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