Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 16:28:44 +0000
Subject: Re: SpaceTime
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <6249F967.3B4A@ix.netcom.com> <624B373A.68E5@ix.netcom.com>
 <624BBDF1.1594@ix.netcom.com> <624C7C50.638A@ix.netcom.com>
 <lbqi8uF7r8kU3@mid.individual.net>
 <SZCcnfMeCMTTzMT7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <17d4f2968eb77c5d$1$422432$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com>
 <LM-cnTrdnMfS4cb7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <17d4fbd13cb93f7c$1$424441$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <Vf2dnfB9YupXFcb7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <17d51b870a677a09$2$422432$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com>
 <wLednXtzs718CcH7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <d9qdndcJ0NLSAcH7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 09:28:58 -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: <d9qdndcJ0NLSAcH7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <hoidnbAp6LkgAMH7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 141
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-X5qas9QNPWeS1t92bSqzsQwZQjNA/LA5mIdSy+pqPmLqkLIXsjrHbWwhEMeMqJEdnnD/vpNcxLzQnzL!2ecxda/3lvHzYIn4UZModMf4Ak7phPosLCQUrILthjt4bagugq0QyZw6QsPzCnvpTjJw23YLkiw=
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: 7385

On 06/02/2024 09:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 06/02/2024 08:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 06/01/2024 11:18 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> W dniu 01.06.2024 o 22:46, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>> On 06/01/2024 01:37 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> W dniu 01.06.2024 o 21:53, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>>>> On 06/01/2024 10:48 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> W dniu 31.05.2024 o 06:25, Tom Roberts pisze:
>>>>>>>> On 5/30/24 12:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Spacetime is simply what exists, [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics,
>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>> fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> write.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> real world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics,
>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>> fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> write.
>>>>>>> Spacetime is a MODEL  of spatial-temporal relationships
>>>>>>> gedanken/fabricated by some religious maniacs, like yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Space-Time is a perfectly good idea of a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Measured its goodness? Or just sure it
>>>>> must be perfectly good because you're
>>>>> sooooooo best?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> continuous manifold of
>>>>>> Euclidean space
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A lie, of course, your idiot guru has rejected
>>>>> Euclidean math as it didn't want to fit his
>>>>> madness.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Einstein didn't, he entertained different coordinate settings
>>>> and that tensors connect them, then though he at some point
>>>> in his expressed opinion said silly things about simultaneity,
>>>> later his expressed opinion included a clock hypothesis and
>>>> a "the time", where he introduces the "spacial" for the "special"
>>>> contra the "spatial" with respect to "t".
>>>
>>> The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
>>> And, yes, later on, in his GR shit, his madness
>>> reached the point when he rejected basic [Euclidean]
>>> math - because it didn't want to fit his postulates.
>>>
>>
>> Well, the point is that he took it back, and that the
>> "spacial for SR" and "spatial for GR" reflects that
>> "SR is local" then as with regards to GR, nowhere is
>> there yet the Euclidean and torsion to the highly-nonlinear
>> to the free rotational frames, that rotating frames are
>> independent. So, people who think that curved space-time
>> involves discontinuity anywhere have the wrong idea,
>> when it's only descriptive about the geodesy, which
>> is connected everywhere, all the time, since forever.
>>
>> That Einstein was a model aggrandizer has that then
>> Einstein matured, and developed a philosophy of what
>> to him was a model physicist (who shuts up and computes)
>> and a model philosopher (of physics, for the principled
>> and theoretical).
>>
>> So, Einstein matured, and his later works about what
>> "Einstein's" theory is, is, that he put GR in front
>> and made SR local and made it one theory Relativity
>> instead of two theories, then his key concern upon
>> which he focussed, was, the centrally symmetric and
>> the "Einstein's bridge", that formulaically, effects
>> a brief notation of the rotational to the linear or
>> vice-versa, as part of his studied goal of "Newton's
>> zero-eth laws", out of his philosophy, at least a
>> simple formula "Einstein's bridge", for his model physicist,
>> then he wrote that there wasn't enough mathematics for
>> his model physicist for super-classical wave mechanics,
>> continuous, and he wasn't sure how it could be that
>> shut-up-and-compute could be educated to be anything
>> more than stuck in linear approximations.
>>
>> So, Einstein being a "grandiose hedge" sort of won out
>> from his being a "model aggrandizer", yet, most aggrandizing
>> sorts don't know the difference and so their opinion equals zero.
>>
>>
>>
>
> It's kind of like Dirac, also, for whom, most people's only
> idea of a non-standard function that's ever admitted into
> the curriculum is Dirac's delta the unit impulse function,
> that's a spike at the origin of infinite height and
> infinitesimal width and that's integrable and has integral 1.
>
> Dirac said something like "I'm not sure when mathematics
> will be strong enough for continuum mechanics that physics
> needs, yet, also I'm not sure when the mathematicians and
> physicists will have enough intuition and formalism to
> effectively relay continuum mechanics and super-classical
> wave mechanics to model philosophers and model physicists",
> along those lines, or something like "weak".
>
>
> The laws of motion don't have defined the higher orders
> of acceleration, all the infinitely-many of them. So, that's
> something that mathematics owes physics, along with the
> continuum mechanics of infinities and infinitesimals,
> the at least three definitions of continuous domains
> the line-reals field-reals signal-reals, the at least
> three law(s) of large numbers reflecting those definitions
> of continuity which result continuum limits, and so on.
>
>
> So, SpaceTime is a great idea, it's great like geometry
> and continuity, it's great like atomism, it's great
> like macrocosm, it's great. If people get it wrong
> it's not its fault.
>
>

"Moment and Motion:  infinity and large numbers"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5i7CuP80Sg&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5i7CuP80Sg