Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 19:29:32 +0000
Subject: Re: The problem of relativistic synchronisation
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <m_uze6jFLkrMPuR4XaNmQntFPLY@jntp>
 <ljfrjfF3hr1U1@mid.individual.net> <IqoVDZIyxVoLReItZ3sD4aYyQ64@jntp>
 <vavtbs$14qma$1@dont-email.me> <pheofpwVPcOT3RCuNcESEqS47x0@jntp>
 <vb1dpe$1evqr$1@dont-email.me> <NVcS6uZDkN8UGhkdIwwkCs4R7x8@jntp>
 <vb1mk4$1g551$1@dont-email.me> <siZVeXFhx1b-RHNvgyKaFJEz2Sc@jntp>
 <vb27p9$1i5d6$1@dont-email.me> <vWfLvh8Z8vhNLMZ2a6tDPPujI6Q@jntp>
 <dt-dndfM2M12LUn7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <1_ecnXW_XLpaJUn7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 12:29:51 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1_ecnXW_XLpaJUn7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <6KacndCaioABXUn7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 159
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-oCbUBT44LfxK65v74gJXpY7ygI1ZsWflLVi64ZrxE1CkprjNpc5+GuFmuBtlJjvNJeSz6+Ed7XfNmfB!r5B5vGF1SxV5VzYtwY1By2fub+1/LDEtden0ELiXuXNil6GEQvdPwI6gDSdQlP6N0Xe9yCSAo5t/!Kw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 7290

On 09/01/2024 11:56 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 11:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 09/01/2024 10:38 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 01/09/2024 à 19:20, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>> Den 01.09.2024 16:13, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>
>>>> Why didn't you calculate  calculate t₂ with the wrong speed of light?
>>>> Is the equation t₂ = (d/v)⋅√(1−v²/c²) beyond your mathematical
>>>> capabilities?
>>>
>>> Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>>>
>>> Vr=4c/3
>>>
>>> t₂=x/Vr=0.75sec
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yet, if you square that, then take the root,
>> is it not that triangle inequality replaces 0.25?
>>
>> The difference?
>>
>>
>> This is a large part of when things are squared
>> or stored in roots for no reason then as with
>> regards to that as an indicator, or "dimension",
>> where a "dimension" only needs one bit an "indicator",
>> triangle rule the bit indicator for the quadrant,
>> that in these things making numerical emergence
>> for continuity, it's often the most usual rule
>> any matters of direction, "what 0.75 means".
>>
>> It's like "power law" or "normal distribution",
>> "sure, it fits".
>>
>>
>
> "Centralizing tendency"
>

"Ornstein-Uelenbech"? Ulen-beck, Ornstein Uelen-bech.

Ornstein-Eulenbech models stationary processes in
Gaussian boxes, Uhlenbeck, points out a same kind
of example, what results a centralizing tendency,
results reducing or reversing model invariants.

Mathematically, ....

"___ models stationary processes in ___, ...."


See, generative is just "show me where the blanks are
then show what makes fill-in-the-blanks".

Mathematically, ....

In physics then there's that the light-like,
has these various corners, their cases for
mathematical induction and model induction,
about that mathematically light is both
geometric, a straight ray, and optical, focussing.

Now, everybody knows that writing the tenses
of focus the verb and plurals of focus the noun,
focus the noun focus the verb to focus the infinitive,
focussing the gerund and focusses or focuses, verb noun,
"foci", hard or soft c, light is geometric, a
straight ray, and optical, focussing.

Then here for example, in the near field the light's
optical, is independent the near field the charge's
"optical", as with regards to "the model invariant",
what is "optical" behavior, or what is "model splitting"
or "model breaking", symmetry breaking"and model breaking
in the near field, and in the far field, and from and to
the point field, and from and to the global field.

Then this "quadratic gradient-positive", "flow", in a
space, that it's the flow over the space, the gradient,
is that "gradient-positive" means the same as "a-diabatic".

There are lots of non-adiabatic models breakings in the
adiabatic, often for example it's the first or only
assumption in a formalism, what establishes the directrix
of the current term, "flow", its gradient.

Anyways such as an idea about root-mean square, or,
Clausius, Fresnel or you know about Fresnel,
when sources move the optical, you can find wherever
there's "1/2" or "squared", "inverse square", then
giving that the triangle rule that the triangle inequality
holds for the metric in each space, so that outer 0.25
falls out of taking square then its root, is the usual
sort of case that define what also of course perfectly
holds, for all factors in the quadratic, what they do.

I.e. it's like "the discarded term", yet in whatever
gradient it's so, "the definite term", establishing
the scalar distances Cauchy-Schwarz, triangle rule,
then "synchronization" here is about "sources and
moving sources", then besides that the optical
of light and the "optical" of "electromagnetic
energy", is that in the interfaces that the light
is variously absorbed or reflected, while the
usual linear instantaneous electromotive and shock
potential of the "electromagnetic" in terms of
"power optically" is quite about zero with respect
to "power optically", while it's electromotive potential
or electrostatic potential, is a lot different,
with free reflection in optics in the light-like,
as with regards to potential in the electromagnetic.

So, it makes sense to just write in algebra what
happens to look like identity, to square the term
then take its root, that in terms of all the equations
in that as a quantity, that equations together define
a quantity, to square the term and take the root of the
square, _is_ the same quantity, "the" root of "the" square.


Or, it's as simple to make something like that out of "0.25",
as just a sort of "symmetrical" term then in what attenuates
as according their centralizing tendency or gradient.

"Root-square and power-root: not inverses,
to take the root and square,
to take the square and root",

these are among most usual of all manipulations in algebra,
and the point is that equations together define a quantity,
so that then when it's attached "the root or power would
attenuate these centralizing tendencies' terms, or reverse
them", simply and quite directly attaches that, a usual
model of an indicator of flow.



Then, here is that there's electron physics and there's
the matter of frequency and energy, as with regards to
"electricity's energy" and "electricity's frequency",
is that's either resulting or reducing potential in
both the electrostatic and electromotive, passively,
and always passively if actively.

While, light just reflects and expands, ....



So, it's a most usual sort of "the corner case" in terms.