singular point, where
> a singular point, is often either a branch or a span,
> the branch as a bifurcation, or a span as a contraction.
>
> So, "singularity theory", is as much, "multiplicity theory",
> vis-a-vis "absolute singularities", which result, then,
> that the classical and linear, has its issues with the
> singularities that are asymptotes, un-touched, and the
> singularities that are origins, the source.
>
> Then, the higher orders of acceleration, have that
> there are infinitely-many or unboundedly-many higher
> orders of acceleration, then that at some point, an
> arbitrarily high order of acceleration, reflects an
> infinitesimal, while all its lower orders reflect
> finite values, that then integrating those builds
> up "constant acceleration", and any given instant.
>
>
> Then, ideas like this "stop-derivative", start getting
> into the mathematical machinery, which isn't just
> "how fast does Zeno's turtle go" or "does anything
> get anywhere at all" to "abstractly, acceleration is smooth".
>
>
> It's a continuum mechanics, ....
>
>
>

If you want to learn relativity theory from
Einstein's perspective, one of the greatest
sources is Einstein's book "Out of My Later
Years", where he relates that his theory is
that it-all is a differential-system, of inertial-systems,
with respect to then his fabulous "sapping Newton's
laws", with regards to central symmetries, the singular,
and Einstein's bridge, and Einstein's second-most-famous-
kinetic-energy-equation, that, like his first, is an
approximation, and unlike his first, isn't one tens
of thousands of coffee cups around the world.

Einstein, then, and his "tea, on the train", has that
for example if you don't have the time to read
Einstein's "Out of My Later Years", which would
fit in a text file of a few hundred kilobytes, I took
the pleasure of reading "Out of My Later Years"
into an audio presentation, while of course mostly
framing in in terms of Einstein's, "total field theory",
which is his idea, and, about space-contraction,
and rest-exchange-momentum, about the differential-
system, of the inertial-systems.

So, it's not saying much, but the great part on
relativity in "Out of My Later Years" can be read
over the course of some hours, in what would
be a few megabytes of audio track among a few
dozen gigabytes of extraneous uninformative video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHVOLO1ryGQ&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3

Then, the principle, "higher-order-acceleration is
abstractly smooth", or "V-prime-infinity principle",
is the same sort of idea that Einstein's continuous
space-time manifold Space-Time with the spatial
for the geodesy and the spacial for luxons the light-like,
works with Newton's laws and specifically the
under-defined about what results space-contraction,
in effect, for Einstein's greatest contributions:
mass/energy equivalency and variously for
Einstein's Bridge, "e II", and the cosmological
constant: an infinitesimal gradient in isotropic space-time.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

On 03/08/2024 11:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/08/2024 10:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 03/07/2024 10:21 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> One thing I've been trying to figure out is
>>> "the infinite higher-orders of acceleration".
>>>
>>> This is where for example that classically
>>> there's that "rest is rest and motion is motion",
>>> and it's that v is dp/dt, rest 0 and motion non-zero,
>>> it's meters/second, and in seconds/meter, it's
>>> that motion is non-zero and rest is infinity.
>>>
>>> So I'm wondering about v', v'', v''', that being
>>> acceleration and its higher orders, out to v^prime-infty,
>>> that at an instant, help figure this out.
>>>
>>>
>>> What I have in mind is an idea of a "stop-derivative",
>>> basically to reflect m/s and s/m, time-to-motion
>>> and distance-to-rest, for linear inputs, about that
>>> the derivatives of the powers on down as C^infinty
>>> the continuous functions differentiable come down
>>> to zero, while integrating the negative powers,
>>> comes up, but not to zero, sort of what results 0/1,
>>> vis-a-vis, 1/0, the differences to target rest and target
>>> motion.
>>>
>>> Acceleration, deceleration, time-to-motion time-to-rest,
>>> distance-to-motion distance-to-rest, the difference
>>> between rest and motion is rather underdefined.
>>>
>>> What mathematics addresses all the infinite higher
>>> or respectively lower orders?
>>>
>>> How might you suggest to think about this?
>>>
>>
>> Of course this is "there goes old Zeno again ...".
>>
>>
>> There's "infinite-derivative gravity" an idea.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_derivative_gravity
>>
>>
>> The basic ideas seems about "singularities", where a
>> singularity is a singular type of a singular type,
>> where a singular type is like a singular point, where
>> a singular point, is often either a branch or a span,
>> the branch as a bifurcation, or a span as a contraction.
>>
>> So, "singularity theory", is as much, "multiplicity theory",
>> vis-a-vis "absolute singularities", which result, then,
>> that the classical and linear, has its issues with the
>> singularities that are asymptotes, un-touched, and the
>> singularities that are origins, the source.
>>
>> Then, the higher orders of acceleration, have that
>> there are infinitely-many or unboundedly-many higher
>> orders of acceleration, then that at some point, an
>> arbitrarily high order of acceleration, reflects an
>> infinitesimal, while all its lower orders reflect
>> finite values, that then integrating those builds
>> up "constant acceleration", and any given instant.
>>
>>
>> Then, ideas like this "stop-derivative", start getting
>> into the mathematical machinery, which isn't just
>> "how fast does Zeno's turtle go" or "does anything
>> get anywhere at all" to "abstractly, acceleration is smooth".
>>
>>
>> It's a continuum mechanics, ....
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> If you want to learn relativity theory from
> Einstein's perspective, one of the greatest
> sources is Einstein's book "Out of My Later
> Years", where he relates that his theory is
> that it-all is a differential-system, of inertial-systems,
> with respect to then his fabulous "sapping Newton's
> laws", with regards to central symmetries, the singular,
> and Einstein's bridge, and Einstein's second-most-famous-
> kinetic-energy-equation, that, like his first, is an
> approximation, and unlike his first, isn't one tens
> of thousands of coffee cups around the world.
>
> Einstein, then, and his "tea, on the train", has that
> for example if you don't have the time to read
> Einstein's "Out of My Later Years", which would
> fit in a text file of a few hundred kilobytes, I took
> the pleasure of reading "Out of My Later Years"
> into an audio presentation, while of course mostly
> framing in in terms of Einstein's, "total field theory",
> which is his idea, and, about space-contraction,
> and rest-exchange-momentum, about the differential-
> system, of the inertial-systems.
>
> So, it's not saying much, but the great part on
> relativity in "Out of My Later Years" can be read
> over the course of some hours, in what would
> be a few megabytes of audio track among a few
> dozen gigabytes of extraneous uninformative video.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHVOLO1ryGQ&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3
>
>
> Then, the principle, "higher-order-acceleration is
> abstractly smooth", or "V-prime-infinity principle",
> is the same sort of idea that Einstein's continuous
> space-time manifold Space-Time with the spatial
> for the geodesy and the spacial for luxons the light-like,
> works with Newton's laws and specifically the
> under-defined about what results space-contraction,
> in effect, for Einstein's greatest contributions:
> mass/energy equivalency and variously for
> Einstein's Bridge, "e II", and the cosmological
> constant: an infinitesimal gradient in isotropic space-time.
>
> It's a continuum mechanics, ....
>

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instanton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electromagnetic_radiation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Differential_operators

It's kind of like trying to figure out for
running constants, how it's so, that,
something like volume, in 3-D, after
what is atomic mass and weight or
the gramme-atom and these kinds of
things, that the "running constants"
get really involved in the regimes in
the very small.

us +25
Angstroms +5
atoms +-0
Planck length -5
superstrings -25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure

So anyways the V-prime-infinity is just about
at all the entire setup that there is no
"instantaneous" application of force, to
implement the most usual idea of geometric
collision, vis-a-vis catching a thing and throwing it.

I.e., Newton's third law, and the entire definition
of f = ma for force at all, results it's only derived
from whatever work occurs, not vice versa, and
the idea of the accelerometer, vis-a-vis, the metrology
of velocity, and these kinds things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractrix

This is where, if linear velocity is just the
central and singular envelope instead of
the sum of all the orbits, then it's usually
a matter of representing V-prime-infinity,
in terms of orbits.

Then, it essentially seems for a model of
deformation, where that particularly the
simplest inelastic collisions, has a model
as virtual elastic collisions, to make for
defining the transition, over the moments,
as of about a sort of ball-well of potential,
what results, a way, to basically model
V-prime-infinity as playing catch, throwing
a ball, and catching a ball.

Another way to look at it is like dominos,
which either tip from the top, slip from the
bottom, or flip exactly about the middle,
in terms of being struck in the top, the upper,
the middle, or otherwise in terms of a
tendency to knock it over or a tendency
to knock it out.

Then, the wheel sort of has to be figured
out, in terms of the axis and the wheel
and these kinds of things, about "what
is torque" and "the reason the dynamometer
is there is to measure the dynamics".

So, accelerometers, dynamometers,
is for models of interactions, all according
to "a theory of sum potentials" then as
well particularly for the usual classical model,
the attachment as of a stop-derivative,
about an infinite series of inertia being a
term, then that in its interactions as according
to bodies, kinematics, how it carries,
because not only does Einstein have a
real thing going on with Einstein's bridge,
for the kinetic and kinematic, yet also,
there's a V-prime-infinity linear model,
yet also, there's a sum-of-potentials as
what's figured is real "explanatory".

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> It's kind of like trying to figure out for running constants, how it's
> so, that, something like volume, in 3-D, after what is atomic mass and
> weight or the gramme-atom and these kinds of things, that the "running
> constants" get really involved in the regimes in the very small.
>
> us +25 Angstroms +5 atoms +-0 Planck length -5 superstrings -25

i'm not sure. Here more data, for us, to undrestand. For instance this
motherfucker unsatisfied, wanting Russia to kill. You can't expect mercy,
you fucking son of a bitch. You wanted to kill Russian people, making it
public, sent money, armament and soldiers to kill Russian, you stinking
𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 polak. I would not want to be a polak, if I were you, you fucking
traitor.

𝗣𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗹_𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿_–_𝗘𝗨_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲’𝘀_𝗣𝗠
Europe is living in a “pre-war era,” the Polish prime minister says
https://r%74.com/news/593983-europe-peacufeul-times-are-over/

"Europe's peaceful era has ended" since 1991 in Yugoslavia, you braindead,
stinky polak. Speak for yourself, fool...! Remember the evilness then,
killing Yugoslavia. Polakia sucking large dicks from 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁.

That same record being played again. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗺. You
just have to see the huge difference in opinion between the people and
their lying governments.

Europe chose confrontation and proxy war against imaginary enemy Russia
for US hegemony. 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗦-𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 for the
current situation.

Memo to pollacks: Don't start none, won't be none.

As long as NATO exists, there will be no peace 🕊️. NATO is created to be
the client tell for the western MIC. OTANics is the evil.

We shall see how Germany's European sweatshop think of the warmongers who
led them down this road soon enough...

Don't blame Vladimir, he's the stone NATO is breaking itself on.

If peaceful times are over, it is because various malevolent forces were
incapable of calming their expansionist fervor.

US occupied Poland and its Zionist puppet regime are hell bent on
destroying Europe.

Peace has never been on the agenda for the warmongers running the west.
They will never use the word except to say it isn't going to happen. Check
their websites and pronouncements- 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 "𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲" 𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿
𝘃𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘆.

Provide one Piece of Evidence that you EU were at Peace ever. Always have
been at war, Directly or Indirectly. Siberia is the place of their resting
life, working for the food, unfortunately they eat.

the Vikteria Nulandsky 𝘄𝗮𝗿_𝗽𝗶𝗴 is gone, now the 𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 of the 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁
have to suck dicks. Large dicks. Literally. Keep it up the good work. lol

On 3/8/2024 1:21 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>
> One thing I've been trying to figure out is
> "the infinite higher-orders of acceleration".
>
> This is where for example that classically
> there's that "rest is rest and motion is motion",
> and it's that v is dp/dt, rest 0 and motion non-zero,
> it's meters/second, and in seconds/meter, it's
> that motion is non-zero and rest is infinity.
>
> So I'm wondering about v', v'', v''', that being
> acceleration and its higher orders, out to v^prime-infty,
> that at an instant, help figure this out.
>
For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat whimsical)
names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the derivative of
snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's actually
used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or railroads from
straight to a curve they try to minimize the 'snap' of a vehicle
following the transition segment.

Volney wrote:
>
> Ross wrote:
> >
> > So I'm wondering about v', v'', v''', that being
> > acceleration and its higher orders, out to v^prime-infty,
> > that at an instant, help figure this out.
>
> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat whimsical)
> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the derivative of
> snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's actually
> used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or railroads from
> straight to a curve they try to minimize the 'snap' of a vehicle
> following the transition segment.

I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean drive,
a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of the masses
being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He showed that the
weight of the assembly was decreased when running - on a bathroom scales.

William O. Davis analyzed the system which was referred to by John W.
Campbell, Jr. as "the fourth law of motion" - i.e., jerk. Davis and G.
Harry Stine got together and tested the invention. They hung it from a
wire and oriented it so the supposed thrust would be horizontal. There
was no net thrust. The "weight loss" was due to nonlinearities in the
bathroom scales because of the thumping around of the weights.

On 03/09/2024 08:34 AM, gharnagel wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>>
>> Ross wrote:
>> >
>> > So I'm wondering about v', v'', v''', that being
>> > acceleration and its higher orders, out to v^prime-infty,
>> > that at an instant, help figure this out.
>>
>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat whimsical)
>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the derivative
>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's actually
>> used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or railroads from
>> straight to a curve they try to minimize the 'snap' of a vehicle
>> following the transition segment.
>
> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean drive,
> a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of the masses
> being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He showed that the
> weight of the assembly was decreased when running - on a bathroom scales.
>
> William O. Davis analyzed the system which was referred to by John W.
> Campbell, Jr. as "the fourth law of motion" - i.e., jerk. Davis and G.
> Harry Stine got together and tested the invention. They hung it from a
> wire and oriented it so the supposed thrust would be horizontal. There
> was no net thrust. The "weight loss" was due to nonlinearities in the
> bathroom scales because of the thumping around of the weights.

Hey thanks. I've heard of jerk and jounce and snap/crackle/pop,
in the old days of roller-skating there was "crack the whip",
though these days because it's associated with human cruelty
or debasement, people whipping each other or jerking,
that in the apologia, we still use the same terms,
while it's also framed for readers in the general context.
It's usually enough a term introduced to mature students,
vis-a-vis other usual or personal connotations of the words.

It's an example of the accumulation of dynamics and pretty
much anybody who played outside would know it. Similarly
in something like auto vehicles, when somebody says "I stroked
my motor", hopefully it doesn't mean an embolism, though,
you know, the drive-train includes the tranny.

That's just to say, the terms are in the context of physics:
the game is theoretical physics, you or him/her/them.

A usual way to write powers is the exponent to the power n,
and a usual way to write the higher-order derivatives is
tallying primes, or, usually d^n/dx^n.

Then there's a notion to write v's n'th derivative as
something like v^(n), or v_n, with a = dv/dt = v^(1),
and v being v^(0) disambiguating derivatives from powers,
and probably not v_0 as that usually mean v-nought the
initial velocity, or as with regards to mapping the power
terms specifically to the derivatives, what results,
making the infinite series the power series, like so,
in the derivatives, for the operator calculus, as a
very general thing.

The other day I leafed through a paper of Milgrom on
the idea of, "Generic Attractors", about orbits vis-a-vis
world-lines, here I'm mostly interested in this sort of
notion of "stop-derivative", and to help people understand
that a lot of mechanics is still very empirical. This
is where, chaos theory a.k.a. dynamical modeling, has a
lot to bring to this kind of idea, which sort of starts
with: relating the infinitely higher orders and infinitely
lower or inverse orders to powers series in terms or inverse
terms, what results for an operator calculus, what gets
related as the implicits, that results a linear thing
of a non-linear thing.

Thanks for writing and please advise me. I looked
around of course about this before and the usual idea
is "well we ran out of names for higher order acceleration",
then "well infinite series are real simple according to
differential geometry because they just truncate them",
then "it would be infinite series with infinitesimals
at some point" then.

At the same time, it's just like, "it's infinitely
many higher orders of acceleration, as dv/dt goes
to zero the higher orders come down zero what results
smooth".

This does sort of open up mechanics to various
relevant ideas about acceleration and deceleration,
starting and stopping, meeting and parting,
and all the great ideas resulting after
"Zeno: a plumb-bob is a measurement device for deflection".

So, it gets pretty easy to write "this is a notation
for the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration
that go through a change according to any change in
velocity", then, that those go through values in
the space of real-values, is the thing.

On 03/09/2024 08:34 AM, gharnagel wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>>
>> Ross wrote:
>> >
>> > So I'm wondering about v', v'', v''', that being
>> > acceleration and its higher orders, out to v^prime-infty,
>> > that at an instant, help figure this out.
>>
>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat whimsical)
>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the derivative
>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's actually
>> used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or railroads from
>> straight to a curve they try to minimize the 'snap' of a vehicle
>> following the transition segment.
>
> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean drive,
> a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of the masses
> being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He showed that the
> weight of the assembly was decreased when running - on a bathroom scales.
>
> William O. Davis analyzed the system which was referred to by John W.
> Campbell, Jr. as "the fourth law of motion" - i.e., jerk. Davis and G.
> Harry Stine got together and tested the invention. They hung it from a
> wire and oriented it so the supposed thrust would be horizontal. There
> was no net thrust. The "weight loss" was due to nonlinearities in the
> bathroom scales because of the thumping around of the weights.

These days that includes "pseudomomentum not dead again",
"McIntyre's arguments to be re-read and re-though, re-visited",
"rest-exchange momentum", "balleton", these kinds of things.

SUSY not dead again, ....

On 03/09/2024 10:38 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/09/2024 08:34 AM, gharnagel wrote:
>> Volney wrote:
>>>
>>> Ross wrote:
>>> >
>>> > So I'm wondering about v', v'', v''', that being
>>> > acceleration and its higher orders, out to v^prime-infty,
>>> > that at an instant, help figure this out.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat whimsical)
>>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
>>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the derivative
>>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
>>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's actually
>>> used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or railroads from
>>> straight to a curve they try to minimize the 'snap' of a vehicle
>>> following the transition segment.
>>
>> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean
>> drive,
>> a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of the masses
>> being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He showed that
>> the
>> weight of the assembly was decreased when running - on a bathroom scales.
>>
>> William O. Davis analyzed the system which was referred to by John W.
>> Campbell, Jr. as "the fourth law of motion" - i.e., jerk. Davis and G.
>> Harry Stine got together and tested the invention. They hung it from a
>> wire and oriented it so the supposed thrust would be horizontal. There
>> was no net thrust. The "weight loss" was due to nonlinearities in the
>> bathroom scales because of the thumping around of the weights.
>
> These days that includes "pseudomomentum not dead again",
> "McIntyre's arguments to be re-read and re-though, re-visited",
> "rest-exchange momentum", "balleton", these kinds of things.
>
> SUSY not dead again, ....
>
>

Of course anybody who sat physics class and remembers it
and internalized the concepts, knows that "scales" and "balances"
are two different things, and we measure "mass" with "balances".

(These days scales vary quite a bit, ..., day to day.)

Here the idea that non-linearity starts as an infinitesimal
impulse and results linearity, and vice-versa, is very much
represented in "Einstein's Bridge", the converse, while
the forward case very much is that an infinitesimal
change cascades down to dv/dt, and, about dt/dv.

With "meters per second, or, seconds per meter",
is that it's "meters per second, and, seconds per meter".

So, how it's usually figured is that f = ma and
then that it's always integrated, here with the
idea that the fuller integration, is to result
what are currently neglected terms, to analyze
the contributions of the non-linear or neglected
terms, so it results all the real analytical character,
includes the infinite series.

The infinite series most always starts at the big end.
Yet, change starts at the little end. The usual idea
of infinite, is that there is no end. So, it becomes
usual to work up finitely many higher orders of acceleration,
and result that there's a big end and a little end.

(In Gulliver's Travels there's an account of that in
two land, the inhabitants ate hard-boiled eggs. Eggs
have two ends, a big end and a little end. In
one land, the inhabitants started from the big end,
in the other, the inhabitants started from the little
end, that what is trivial to one who'd eat from either end,
resulted a cultural divide to the point of conflict.
These days this is reflected for example in the computer
architecture of most-significant byte B or bit b, to
least-significant, in terms of a bit-sequence representing
an integer, with the 1's place being least-significant
and higher places more-significant, reflecting writing
the numbers in order according to the bits of the digit
and the digits as moduli, MSB-to-LSB, LSB-to-MSB, and
msb-to-lsb, and lsb-to-msb, the "Big-Endian" and "Little-
Endian", with regards to read-out is easier Big-Endian,
while addressal is easier or aligned, Little-Endian.)

So here, the usual higher orders of acceleration are
usually under-defined after the first order, acceleration
itself, "instantaneous" or "constant", f = ma, what
results that f is a linear vector, and over time is
what results force applied and work done, and all
usually with a notion that conservation is energy.

Yet, we have the great classical exposition of Zeno,
in which we can being to frame all things with respect
to the dialectic, of rest and motion, and relative motion,
and uniform motion.

Here it's sort of the idea, that a cylinder is
standing upright, only most-minimally locally stable,
then a feather lands on it, and it tips, converting
all of its potential energy in its oriented stable
configuration, to kinetic energy, what with regards
to reaching another, more, yet still locally, stable
configuration, lieing down.

So, the feather, is an infinitesimal, and it's
the little end, of the cylinder's minimization of
potential energy, just as an example of the sort
of thing, that the cylinder is arbitrarily stable
and the feather while arbitrarily small is arbitrarily
large, with respect to the arbitrarily stable configuration
of the cylinder, or obelisk, which is arbitrarily high,
thin, narrow, or wide, keeping things simple in the
configuration space, while general as these things are.

Then, for Zeno, is this notion of, "meeting in the
middle", "middle of nowhere", this is the sort of
accompaniment to "21'st century Zeno", which not
only models ancient Zeno, but every edition and
each variation between.

So, in physics, there's singularity theory. One of
the usual most usual notions of applied physics,
is that "singularity's don't exist", then, though,
what results is "they do", then, furthermore,
"singularities are multiplicities", vis-a-vis,
"singularities are either origins or attractors".

Then, for the infinite and being down at both ends,
is much about, being around. (And through.)

So, "acceleration's infinitely-many higher-orders",
is a fundamental concept that reflects the very
notion of state, configuration, and change, itself,
and of course is what must follow from a very thorough
and didactic deconstructive account of "Zeno: then and now".

gharnagel wrote:

> Volney wrote:
>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat whimsical)
>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the derivative
>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's actually
>> used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or railroads from
>> straight to a curve they try to minimize the 'snap' of a vehicle
>> following the transition segment.
>
> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean
> drive, a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of the
> masses being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He showed
> that the weight of the assembly was decreased when running - on a
> bathroom scales.

my friend, heard?? It's enough to push body on a line with a forcemeter on
it. You get the slope for the jerk since the acceleration is not constant.
Ohh my, heard of. And you want to speed higher than light, do you. Are we
from amrica??

𝗘𝗨 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽 ‘𝗯𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲-𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴’ 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀 – 𝗩𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝘆𝗲𝗻 lol
The European Commission president has urged member states to “turbo
charge” the bloc’s arms manufacturing industry over the next five years
https://r%74.com/news/593970-eu-von-der-leyen-battle-winning-weapons/

She's admitting that the EU only has 'battle-losing' weapons

Send Von der Leyen to Front, maybe she will be battle winning!

Shut it luv. You proved how utterly useless you are in Germany

This brainless bimbo was so effective as Germany's defence minister that
German troops pitched up to a NATO exercise carrying broomsticks in lieu
of rifles.

She looks like she smells unpleasant down there, also, why is her head so
big and her body small, she's maybe a puppet with a bobblehead just
programmed to speak as directed.

On 03/09/2024 12:37 PM, Ramiro Juárez wrote:
> gharnagel wrote:
>
>> Volney wrote:
>>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat whimsical)
>>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
>>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the derivative
>>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
>>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's actually
>>> used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or railroads from
>>> straight to a curve they try to minimize the 'snap' of a vehicle
>>> following the transition segment.
>>
>> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean
>> drive, a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of the
>> masses being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He showed
>> that the weight of the assembly was decreased when running - on a
>> bathroom scales.
>
> my friend, heard?? It's enough to push body on a line with a forcemeter on
> it. You get the slope for the jerk since the acceleration is not constant.
> Ohh my, heard of. And you want to speed higher than light, do you. Are we
> from amrica??
>

What you get is that scales, measure deflection, in the system,
while balances, measure not deflection, according to references.

Physics is an open and closed system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=measure+deflection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=deflection+measure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 03/09/2024 12:37 PM, Ramiro Juárez wrote:
>> gharnagel wrote:
>>
>>> Volney wrote:
>>>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat
>>>> whimsical)
>>>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
>>>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the derivative
>>>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
>>>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's
>>>> actually used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or
>>>> railroads from straight to a curve they try to minimize the 'snap' of
>>>> a vehicle following the transition segment.
>>>
>>> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean
>>> drive, a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of the
>>> masses being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He
>>> showed that the weight of the assembly was decreased when running - on
>>> a bathroom scales.
>>
>> my friend, heard?? It's enough to push body on a line with a forcemeter
>> on it. You get the slope for the jerk since the acceleration is not
>> constant.
>> Ohh my, heard of. And you want to speed higher than light, do you. Are
>> we from amrica??
>
> What you get is that scales, measure deflection, in the system, while
> balances, measure not deflection, according to references.
> Physics is an open and closed system.

whatever you say it's completely nonsense. Pushing an object on a line,
and bouncing back repeatedly, makes acceleration NOT constant, me friendo.
Plotting the data shows the jerk directly and no debate. You relativists
around here, beyond arduino, have no laboratory experience whatsoever in
physics. All you know is Einstine, a lower than mediocre highschool
student.

𝗜𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰_𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝗹𝗲𝘁_𝗣𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻_–_𝗧ü𝗿𝗸𝗶𝘆𝗲
Muslim-majority states have failed to protect civilians in Gaza against
Israeli troops, President Erdogan said
https://r%74.com/news/594009-islamic-world-failed-gaza/

Yes and that includes Turkiye. Everyone waiting for someone else to act.
They also did not unite against the US in all the recent wars. What did
you expect; Golden age of Islam long gone.

There is still time to do something, instead of just talking. Cancel
agreements, close embassies, deny air space, etc. All talk and zero
action. Yemen was far better in taking action despite being one of the
poorest and most vulnerable country in the whole region.

Turkey and Erdogan is not no better than Saudi and other Arabs to defend
human rights in Palestine! Shame on them !

Let me expose Erdoğan/Turkey, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, 65% of Israeli
oil comes from Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and goes to Israel through
Turkey!

History will remember those that abandoned the Palestinians to die in
israeli genocide and will remember those that facilitated that genocide

Of all the Muslim countries, Turkiye has the most powerful military and is
a part of NATO. All he had to do was put his foot down.

Evil succeeds when good folks do nothing whatever religion they are. What
Erdoğan bey fails to recognise is that the neocon Zionists declared war on
İslam with the 9/11 inside/outside op/coup which includes 99% of Türkiye.

On 03/09/2024 11:44 PM, Ismael Balazowsky Homutov wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> On 03/09/2024 12:37 PM, Ramiro Juárez wrote:
>>> gharnagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Volney wrote:
>>>>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat
>>>>> whimsical)
>>>>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
>>>>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the derivative
>>>>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
>>>>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's
>>>>> actually used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or
>>>>> railroads from straight to a curve they try to minimize the 'snap' of
>>>>> a vehicle following the transition segment.
>>>>
>>>> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean
>>>> drive, a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of the
>>>> masses being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He
>>>> showed that the weight of the assembly was decreased when running - on
>>>> a bathroom scales.
>>>
>>> my friend, heard?? It's enough to push body on a line with a forcemeter
>>> on it. You get the slope for the jerk since the acceleration is not
>>> constant.
>>> Ohh my, heard of. And you want to speed higher than light, do you. Are
>>> we from amrica??
>>
>> What you get is that scales, measure deflection, in the system, while
>> balances, measure not deflection, according to references.
>> Physics is an open and closed system.
>
> whatever you say it's completely nonsense. Pushing an object on a line,
> and bouncing back repeatedly, makes acceleration NOT constant, me friendo.
> Plotting the data shows the jerk directly and no debate. You relativists
> around here, beyond arduino, have no laboratory experience whatsoever in
> physics. All you know is Einstine, a lower than mediocre highschool
> student.
>

Hey now, we're talking about f = ma, and about the infinitely-many
higher-order derivatives of velocity, and meters/second and
seconds/meter, that it is possible to have constant velocity,
constant rest for that matter, constant acceleration and so on,
but to get there it goes from zero to one, each higher order
contribution going from 0 to 1 and back to 0 again, with regards
to acceleration and deceleration, starting and stopping, and
parting and meeting, all the objects in their ephemerides each
other, in a world where all the orbits add up to the geodesy's
world-lines, according to a theory of sum potentials, where
all the real fields are potential fields including the classical
field their sum in the middle, with least action and conservation,
then about Einstein's bridge and rotational space-contraction,
because Einstein's theory is classical in the limit.

Usually the unit impulse function, and, the radial basis function,
are two analytical features, of interest. For example, the
Dirac delta, also known as unit impulse, is not-a-real-function,
that's modeled as a continuum limit of real functions, that
always has area 1, but is a spike of infinite height and infinitesimal
width at the origin. The radial basis function, is a round bump
on the line, with area 1, say. A droplet, is like a sphere,
yet it's pointed in a direction, which is the direction of
the classical force vector, in the theory of waves.

So, here we're talking about the infinitely-many higher-order
derivatives of velocity, calling those "v^prime(infinity)".

Correspondingly there's about "e^x + e^-x", and also the
power series out both sides of that, and, the sinusoidal,
with respect to, the inch-worm.

Einstein knows Newton, and, Newton doesn't define what
happens except "rests stays at (constant) rest, motion
stays at (constant) motion, all interactions follow a
billiard ball model of perfect inelastic collisions",
yet things don't and they aren't. It's undefined.
So, Einstein, helps recognize, that there are some
sorts these "Newton's Zero-eth laws of motion".

I studied this for a while the other day and the
usual gimme-gimme-gratification or cursory search
arrives pretty much at "well, you see, it's undefined ...".

Yet, life goes on.

On 03/10/2024 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/09/2024 11:44 PM, Ismael Balazowsky Homutov wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/09/2024 12:37 PM, Ramiro Juárez wrote:
>>>> gharnagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Volney wrote:
>>>>>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat
>>>>>> whimsical)
>>>>>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
>>>>>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the derivative
>>>>>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
>>>>>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's
>>>>>> actually used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or
>>>>>> railroads from straight to a curve they try to minimize the 'snap' of
>>>>>> a vehicle following the transition segment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean
>>>>> drive, a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of the
>>>>> masses being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He
>>>>> showed that the weight of the assembly was decreased when running - on
>>>>> a bathroom scales.
>>>>
>>>> my friend, heard?? It's enough to push body on a line with a forcemeter
>>>> on it. You get the slope for the jerk since the acceleration is not
>>>> constant.
>>>> Ohh my, heard of. And you want to speed higher than light, do you. Are
>>>> we from amrica??
>>>
>>> What you get is that scales, measure deflection, in the system, while
>>> balances, measure not deflection, according to references.
>>> Physics is an open and closed system.
>>
>> whatever you say it's completely nonsense. Pushing an object on a line,
>> and bouncing back repeatedly, makes acceleration NOT constant, me
>> friendo.
>> Plotting the data shows the jerk directly and no debate. You relativists
>> around here, beyond arduino, have no laboratory experience whatsoever in
>> physics. All you know is Einstine, a lower than mediocre highschool
>> student.
>>
>
>
> Hey now, we're talking about f = ma, and about the infinitely-many
> higher-order derivatives of velocity, and meters/second and
> seconds/meter, that it is possible to have constant velocity,
> constant rest for that matter, constant acceleration and so on,
> but to get there it goes from zero to one, each higher order
> contribution going from 0 to 1 and back to 0 again, with regards
> to acceleration and deceleration, starting and stopping, and
> parting and meeting, all the objects in their ephemerides each
> other, in a world where all the orbits add up to the geodesy's
> world-lines, according to a theory of sum potentials, where
> all the real fields are potential fields including the classical
> field their sum in the middle, with least action and conservation,
> then about Einstein's bridge and rotational space-contraction,
> because Einstein's theory is classical in the limit.
>
> Usually the unit impulse function, and, the radial basis function,
> are two analytical features, of interest. For example, the
> Dirac delta, also known as unit impulse, is not-a-real-function,
> that's modeled as a continuum limit of real functions, that
> always has area 1, but is a spike of infinite height and infinitesimal
> width at the origin. The radial basis function, is a round bump
> on the line, with area 1, say. A droplet, is like a sphere,
> yet it's pointed in a direction, which is the direction of
> the classical force vector, in the theory of waves.
>
>
> So, here we're talking about the infinitely-many higher-order
> derivatives of velocity, calling those "v^prime(infinity)".
>
> Correspondingly there's about "e^x + e^-x", and also the
> power series out both sides of that, and, the sinusoidal,
> with respect to, the inch-worm.
>
> Einstein knows Newton, and, Newton doesn't define what
> happens except "rests stays at (constant) rest, motion
> stays at (constant) motion, all interactions follow a
> billiard ball model of perfect inelastic collisions",
> yet things don't and they aren't. It's undefined.
> So, Einstein, helps recognize, that there are some
> sorts these "Newton's Zero-eth laws of motion".
>
>
> I studied this for a while the other day and the
> usual gimme-gimme-gratification or cursory search
> arrives pretty much at "well, you see, it's undefined ...".
>
> Yet, life goes on.
>
>

I got to wondering about this and well it basically gets
to Galileo and the great relation of constant acceleration,
usually enough in the terrestrial setting the only source
of which being gravity, which is really only "constant"
in relatively short distances like from the table to the
floor, vis-a-vis "high-altitude low-opening parachuting"
or "a hole to the center of the Earth", it's sort of so
that the usual framing of terrestrial gravity as constant
acceleration is contrived, and, Newtonian gravity pretty
much works when the objects are quite massive and independent,
yet, quite far apart, when they see each other as curves,
or walls, instead of points, for objects with about equal
masses, vis-a-vis objects with inequal masses, vis-a-vis
their orbits, and their kinematics as systems together.

"Physics is open and closed, and it's open."

Mathematically of course for v = dp/dt and a = dv/dt = v'
and all the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration,
and deceleration, is about sum-of-potentials, and it's
about rest-exchange momentum, about why "physics is open
so momentum is in part virtual or pseudo with regards
to released potential".

It's like, a Mexican jumping bean, is actually a sort
of chrysalis, and inside is a wound-up spring, and it
wants out. Physics is an open system, ....

So anyways, Galilean invariance, is about the greatest
thing, in terms of that "force is fictitious", that
what that really means is "our classical force model,
where the classical force is real, is actually the
sum result of all... the potentials, which are actually
the real, that it results that classical force, is really
just the first or last fictitious force, being the
impulse of a singularity in potential theory, which
is to explain why Galilean invariance holds, at each
instant, while in each instant, also continuously apply
all... the dynamics, in a continuum mechanics."

Thus, concepts here involve:

v-prime-infty: the series of the infinitely-many orders of acceleration,
which are non-zero, yet mostly vanishing,
that in the classical limit, results Galileo and Newton
and Einstein's laws of rest and motion.

classical limit:
classically there is one of superclassical theories,
superclassically the classical is the limit instead.

fictitious force:
defined as that classical force is truncated from a
moment to a scalar, anything else, while in the theory
of sum potentials, it's exactly that, and results real force.

So, looking for a theory where gravity is a force,
and, forces are real, and, of course it's a field
theory and a gauge theory, space-time is a continuous
manifold, and there's effectively a particle model
of the sub-atomic, according to pretty much mass and
charge together, in space.

That's sort of missing from "physics" today but actually
it's among the most very usual sorts of notions that
arrive in theoretical physics to unification theories,
"sum the potentials: physics is a system".

On 03/11/2024 10:09 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/10/2024 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 03/09/2024 11:44 PM, Ismael Balazowsky Homutov wrote:
>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/09/2024 12:37 PM, Ramiro Juárez wrote:
>>>>> gharnagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Volney wrote:
>>>>>>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat
>>>>>>> whimsical)
>>>>>>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
>>>>>>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the
>>>>>>> derivative
>>>>>>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
>>>>>>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's
>>>>>>> actually used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or
>>>>>>> railroads from straight to a curve they try to minimize the
>>>>>>> 'snap' of
>>>>>>> a vehicle following the transition segment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean
>>>>>> drive, a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of the
>>>>>> masses being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He
>>>>>> showed that the weight of the assembly was decreased when running
>>>>>> - on
>>>>>> a bathroom scales.
>>>>>
>>>>> my friend, heard?? It's enough to push body on a line with a
>>>>> forcemeter
>>>>> on it. You get the slope for the jerk since the acceleration is not
>>>>> constant.
>>>>> Ohh my, heard of. And you want to speed higher than light, do you. Are
>>>>> we from amrica??
>>>>
>>>> What you get is that scales, measure deflection, in the system, while
>>>> balances, measure not deflection, according to references.
>>>> Physics is an open and closed system.
>>>
>>> whatever you say it's completely nonsense. Pushing an object on a line,
>>> and bouncing back repeatedly, makes acceleration NOT constant, me
>>> friendo.
>>> Plotting the data shows the jerk directly and no debate. You relativists
>>> around here, beyond arduino, have no laboratory experience whatsoever in
>>> physics. All you know is Einstine, a lower than mediocre highschool
>>> student.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hey now, we're talking about f = ma, and about the infinitely-many
>> higher-order derivatives of velocity, and meters/second and
>> seconds/meter, that it is possible to have constant velocity,
>> constant rest for that matter, constant acceleration and so on,
>> but to get there it goes from zero to one, each higher order
>> contribution going from 0 to 1 and back to 0 again, with regards
>> to acceleration and deceleration, starting and stopping, and
>> parting and meeting, all the objects in their ephemerides each
>> other, in a world where all the orbits add up to the geodesy's
>> world-lines, according to a theory of sum potentials, where
>> all the real fields are potential fields including the classical
>> field their sum in the middle, with least action and conservation,
>> then about Einstein's bridge and rotational space-contraction,
>> because Einstein's theory is classical in the limit.
>>
>> Usually the unit impulse function, and, the radial basis function,
>> are two analytical features, of interest. For example, the
>> Dirac delta, also known as unit impulse, is not-a-real-function,
>> that's modeled as a continuum limit of real functions, that
>> always has area 1, but is a spike of infinite height and infinitesimal
>> width at the origin. The radial basis function, is a round bump
>> on the line, with area 1, say. A droplet, is like a sphere,
>> yet it's pointed in a direction, which is the direction of
>> the classical force vector, in the theory of waves.
>>
>>
>> So, here we're talking about the infinitely-many higher-order
>> derivatives of velocity, calling those "v^prime(infinity)".
>>
>> Correspondingly there's about "e^x + e^-x", and also the
>> power series out both sides of that, and, the sinusoidal,
>> with respect to, the inch-worm.
>>
>> Einstein knows Newton, and, Newton doesn't define what
>> happens except "rests stays at (constant) rest, motion
>> stays at (constant) motion, all interactions follow a
>> billiard ball model of perfect inelastic collisions",
>> yet things don't and they aren't. It's undefined.
>> So, Einstein, helps recognize, that there are some
>> sorts these "Newton's Zero-eth laws of motion".
>>
>>
>> I studied this for a while the other day and the
>> usual gimme-gimme-gratification or cursory search
>> arrives pretty much at "well, you see, it's undefined ...".
>>
>> Yet, life goes on.
>>
>>
>
> I got to wondering about this and well it basically gets
> to Galileo and the great relation of constant acceleration,
> usually enough in the terrestrial setting the only source
> of which being gravity, which is really only "constant"
> in relatively short distances like from the table to the
> floor, vis-a-vis "high-altitude low-opening parachuting"
> or "a hole to the center of the Earth", it's sort of so
> that the usual framing of terrestrial gravity as constant
> acceleration is contrived, and, Newtonian gravity pretty
> much works when the objects are quite massive and independent,
> yet, quite far apart, when they see each other as curves,
> or walls, instead of points, for objects with about equal
> masses, vis-a-vis objects with inequal masses, vis-a-vis
> their orbits, and their kinematics as systems together.
>
> "Physics is open and closed, and it's open."
>
>
> Mathematically of course for v = dp/dt and a = dv/dt = v'
> and all the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration,
> and deceleration, is about sum-of-potentials, and it's
> about rest-exchange momentum, about why "physics is open
> so momentum is in part virtual or pseudo with regards
> to released potential".
>
> It's like, a Mexican jumping bean, is actually a sort
> of chrysalis, and inside is a wound-up spring, and it
> wants out. Physics is an open system, ....
>
>
> So anyways, Galilean invariance, is about the greatest
> thing, in terms of that "force is fictitious", that
> what that really means is "our classical force model,
> where the classical force is real, is actually the
> sum result of all... the potentials, which are actually
> the real, that it results that classical force, is really
> just the first or last fictitious force, being the
> impulse of a singularity in potential theory, which
> is to explain why Galilean invariance holds, at each
> instant, while in each instant, also continuously apply
> all... the dynamics, in a continuum mechanics."
>
>
> Thus, concepts here involve:
>
> v-prime-infty: the series of the infinitely-many orders of acceleration,
> which are non-zero, yet mostly vanishing,
> that in the classical limit, results Galileo and Newton
> and Einstein's laws of rest and motion.
>
> classical limit:
> classically there is one of superclassical theories,
> superclassically the classical is the limit instead.
>
> fictitious force:
> defined as that classical force is truncated from a
> moment to a scalar, anything else, while in the theory
> of sum potentials, it's exactly that, and results real force.
>
>
> So, looking for a theory where gravity is a force,
> and, forces are real, and, of course it's a field
> theory and a gauge theory, space-time is a continuous
> manifold, and there's effectively a particle model
> of the sub-atomic, according to pretty much mass and
> charge together, in space.
>
> That's sort of missing from "physics" today but actually
> it's among the most very usual sorts of notions that
> arrive in theoretical physics to unification theories,
> "sum the potentials: physics is a system".
>
>
>

Classical physics is really great,
it's, linear, then, differential.

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> So, the infinitely-many higher-orders of acceleration,
> basically follows directly for the infinitely-many divisions of _time_,
> all together, altogether, that "the physics", is a theory of sum
> potentials, a theory of omega potentials, and altogether: real.

I'm not sure how to help. Maybe this:

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗨𝗞_𝘁𝗼_𝗴𝗲𝘁_𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃_–_𝗙𝗠
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron has offered to help Berlin avoid
“problems preventing a Taurus delivery” to Ukraine
https://r%74.com/news/594097-germany-missile-swap-uk-kiev/

What else are limeys busy doing for a living, except offering all the help
you need to pin their crimes on you.

I heard that the Americans have lost another Abrams tank today. That's
four down 27 to go.

Just don't transport those missiles on British madeTanks.

Russians should make it very clear that this "scheme" is the same as
Germany supplying the missiles directly and that if used against Russia,
Germany will be held accountable along with England as a co conspirator.

The Russians might see through this, Anna, and their missiles for Germany
won't be routed through another country, they'll go direct.

The idiots think Russia will only target Germany, and that's what they
actually want to happen. The UK and US, wants Germany destroyed, and they
want to bait Russia to do it.

Ross Finlayson wrote:

>> whatever you say it's completely nonsense. Pushing an object on a line,
>> and bouncing back repeatedly, makes acceleration NOT constant, me
>> friendo. Plotting the data shows the jerk directly and no debate. You
>> relativists around here, beyond arduino, have no laboratory experience
>> whatsoever in physics. All you know is Einstine, a lower than mediocre
>> highschool student.
>
> Hey now, we're talking about f = ma, and about the infinitely-many
> higher-order derivatives of velocity, and meters/second and
> seconds/meter, that it is possible to have constant velocity, constant
> rest for that matter, constant acceleration and so on,

not true, that f=ma is for constant acceleration only, I saw many big
professors not knowing this thing. But it takes nothing to plot that
trajectory the way you want. This proves that you can cheat yourself, but
not the physics. And now, some good news for you, to undrestand.

𝗕𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻’𝘀_𝗳𝗹𝗮𝗴𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽_𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁_𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗿_𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀_𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗲𝗻_𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗿𝘀
The blaze was the latest in a long line of malfunctions to befall the HMS
Queen Elizabeth
https://r%74.com/news/594082-uk-aircraft-carrier-fire/

That's why I said that the best thing they can do with this hunk of junk
is to tow it to gulf of Aden and let the Yemeni Houthis use it as a
practice target !!

It's only the beginning of the collapse....Britain is ruined by those
zionist politicians being bribed to drive the country to ruin for their
own gains...

Bigger fire is coming

The British need dentist. Not war ships. Bunch of inbred assholes

No wonder these clowns from their moldy island are paying the ukros to
fight with Russia, they cannot nor dare do it themselves.....

Britain's flagship aircraft carrier like a piece of excrement floating in
the toilet...

On 03/11/2024 10:56 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/11/2024 10:09 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 03/10/2024 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2024 11:44 PM, Ismael Balazowsky Homutov wrote:
>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/09/2024 12:37 PM, Ramiro Juárez wrote:
>>>>>> gharnagel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat
>>>>>>>> whimsical)
>>>>>>>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is
>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the
>>>>>>>> derivative
>>>>>>>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
>>>>>>>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's
>>>>>>>> actually used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or
>>>>>>>> railroads from straight to a curve they try to minimize the
>>>>>>>> 'snap' of
>>>>>>>> a vehicle following the transition segment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean
>>>>>>> drive, a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> masses being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He
>>>>>>> showed that the weight of the assembly was decreased when running
>>>>>>> - on
>>>>>>> a bathroom scales.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> my friend, heard?? It's enough to push body on a line with a
>>>>>> forcemeter
>>>>>> on it. You get the slope for the jerk since the acceleration is not
>>>>>> constant.
>>>>>> Ohh my, heard of. And you want to speed higher than light, do you.
>>>>>> Are
>>>>>> we from amrica??
>>>>>
>>>>> What you get is that scales, measure deflection, in the system, while
>>>>> balances, measure not deflection, according to references.
>>>>> Physics is an open and closed system.
>>>>
>>>> whatever you say it's completely nonsense. Pushing an object on a line,
>>>> and bouncing back repeatedly, makes acceleration NOT constant, me
>>>> friendo.
>>>> Plotting the data shows the jerk directly and no debate. You
>>>> relativists
>>>> around here, beyond arduino, have no laboratory experience
>>>> whatsoever in
>>>> physics. All you know is Einstine, a lower than mediocre highschool
>>>> student.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey now, we're talking about f = ma, and about the infinitely-many
>>> higher-order derivatives of velocity, and meters/second and
>>> seconds/meter, that it is possible to have constant velocity,
>>> constant rest for that matter, constant acceleration and so on,
>>> but to get there it goes from zero to one, each higher order
>>> contribution going from 0 to 1 and back to 0 again, with regards
>>> to acceleration and deceleration, starting and stopping, and
>>> parting and meeting, all the objects in their ephemerides each
>>> other, in a world where all the orbits add up to the geodesy's
>>> world-lines, according to a theory of sum potentials, where
>>> all the real fields are potential fields including the classical
>>> field their sum in the middle, with least action and conservation,
>>> then about Einstein's bridge and rotational space-contraction,
>>> because Einstein's theory is classical in the limit.
>>>
>>> Usually the unit impulse function, and, the radial basis function,
>>> are two analytical features, of interest. For example, the
>>> Dirac delta, also known as unit impulse, is not-a-real-function,
>>> that's modeled as a continuum limit of real functions, that
>>> always has area 1, but is a spike of infinite height and infinitesimal
>>> width at the origin. The radial basis function, is a round bump
>>> on the line, with area 1, say. A droplet, is like a sphere,
>>> yet it's pointed in a direction, which is the direction of
>>> the classical force vector, in the theory of waves.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, here we're talking about the infinitely-many higher-order
>>> derivatives of velocity, calling those "v^prime(infinity)".
>>>
>>> Correspondingly there's about "e^x + e^-x", and also the
>>> power series out both sides of that, and, the sinusoidal,
>>> with respect to, the inch-worm.
>>>
>>> Einstein knows Newton, and, Newton doesn't define what
>>> happens except "rests stays at (constant) rest, motion
>>> stays at (constant) motion, all interactions follow a
>>> billiard ball model of perfect inelastic collisions",
>>> yet things don't and they aren't. It's undefined.
>>> So, Einstein, helps recognize, that there are some
>>> sorts these "Newton's Zero-eth laws of motion".
>>>
>>>
>>> I studied this for a while the other day and the
>>> usual gimme-gimme-gratification or cursory search
>>> arrives pretty much at "well, you see, it's undefined ...".
>>>
>>> Yet, life goes on.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I got to wondering about this and well it basically gets
>> to Galileo and the great relation of constant acceleration,
>> usually enough in the terrestrial setting the only source
>> of which being gravity, which is really only "constant"
>> in relatively short distances like from the table to the
>> floor, vis-a-vis "high-altitude low-opening parachuting"
>> or "a hole to the center of the Earth", it's sort of so
>> that the usual framing of terrestrial gravity as constant
>> acceleration is contrived, and, Newtonian gravity pretty
>> much works when the objects are quite massive and independent,
>> yet, quite far apart, when they see each other as curves,
>> or walls, instead of points, for objects with about equal
>> masses, vis-a-vis objects with inequal masses, vis-a-vis
>> their orbits, and their kinematics as systems together.
>>
>> "Physics is open and closed, and it's open."
>>
>>
>> Mathematically of course for v = dp/dt and a = dv/dt = v'
>> and all the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration,
>> and deceleration, is about sum-of-potentials, and it's
>> about rest-exchange momentum, about why "physics is open
>> so momentum is in part virtual or pseudo with regards
>> to released potential".
>>
>> It's like, a Mexican jumping bean, is actually a sort
>> of chrysalis, and inside is a wound-up spring, and it
>> wants out. Physics is an open system, ....
>>
>>
>> So anyways, Galilean invariance, is about the greatest
>> thing, in terms of that "force is fictitious", that
>> what that really means is "our classical force model,
>> where the classical force is real, is actually the
>> sum result of all... the potentials, which are actually
>> the real, that it results that classical force, is really
>> just the first or last fictitious force, being the
>> impulse of a singularity in potential theory, which
>> is to explain why Galilean invariance holds, at each
>> instant, while in each instant, also continuously apply
>> all... the dynamics, in a continuum mechanics."
>>
>>
>> Thus, concepts here involve:
>>
>> v-prime-infty: the series of the infinitely-many orders of acceleration,
>> which are non-zero, yet mostly vanishing,
>> that in the classical limit, results Galileo and Newton
>> and Einstein's laws of rest and motion.
>>
>> classical limit:
>> classically there is one of superclassical theories,
>> superclassically the classical is the limit instead.
>>
>> fictitious force:
>> defined as that classical force is truncated from a
>> moment to a scalar, anything else, while in the theory
>> of sum potentials, it's exactly that, and results real force.
>>
>>
>> So, looking for a theory where gravity is a force,
>> and, forces are real, and, of course it's a field
>> theory and a gauge theory, space-time is a continuous
>> manifold, and there's effectively a particle model
>> of the sub-atomic, according to pretty much mass and
>> charge together, in space.
>>
>> That's sort of missing from "physics" today but actually
>> it's among the most very usual sorts of notions that
>> arrive in theoretical physics to unification theories,
>> "sum the potentials: physics is a system".
>>
>>
>>
>
> Classical physics is really great,
> it's, linear, then, differential.
>
> It's usually all according to "time", of course,
> which is almost always labelled "t".
>
> So, classical physics is great, then when
> trying to fulfill the greater physics, what
> happens is what results "non-linearities",
> and, "singularities".
>
> The essential concept of singularity, though,
> needs to be thoroughly understood, in a world
> of "open" and "closed", that in a "closed" world,
> singularities don't exist, and in an "open" world,
> singularities are multiplicities.
>
> The very definition of "singularity" in mathematics
> has multiple terms that describe it, one of which
> is "perestroika" which means "opening", and another
> of which is "opening" which means "opening".
>
>
> So, classical physics: _is a singularity itself_.
>
> Classical physics is a closed singularity,
> in the open world of greater physics,
> which is open, it's an open system.
>
> Classical physics _is a singularity itself_.
>
>
> So, singularity theory, which is, multiplicity theory,
> makes for the great usual theoretical edifice called
> "metaphysics", "metaphysics: a systems theory,
> a system theory, system, a theory".
>
> Classical theory _is a singularity itself_.
>
> Then, the idea that, greater physics is open,
> then ultimate physics is open and closed,
> gets into things like, for example, "neither
> Big Bang nor Steady State is falsifiable and
> either can be made fit the data".
>
> They're a theory - it's a theory.
>
> So, the infinitely-many higher-orders of acceleration,
> basically follows directly for the infinitely-many
> divisions of _time_, all together, altogether,
> that "the physics", is a theory of sum potentials,
> a theory of omega potentials, and altogether: real.
>
>
> This helps rehabilitate metaphysics for logicism
> and positivism, for stronger logicism and stronger
> positivism, greater metaphysics, for both "Being and
> Thought" and "Being and Time", a theory. ("A Theory.")
>
>
> Same goes for the rest of it.
>
>

Ross Finlayson wrote:

>>>> On 03/09/2024 11:44 PM, Ismael Balazowsky Homutov wrote:
>>>>> whatever you say it's completely nonsense. Pushing an object on a
>>>>> line, and bouncing back repeatedly, makes acceleration NOT constant,
>>>>> me friendo. Plotting the data shows the jerk directly and no debate.
>>>>> You relativists around here, beyond arduino, have no laboratory
>>>>> experience whatsoever in physics. All you know is Einstine, a lower
>>>>> than mediocre highschool student.
>
> Moment and Motion: inertial momentum
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA
> Acceleration, mechanics, interaction, higher-order acceleration,
> motion and rest, continuity, hologram universe, Mach,
> physical quantities, point to total, dp/dt, dv/dt, change

you see too many movies, maybe you should change your diapers.

𝗨𝗦_𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗴𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗺𝗮𝘆_𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲_𝗱𝘆𝘀𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_–_𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆
An hour of computer use is enough to make a man soft, Chinese scientists
have claimed
https://r%74.com/news/594577-video-games-erectile-dysfunction/

On 03/20/2024 02:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/11/2024 10:56 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 03/11/2024 10:09 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2024 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 03/09/2024 11:44 PM, Ismael Balazowsky Homutov wrote:
>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/09/2024 12:37 PM, Ramiro Juárez wrote:
>>>>>>> gharnagel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat
>>>>>>>>> whimsical)
>>>>>>>>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is
>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the
>>>>>>>>> derivative
>>>>>>>>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone
>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's
>>>>>>>>> actually used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or
>>>>>>>>> railroads from straight to a curve they try to minimize the
>>>>>>>>> 'snap' of
>>>>>>>>> a vehicle following the transition segment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean
>>>>>>>> drive, a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> masses being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He
>>>>>>>> showed that the weight of the assembly was decreased when running
>>>>>>>> - on
>>>>>>>> a bathroom scales.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> my friend, heard?? It's enough to push body on a line with a
>>>>>>> forcemeter
>>>>>>> on it. You get the slope for the jerk since the acceleration is not
>>>>>>> constant.
>>>>>>> Ohh my, heard of. And you want to speed higher than light, do you.
>>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>> we from amrica??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you get is that scales, measure deflection, in the system, while
>>>>>> balances, measure not deflection, according to references.
>>>>>> Physics is an open and closed system.
>>>>>
>>>>> whatever you say it's completely nonsense. Pushing an object on a
>>>>> line,
>>>>> and bouncing back repeatedly, makes acceleration NOT constant, me
>>>>> friendo.
>>>>> Plotting the data shows the jerk directly and no debate. You
>>>>> relativists
>>>>> around here, beyond arduino, have no laboratory experience
>>>>> whatsoever in
>>>>> physics. All you know is Einstine, a lower than mediocre highschool
>>>>> student.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey now, we're talking about f = ma, and about the infinitely-many
>>>> higher-order derivatives of velocity, and meters/second and
>>>> seconds/meter, that it is possible to have constant velocity,
>>>> constant rest for that matter, constant acceleration and so on,
>>>> but to get there it goes from zero to one, each higher order
>>>> contribution going from 0 to 1 and back to 0 again, with regards
>>>> to acceleration and deceleration, starting and stopping, and
>>>> parting and meeting, all the objects in their ephemerides each
>>>> other, in a world where all the orbits add up to the geodesy's
>>>> world-lines, according to a theory of sum potentials, where
>>>> all the real fields are potential fields including the classical
>>>> field their sum in the middle, with least action and conservation,
>>>> then about Einstein's bridge and rotational space-contraction,
>>>> because Einstein's theory is classical in the limit.
>>>>
>>>> Usually the unit impulse function, and, the radial basis function,
>>>> are two analytical features, of interest. For example, the
>>>> Dirac delta, also known as unit impulse, is not-a-real-function,
>>>> that's modeled as a continuum limit of real functions, that
>>>> always has area 1, but is a spike of infinite height and infinitesimal
>>>> width at the origin. The radial basis function, is a round bump
>>>> on the line, with area 1, say. A droplet, is like a sphere,
>>>> yet it's pointed in a direction, which is the direction of
>>>> the classical force vector, in the theory of waves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, here we're talking about the infinitely-many higher-order
>>>> derivatives of velocity, calling those "v^prime(infinity)".
>>>>
>>>> Correspondingly there's about "e^x + e^-x", and also the
>>>> power series out both sides of that, and, the sinusoidal,
>>>> with respect to, the inch-worm.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein knows Newton, and, Newton doesn't define what
>>>> happens except "rests stays at (constant) rest, motion
>>>> stays at (constant) motion, all interactions follow a
>>>> billiard ball model of perfect inelastic collisions",
>>>> yet things don't and they aren't. It's undefined.
>>>> So, Einstein, helps recognize, that there are some
>>>> sorts these "Newton's Zero-eth laws of motion".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I studied this for a while the other day and the
>>>> usual gimme-gimme-gratification or cursory search
>>>> arrives pretty much at "well, you see, it's undefined ...".
>>>>
>>>> Yet, life goes on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I got to wondering about this and well it basically gets
>>> to Galileo and the great relation of constant acceleration,
>>> usually enough in the terrestrial setting the only source
>>> of which being gravity, which is really only "constant"
>>> in relatively short distances like from the table to the
>>> floor, vis-a-vis "high-altitude low-opening parachuting"
>>> or "a hole to the center of the Earth", it's sort of so
>>> that the usual framing of terrestrial gravity as constant
>>> acceleration is contrived, and, Newtonian gravity pretty
>>> much works when the objects are quite massive and independent,
>>> yet, quite far apart, when they see each other as curves,
>>> or walls, instead of points, for objects with about equal
>>> masses, vis-a-vis objects with inequal masses, vis-a-vis
>>> their orbits, and their kinematics as systems together.
>>>
>>> "Physics is open and closed, and it's open."
>>>
>>>
>>> Mathematically of course for v = dp/dt and a = dv/dt = v'
>>> and all the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration,
>>> and deceleration, is about sum-of-potentials, and it's
>>> about rest-exchange momentum, about why "physics is open
>>> so momentum is in part virtual or pseudo with regards
>>> to released potential".
>>>
>>> It's like, a Mexican jumping bean, is actually a sort
>>> of chrysalis, and inside is a wound-up spring, and it
>>> wants out. Physics is an open system, ....
>>>
>>>
>>> So anyways, Galilean invariance, is about the greatest
>>> thing, in terms of that "force is fictitious", that
>>> what that really means is "our classical force model,
>>> where the classical force is real, is actually the
>>> sum result of all... the potentials, which are actually
>>> the real, that it results that classical force, is really
>>> just the first or last fictitious force, being the
>>> impulse of a singularity in potential theory, which
>>> is to explain why Galilean invariance holds, at each
>>> instant, while in each instant, also continuously apply
>>> all... the dynamics, in a continuum mechanics."
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus, concepts here involve:
>>>
>>> v-prime-infty: the series of the infinitely-many orders of acceleration,
>>> which are non-zero, yet mostly vanishing,
>>> that in the classical limit, results Galileo and Newton
>>> and Einstein's laws of rest and motion.
>>>
>>> classical limit:
>>> classically there is one of superclassical theories,
>>> superclassically the classical is the limit instead.
>>>
>>> fictitious force:
>>> defined as that classical force is truncated from a
>>> moment to a scalar, anything else, while in the theory
>>> of sum potentials, it's exactly that, and results real force.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, looking for a theory where gravity is a force,
>>> and, forces are real, and, of course it's a field
>>> theory and a gauge theory, space-time is a continuous
>>> manifold, and there's effectively a particle model
>>> of the sub-atomic, according to pretty much mass and
>>> charge together, in space.
>>>
>>> That's sort of missing from "physics" today but actually
>>> it's among the most very usual sorts of notions that
>>> arrive in theoretical physics to unification theories,
>>> "sum the potentials: physics is a system".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Classical physics is really great,
>> it's, linear, then, differential.
>>
>> It's usually all according to "time", of course,
>> which is almost always labelled "t".
>>
>> So, classical physics is great, then when
>> trying to fulfill the greater physics, what
>> happens is what results "non-linearities",
>> and, "singularities".
>>
>> The essential concept of singularity, though,
>> needs to be thoroughly understood, in a world
>> of "open" and "closed", that in a "closed" world,
>> singularities don't exist, and in an "open" world,
>> singularities are multiplicities.
>>
>> The very definition of "singularity" in mathematics
>> has multiple terms that describe it, one of which
>> is "perestroika" which means "opening", and another
>> of which is "opening" which means "opening".
>>
>>
>> So, classical physics: _is a singularity itself_.
>>
>> Classical physics is a closed singularity,
>> in the open world of greater physics,
>> which is open, it's an open system.
>>
>> Classical physics _is a singularity itself_.
>>
>>
>> So, singularity theory, which is, multiplicity theory,
>> makes for the great usual theoretical edifice called
>> "metaphysics", "metaphysics: a systems theory,
>> a system theory, system, a theory".
>>
>> Classical theory _is a singularity itself_.
>>
>> Then, the idea that, greater physics is open,
>> then ultimate physics is open and closed,
>> gets into things like, for example, "neither
>> Big Bang nor Steady State is falsifiable and
>> either can be made fit the data".
>>
>> They're a theory - it's a theory.
>>
>> So, the infinitely-many higher-orders of acceleration,
>> basically follows directly for the infinitely-many
>> divisions of _time_, all together, altogether,
>> that "the physics", is a theory of sum potentials,
>> a theory of omega potentials, and altogether: real.
>>
>>
>> This helps rehabilitate metaphysics for logicism
>> and positivism, for stronger logicism and stronger
>> positivism, greater metaphysics, for both "Being and
>> Thought" and "Being and Time", a theory. ("A Theory.")
>>
>>
>> Same goes for the rest of it.
>>
>>
>
> Moment and Motion: inertial momentum
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=32
>
>
> Acceleration, mechanics, interaction, higher-order acceleration,
> motion and rest, continuity, hologram universe, Mach,
> physical quantities, point to total, dp/dt, dv/dt, change
> in time, dimensional analysis, immovable and unstoppable,
> dimensioned quantities, algebra and units, implicits
> and implicit zero, reaching and finding equilibrium,
> dimensional dynamics analysis, the un-linear, connection
> of cascade and carriage, linearity of units of momentum and units
> in inertia, higher-order linearity, complex and harmonic analysis,
> dimensional resonator, Lucretius and Polybius, Aristotle's science
> of physics, a place to stand, Aristotle's platonism,
> Feynman's notes, configuration and energy of experiment,
> forces and the classical limit, independence of coordinates,
> stop-derivative, dimensional resonance, book-keeping,
> momentum phase and phase momentum, Cerenkov and
> Brehmsstrahlung, Huygens principle and boom angle,
> d'Espagnat on objectivity, re-flux.
>

On 03/20/2024 02:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/11/2024 10:56 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 03/11/2024 10:09 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2024 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 03/09/2024 11:44 PM, Ismael Balazowsky Homutov wrote:
>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/09/2024 12:37 PM, Ramiro Juárez wrote:
>>>>>>> gharnagel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat
>>>>>>>>> whimsical)
>>>>>>>>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is
>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the
>>>>>>>>> derivative
>>>>>>>>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone
>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's
>>>>>>>>> actually used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or
>>>>>>>>> railroads from straight to a curve they try to minimize the
>>>>>>>>> 'snap' of
>>>>>>>>> a vehicle following the transition segment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean
>>>>>>>> drive, a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> masses being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He
>>>>>>>> showed that the weight of the assembly was decreased when running
>>>>>>>> - on
>>>>>>>> a bathroom scales.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> my friend, heard?? It's enough to push body on a line with a
>>>>>>> forcemeter
>>>>>>> on it. You get the slope for the jerk since the acceleration is not
>>>>>>> constant.
>>>>>>> Ohh my, heard of. And you want to speed higher than light, do you.
>>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>> we from amrica??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you get is that scales, measure deflection, in the system, while
>>>>>> balances, measure not deflection, according to references.
>>>>>> Physics is an open and closed system.
>>>>>
>>>>> whatever you say it's completely nonsense. Pushing an object on a
>>>>> line,
>>>>> and bouncing back repeatedly, makes acceleration NOT constant, me
>>>>> friendo.
>>>>> Plotting the data shows the jerk directly and no debate. You
>>>>> relativists
>>>>> around here, beyond arduino, have no laboratory experience
>>>>> whatsoever in
>>>>> physics. All you know is Einstine, a lower than mediocre highschool
>>>>> student.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey now, we're talking about f = ma, and about the infinitely-many
>>>> higher-order derivatives of velocity, and meters/second and
>>>> seconds/meter, that it is possible to have constant velocity,
>>>> constant rest for that matter, constant acceleration and so on,
>>>> but to get there it goes from zero to one, each higher order
>>>> contribution going from 0 to 1 and back to 0 again, with regards
>>>> to acceleration and deceleration, starting and stopping, and
>>>> parting and meeting, all the objects in their ephemerides each
>>>> other, in a world where all the orbits add up to the geodesy's
>>>> world-lines, according to a theory of sum potentials, where
>>>> all the real fields are potential fields including the classical
>>>> field their sum in the middle, with least action and conservation,
>>>> then about Einstein's bridge and rotational space-contraction,
>>>> because Einstein's theory is classical in the limit.
>>>>
>>>> Usually the unit impulse function, and, the radial basis function,
>>>> are two analytical features, of interest. For example, the
>>>> Dirac delta, also known as unit impulse, is not-a-real-function,
>>>> that's modeled as a continuum limit of real functions, that
>>>> always has area 1, but is a spike of infinite height and infinitesimal
>>>> width at the origin. The radial basis function, is a round bump
>>>> on the line, with area 1, say. A droplet, is like a sphere,
>>>> yet it's pointed in a direction, which is the direction of
>>>> the classical force vector, in the theory of waves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, here we're talking about the infinitely-many higher-order
>>>> derivatives of velocity, calling those "v^prime(infinity)".
>>>>
>>>> Correspondingly there's about "e^x + e^-x", and also the
>>>> power series out both sides of that, and, the sinusoidal,
>>>> with respect to, the inch-worm.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein knows Newton, and, Newton doesn't define what
>>>> happens except "rests stays at (constant) rest, motion
>>>> stays at (constant) motion, all interactions follow a
>>>> billiard ball model of perfect inelastic collisions",
>>>> yet things don't and they aren't. It's undefined.
>>>> So, Einstein, helps recognize, that there are some
>>>> sorts these "Newton's Zero-eth laws of motion".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I studied this for a while the other day and the
>>>> usual gimme-gimme-gratification or cursory search
>>>> arrives pretty much at "well, you see, it's undefined ...".
>>>>
>>>> Yet, life goes on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I got to wondering about this and well it basically gets
>>> to Galileo and the great relation of constant acceleration,
>>> usually enough in the terrestrial setting the only source
>>> of which being gravity, which is really only "constant"
>>> in relatively short distances like from the table to the
>>> floor, vis-a-vis "high-altitude low-opening parachuting"
>>> or "a hole to the center of the Earth", it's sort of so
>>> that the usual framing of terrestrial gravity as constant
>>> acceleration is contrived, and, Newtonian gravity pretty
>>> much works when the objects are quite massive and independent,
>>> yet, quite far apart, when they see each other as curves,
>>> or walls, instead of points, for objects with about equal
>>> masses, vis-a-vis objects with inequal masses, vis-a-vis
>>> their orbits, and their kinematics as systems together.
>>>
>>> "Physics is open and closed, and it's open."
>>>
>>>
>>> Mathematically of course for v = dp/dt and a = dv/dt = v'
>>> and all the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration,
>>> and deceleration, is about sum-of-potentials, and it's
>>> about rest-exchange momentum, about why "physics is open
>>> so momentum is in part virtual or pseudo with regards
>>> to released potential".
>>>
>>> It's like, a Mexican jumping bean, is actually a sort
>>> of chrysalis, and inside is a wound-up spring, and it
>>> wants out. Physics is an open system, ....
>>>
>>>
>>> So anyways, Galilean invariance, is about the greatest
>>> thing, in terms of that "force is fictitious", that
>>> what that really means is "our classical force model,
>>> where the classical force is real, is actually the
>>> sum result of all... the potentials, which are actually
>>> the real, that it results that classical force, is really
>>> just the first or last fictitious force, being the
>>> impulse of a singularity in potential theory, which
>>> is to explain why Galilean invariance holds, at each
>>> instant, while in each instant, also continuously apply
>>> all... the dynamics, in a continuum mechanics."
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus, concepts here involve:
>>>
>>> v-prime-infty: the series of the infinitely-many orders of acceleration,
>>> which are non-zero, yet mostly vanishing,
>>> that in the classical limit, results Galileo and Newton
>>> and Einstein's laws of rest and motion.
>>>
>>> classical limit:
>>> classically there is one of superclassical theories,
>>> superclassically the classical is the limit instead.
>>>
>>> fictitious force:
>>> defined as that classical force is truncated from a
>>> moment to a scalar, anything else, while in the theory
>>> of sum potentials, it's exactly that, and results real force.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, looking for a theory where gravity is a force,
>>> and, forces are real, and, of course it's a field
>>> theory and a gauge theory, space-time is a continuous
>>> manifold, and there's effectively a particle model
>>> of the sub-atomic, according to pretty much mass and
>>> charge together, in space.
>>>
>>> That's sort of missing from "physics" today but actually
>>> it's among the most very usual sorts of notions that
>>> arrive in theoretical physics to unification theories,
>>> "sum the potentials: physics is a system".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Classical physics is really great,
>> it's, linear, then, differential.
>>
>> It's usually all according to "time", of course,
>> which is almost always labelled "t".
>>
>> So, classical physics is great, then when
>> trying to fulfill the greater physics, what
>> happens is what results "non-linearities",
>> and, "singularities".
>>
>> The essential concept of singularity, though,
>> needs to be thoroughly understood, in a world
>> of "open" and "closed", that in a "closed" world,
>> singularities don't exist, and in an "open" world,
>> singularities are multiplicities.
>>
>> The very definition of "singularity" in mathematics
>> has multiple terms that describe it, one of which
>> is "perestroika" which means "opening", and another
>> of which is "opening" which means "opening".
>>
>>
>> So, classical physics: _is a singularity itself_.
>>
>> Classical physics is a closed singularity,
>> in the open world of greater physics,
>> which is open, it's an open system.
>>
>> Classical physics _is a singularity itself_.
>>
>>
>> So, singularity theory, which is, multiplicity theory,
>> makes for the great usual theoretical edifice called
>> "metaphysics", "metaphysics: a systems theory,
>> a system theory, system, a theory".
>>
>> Classical theory _is a singularity itself_.
>>
>> Then, the idea that, greater physics is open,
>> then ultimate physics is open and closed,
>> gets into things like, for example, "neither
>> Big Bang nor Steady State is falsifiable and
>> either can be made fit the data".
>>
>> They're a theory - it's a theory.
>>
>> So, the infinitely-many higher-orders of acceleration,
>> basically follows directly for the infinitely-many
>> divisions of _time_, all together, altogether,
>> that "the physics", is a theory of sum potentials,
>> a theory of omega potentials, and altogether: real.
>>
>>
>> This helps rehabilitate metaphysics for logicism
>> and positivism, for stronger logicism and stronger
>> positivism, greater metaphysics, for both "Being and
>> Thought" and "Being and Time", a theory. ("A Theory.")
>>
>>
>> Same goes for the rest of it.
>>
>>
>
> Moment and Motion: inertial momentum
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=32
>
>
> Acceleration, mechanics, interaction, higher-order acceleration,
> motion and rest, continuity, hologram universe, Mach,
> physical quantities, point to total, dp/dt, dv/dt, change
> in time, dimensional analysis, immovable and unstoppable,
> dimensioned quantities, algebra and units, implicits
> and implicit zero, reaching and finding equilibrium,
> dimensional dynamics analysis, the un-linear, connection
> of cascade and carriage, linearity of units of momentum and units
> in inertia, higher-order linearity, complex and harmonic analysis,
> dimensional resonator, Lucretius and Polybius, Aristotle's science
> of physics, a place to stand, Aristotle's platonism,
> Feynman's notes, configuration and energy of experiment,
> forces and the classical limit, independence of coordinates,
> stop-derivative, dimensional resonance, book-keeping,
> momentum phase and phase momentum, Cerenkov and
> Brehmsstrahlung, Huygens principle and boom angle,
> d'Espagnat on objectivity, re-flux.
>

gharnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Volney wrote:
> >
> > Ross wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm wondering about v', v'', v''', that being
> > > acceleration and its higher orders, out to v^prime-infty,
> > > that at an instant, help figure this out.
> >
> > For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat whimsical)
> > names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
> > jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the derivative of
> > snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
> > breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's actually
> > used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or railroads from
> > straight to a curve they try to minimize the 'snap' of a vehicle
> > following the transition segment.
>
> I'd heard of jerk. Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean drive,
> a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of the masses
> being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle. He showed that the
> weight of the assembly was decreased when running - on a bathroom scales.
>
> William O. Davis analyzed the system which was referred to by John W.
> Campbell, Jr. as "the fourth law of motion" - i.e., jerk. Davis and G.
> Harry Stine got together and tested the invention. They hung it from a
> wire and oriented it so the supposed thrust would be horizontal. There
> was no net thrust. The "weight loss" was due to nonlinearities in the
> bathroom scales because of the thumping around of the weights.

Yes, a mistake that is made over and over again.
There was some ado some time ago about some students
who had put a gyroscope on a precision 'balance'.
They noticed a change of weight that depended on the sense of rotation.
Apparently the bearings are smoother in the direction
in which they are normally run,
producing less vibration to rectify,

Jan

Replace all that, with Arindam's physics.

bt