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.