Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:38:33 +0000
Subject: Re: Steel Man of Einstein & Relativity.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <23387e561af5e3d769b94ab9ddc5f74b@www.novabbs.com>
 <7dfa7214e108991221d9b7115961ca87@www.novabbs.com>
 <00a9cb00ad7df66a0aaeefeac11278a7@www.novabbs.com>
 <-hc8RY2DvPYBVYYkPGqCAQ_LJH8@jntp> <vbnhuq$2h766$1@dont-email.me>
 <bd0ef39e13f5bbc44f19458c6e6238e1@www.novabbs.com>
 <8OqdnXqgqLxCMX77nZ2dnZfqnPoAAAAA@giganews.com>
 <d026450701e796e11040ce91412fa87c@www.novabbs.com>
 <vc31l3$19el9$1@dont-email.me>
 <5zqdnb2qHtQ2Knj7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <2uSdnUBvV6yEQHj7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 12:38:22 -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: <2uSdnUBvV6yEQHj7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <sXednayZEsOke3j7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 142
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-BSOubF2SbeZflsHWGInd+pLX24K6+2K0bpiHe+HlYM82dPUqcDTsSe98P7QuYywBcU36d+dq46gUYIz!J4TcZeNGi0xmyFFGuqjfIGfHiB8kOX7s4XXKFvZ61/OppQMQ+p3R2uqny2XffDYEX06NXlkdDJKb!DQ==
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: 8257

On 09/14/2024 11:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/14/2024 09:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 09/13/2024 08:58 PM, Volney wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2024 2:00 AM, rhertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> α = 8π² a³/[c² T²]  = 2 GM/c² (curiously, it's the Schwarzschild radius
>>>> for the Sun).
>>>
>>> Not "curiously", the GR formula for deflection depends on the
>>> Schwarzschild radius. Look what happens when you calculate deflection of
>>> light grazing a Schwarzschild radius object.
>>>>
>>>> The only possible explanation is that he commited FRAUD, in order to
>>>> obtain the 43"/cy.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, I'm shure that his ADVISOR Schwarzschild had a cut in the 1915
>>>> paper that he presented to the Prussian Academy of Science. Even
>>>> when he
>>>> was serving as a Lieutenant on the Eastern Front (WWI),  Schwarzschild
>>>> made sure to be present on that day (Nov. 18, 1915). After all, he was
>>>> not at the vanguard of the eastern front.
>>>>
>>>> Just ONE MONTH AFTER THIS PRESENTATION, Schwarzschild came out with his
>>>> analytical solution that formally introduced what is known today as the
>>>> Schwarzschild´s radius formula.
>>>>
>>>> TOO MANY COINCIDENCES AND TOO MUCH ROTTEN FISH AROUND GR
>>>> INTRODUCTION IN
>>>> SOCIETY.
>>>
>>> Nobody cares about your obvious paranoia created delusions.
>>
>> Here that's considered with respect to the "cube wall", as with
>> regards to systems of coordinates, what there is of the tensorial
>> preserving the affine for otherwise the "not-coordinate-free",
>> and under torsions, then as with regards to the Kerr, Kruzkeles (sp.),
>> and turtle coordinates, with regards to Schw. and Chandrasekhar.
>>
>> Einstein's work on the centrally symmetrical and his
>> "second most-famous mass-energy equivalency relation
>> that nobody's ever heard of", also enter the picture
>> as with regards to the laws of motion and classical,
>> and the sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials as what's
>> considered "real", for realists, today.
>>
>> Then, as with regards to doubling-spaces and doubling-measures,
>> and halving-spaces and halving-measures, gets involved with
>> the continuum mathematically, as with regards to the
>> individuation of parts, or points, a.k.a. quantization,
>> with regards to models of flow and the fluid, and flux
>> and the super-fluid.
>>
>> So, when doubling or halving really very is according to
>> ponderance of derivation, capricious, to make it fit,
>> then gets into these days what's called quasi-invariance
>> and the quasi-invariant in the measure theory, as with
>> regards to the measure problem, and why mathematics has
>> required a "re-Vitali-ization", of the measurable really
>> of Vitali's example, and why Vitali and Hausdorff are at
>> least as good geometers as Banach and Tarski algebraists,
>> that mathematics _owes_ physics more about why this is so,
>> and as with regards to the usual notions of stress and
>> strain tensors, about Green and Euler and Cauchy and Dirac,
>> and Piola-Kirchhoff, with regards to Birkhoff and the lacunary
>> and the Ramsey theory, why there are more than the standard
>> laws of large numbers, for it to result that and when the
>> doubling and halving are _not_ capricious, conscientiously.
>>
>> It's like, "Einstein, what coordinates maintain continuity
>> among and between these systems of coordinates", and it's
>> like, "whatever works, one of the major aspects of my later
>> researches into the total field theory of the differential-system
>> of the inertial-system that's real gets involved the centrally
>> symmetric with regards to the un-linear", while physics yet
>> doesn't even have a model of "the infinitely-many higher orders
>> of acceleration, nominally non-zero yet vanishing", then it's
>> like, "you know, the cosmological constant is about that".
>>
>> ... Which of course is available to reason. Poincare and Dirichlet
>> are pretty great, and, one of Hilbert's greater ideas is that
>> "you know, geometry needs a postulate of continuity or one made".
>>
>>
>
>
> The Vitali's construction is about the most usual example
> of a doubling-space, where a unit interval is infinitely
> divided and results when re-composed as for equi-decomposability
> that it results an interval of length L 1 < L < 3, or here L = 2,
> as with regards to the "one-sidedness" of points _in_ a line,
> and "two-sidedness" of points _on_ a line, as with regards
> then thirdly to the signal-analysis of points _about_ a line.
>
> So, Vitali's example was in the early days of point-set topology,
> with the idea that for the standard formalism of real analysis,
> that "least-upper-bound" a.k.a. Dedekind completeness is
> axiomatized, stipulated so that the ordered field the rationals
> fulfills being the complete ordered field the field-reals or "R"
> usually in the standard formalism, that Vitali's result made
> a mumbling consternation in the algebraists, who resulted
> introducing "non-measurability" of sets of points the point-sets,
> as what results the day's "measure problem", that these days
> is because the Planckian eventually results "either no straight
> lines or no right angles", i.e., no metric, no norm.
>
> So, then another quite amazing example is the very simple
> case mathematically:
>
> f(n) = n/d, natural n, natural d, 0 <= n <= d, d -> \infty
>
> where it results that this looks like an equi-partitioning
> of the unit interval and as a function is constant monotone
> strictly increasing. (In the limit, the infinite limit,
> the continuum limit.)
>
>
> What's great is that it's both a discrete function though
> modeled in the continuum limit, and, it's integrable, and,
> it has a definite integral over the entire domain, and,
> it's not 1/2, instead 1.
>
> So, these are features of numbers that make for after
> everybody's first non-standard function with real
> analytical character, Dirac delta, that way before that,
> is this sort of "Natural/Unit Equivalency Function",
> which meets most people's exact intuition, of the
> continuous infinitely-divided to the discrete,
> and, vice-versa, then with a bunch of uniqueness
> and distinctness results, in the seat of real analysis.
>
>
> So, "re-Vitali-ization of measure theory", is making a
> place for this as it's natural and fundamental,
> and pivotal, and crucial, and all.
>
>

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

"Moment and Motion:  Zeno's dialectics"