| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<bLednQVyA_qZRrr7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 16:00:04 +0000 Subject: Re: Acceleration's higher orders Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math References: <AricndPpR933M3f4nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <ushsos$2caer$1@dont-email.me> <614f2594d8febab66c1ce843a1559e1d@www.novabbs.com> <usihag$2ncqu$1@paganini.bofh.team> <rxWdnb7u9IPWY3H4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <usjoci$2u0je$1@paganini.bofh.team> <_tWdnSyYfPRNenD4nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <xtCdnfSJ0sJfp3L4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <ddqcnfccVfNb2HL4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <NsScnQOz7spEzWb4nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:00:06 -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: <NsScnQOz7spEzWb4nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <bLednQVyA_qZRrr7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 304 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-pWTyeL09rPh7QmwPK6fbGVOHufRxsx53uJkzW4I5rTJHdvMahEPRBkWu5OPDFwyAERUNIl/gul9dE3F!zwmzEJ1GbKlSeBEny2yoxMEdLFRl2Qc6GAaTdO7yDUMN/kC2tafF60Po46uzpP7QXrWLLFEQ+Jg= 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: 14674 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. >>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========