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.
>

Replace all that, with Arindam's physics.

bt

bertietaylor wrote:

> Replace all that, with Arindam's physics.

> bt

Now that's a hope. So easy to chant e=mcc an threaten with nukes.

bt