Acceleration's higher orders

[Adrian Lozin Bakinov]

One thing I've been trying to figure out is "the infinite higher-orders
of acceleration".
This is where for example that classically there's that "rest is rest
and motion is motion", and it's that v is dp/dt, rest 0 and motion
non-zero, it's meters/second, and in seconds/meter, it's that motion is
non-zero and rest is infinity.

this relativity is nonsense. You cannot make the infinity dividing by
zero. That's an error, which is more than mistake.

https://t%68%65%70eopl%65%73%76oice.tv/

𝗠𝗧𝗚_𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗨𝗞_𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝘁𝗼_‘𝗙***_𝗢𝗳𝗳’
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene had a couple of words for a British podcast
host thisweek who was trying to smear MAGA by aligning Donald Trump with
conspiracy theorists. MTG slapped down the former BBC reporter […]

𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀_𝗨𝗽_𝗧𝗼_3_𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗜𝗻_𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗙𝗼𝗿_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰_𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺
A Spanish priest is facing up to three years in jail on hate crime charges
for an article he wrote nearly eight years ago that criticized Islam.
Father Custodio Ballester and two other individuals received […]

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗠𝗣_𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗧𝗼_𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄
The deputy chairman of the German parliament’s oversight committee
Roderich Kiesewetter believes that Ukraine should start attacking targets
inside Russia. According to the German MP, Russia’s Ministry of Defense
building or the HQ of the […]

𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗧𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗦_𝗔𝗿𝗺𝘆’𝘀_𝗕𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁_𝗧𝗼_𝗔𝗶𝗱_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
US president Joe Biden is reportedly looking for alternative ways to fund
Ukraine as his foreign aid bill remains stalled in Congress. According to
a report this week by Bloomberg, the US government is considering […]

𝗙𝗼𝘅_𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀_𝗝𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗗𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗯𝗼_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗩𝗔𝗜𝗗𝗦_𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗺𝗥𝗡𝗔_𝗝𝗮𝗯
Fox News journalist Ashley Papa has been diagnosed with turbo cancer and
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS) after being forced to take the
mRNA vaccine by her employer. The respected journalist and mother of one
said […]

9_𝗖𝗗𝗖_𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁_𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗛𝘂𝗴𝗲_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝘀_𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗕𝗶𝗴_𝗣𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗮_𝗧𝗼_𝗣𝘂𝘀𝗵_𝗺𝗥𝗡𝗔_𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀
Nine new members appointed to the committee that advises the CDC on
vaccine recommendations have taken huge bribes from Big Pharma companies
to push the deadly mRNA vaccines, according to a new investigation. The
U.S. […]

𝗗𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘀_𝗖𝗼𝘄𝗯𝗼𝘆𝘀_𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿-𝗥𝗼𝗻_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗲𝘆_𝗦𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗙𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲_𝗗𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗺𝗥𝗡𝗔_𝗕𝗼𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿
Former Cowboys lineman and Florida State national champion Char-Ron Dorsey
died Monday following a massive stroke, just days after receiving the mRNA
booster. “Just at a loss for words thinking about my brother,” said Terry
[…]

[Ramiro Juárez]

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??

𝗘𝗨 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽 ‘𝗯𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲-𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴’ 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀 – 𝗩𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝘆𝗲𝗻 lol
The European Commission president has urged member states to “turbo
charge” the bloc’s arms manufacturing industry over the next five years
https://r%74.com/news/593970-eu-von-der-leyen-battle-winning-weapons/

She's admitting that the EU only has 'battle-losing' weapons

Send Von der Leyen to Front, maybe she will be battle winning!

Shut it luv. You proved how utterly useless you are in Germany

This brainless bimbo was so effective as Germany's defence minister that
German troops pitched up to a NATO exercise carrying broomsticks in lieu
of rifles.

She looks like she smells unpleasant down there, also, why is her head so
big and her body small, she's maybe a puppet with a bobblehead just
programmed to speak as directed.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ramiro Juárez

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=measure+deflection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=deflection+measure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

[Ismael Balazowsky Homutov]

Post by Ramiro Juárez

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.


𝗜𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰_𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝗹𝗲𝘁_𝗣𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻_–_𝗧ü𝗿𝗸𝗶𝘆𝗲
Muslim-majority states have failed to protect civilians in Gaza against
Israeli troops, President Erdogan said
https://r%74.com/news/594009-islamic-world-failed-gaza/

Yes and that includes Turkiye. Everyone waiting for someone else to act.
They also did not unite against the US in all the recent wars. What did
you expect; Golden age of Islam long gone.

There is still time to do something, instead of just talking. Cancel
agreements, close embassies, deny air space, etc. All talk and zero
action. Yemen was far better in taking action despite being one of the
poorest and most vulnerable country in the whole region.

Turkey and Erdogan is not no better than Saudi and other Arabs to defend
human rights in Palestine! Shame on them !

Let me expose Erdoğan/Turkey, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, 65% of Israeli
oil comes from Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and goes to Israel through
Turkey!

History will remember those that abandoned the Palestinians to die in
israeli genocide and will remember those that facilitated that genocide

Of all the Muslim countries, Turkiye has the most powerful military and is
a part of NATO. All he had to do was put his foot down.

Evil succeeds when good folks do nothing whatever religion they are. What
Erdoğan bey fails to recognise is that the neocon Zionists declared war on
İslam with the 9/11 inside/outside op/coup which includes 99% of Türkiye.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ismael Balazowsky Homutov

Post by Ramiro Juárez

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.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ismael Balazowsky Homutov

Post by Ramiro Juárez

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".

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ismael Balazowsky Homutov

Post by Ramiro Juárez

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."
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.
classically there is one of superclassical theories,
superclassically the classical is the limit instead.
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.

[Bonny χρήται Μαιανδρίου]

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

I'm not sure how to help. Maybe this:

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗨𝗞_𝘁𝗼_𝗴𝗲𝘁_𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃_–_𝗙𝗠
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron has offered to help Berlin avoid
“problems preventing a Taurus delivery” to Ukraine
https://r%74.com/news/594097-germany-missile-swap-uk-kiev/

What else are limeys busy doing for a living, except offering all the help
you need to pin their crimes on you.

I heard that the Americans have lost another Abrams tank today. That's
four down 27 to go.

Just don't transport those missiles on British madeTanks.

Russians should make it very clear that this "scheme" is the same as
Germany supplying the missiles directly and that if used against Russia,
Germany will be held accountable along with England as a co conspirator.

The Russians might see through this, Anna, and their missiles for Germany
won't be routed through another country, they'll go direct.

The idiots think Russia will only target Germany, and that's what they
actually want to happen. The UK and US, wants Germany destroyed, and they
want to bait Russia to do it.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ismael Balazowsky Homutov

Post by Ramiro Juárez

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."
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.
classically there is one of superclassical theories,
superclassically the classical is the limit instead.
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

http://youtu.be/lz-c4UcaBcA

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.

[Olden Ibuka Yokokawa]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ismael Balazowsky Homutov
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.

Moment and Motion: inertial momentum
http://youtu.be/lz-c4UcaBcA
http://youtu.be/lz-c4UcaBcA
Acceleration, mechanics, interaction, higher-order acceleration,
motion and rest, continuity, hologram universe, Mach,
physical quantities, point to total, dp/dt, dv/dt, change

you see too many movies, maybe you should change your diapers.

𝗨𝗦_𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗴𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗺𝗮𝘆_𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲_𝗱𝘆𝘀𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_–_𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆
An hour of computer use is enough to make a man soft, Chinese scientists
have claimed
https://r%74.com/news/594577-video-games-erectile-dysfunction/

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ismael Balazowsky Homutov

Post by Ramiro Juárez

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."
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.
classically there is one of superclassical theories,
superclassically the classical is the limit instead.
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
http://youtu.be/lz-c4UcaBcA
http://youtu.be/lz-c4UcaBcA
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.

Moment and Motion: form latitude

Geometry and motion, perspection, lines and circles,
natural deduction, geometry's objects, smooth acceleration,
transforms and the operator calculus, walk-integral and
stop-derivative, run-derivative and pause-integral, force as a function
of time, implicits, double series, pseudomomentum,
law(s) of large numbers, language and numbers,
number sense, neurological number sense, percentage,
direction and wayfinding, scientific demarcation,
the definition of dialectic, the differintegro and integrodiffero,
free kinematics, closed forms and infinite expressions,
the latitude of forms, Oresme, configuration space, latitude of motion,
Mertonian rule, the moment as fulcrum and lever, mechanics,
particle/wave duality, intersubjectivity, discrete and continuous
physics, Bohm/de Broglie, flux mechanics, sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials, Fatio/LeSage, lever application.

[bertietaylor]

Replace all that, with Arindam's physics.

bt

[bertietaylor]

Post by bertietaylor
Replace all that, with Arindam's physics.
bt

Now that's a hope. So easy to chant e=mcc an threaten with nukes.

bt

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ismael Balazowsky Homutov

Post by Ramiro Juárez

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."
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.
classically there is one of superclassical theories,
superclassically the classical is the limit instead.
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
http://youtu.be/lz-c4UcaBcA
http://youtu.be/lz-c4UcaBcA
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.

Moment and Motion: history of mechanics

The history and language of science, kinetics and kinematics, laws of
physics, invariant and symmetry and conservation, continuity laws and
symmetry flex and running constants, reduction to fundamental elements,
sum of histories and sum of potentials, energy and entropy and dunamis
and heat, mathematical and physical constants, Langrangians and
functions of time, Kelvinists and Maxwellites, field theory and
fundamental particles and force carriers, general relativity and gravity
and quantum mechanics, rest-exchange momentum, history of mechanics,
Heilbrom's histories, machines and mechanical advantage,natural and
violent motion,Buridan and impetus, mathematical models of physical
models and nominalism, units of meters and inchworm-hourglass,
positional gravity and virtual displacement, Varignon and Lamy and
momentum, momentum versus vis-viva, vis-viva and pseudomomentum,
Maupertuis and Fermat and least action, Euler and resultant of external
forces, Zeno and motion.




https://philarchive.org/archive/MILHIO-8
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004HisSc..42..189T
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation
https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article-abstract/59/10/31/412666/The-vis-viva-dispute-A-controversy-at-the-dawn-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[Lou Bodnár Sárközi]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ismael Balazowsky Homutov
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,

not true, that f=ma is for constant acceleration only, I saw many big
professors not knowing this thing. But it takes nothing to plot that
trajectory the way you want. This proves that you can cheat yourself, but
not the physics. And now, some good news for you, to undrestand.

𝗕𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻’𝘀_𝗳𝗹𝗮𝗴𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽_𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁_𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗿_𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀_𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗲𝗻_𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗿𝘀
The blaze was the latest in a long line of malfunctions to befall the HMS
Queen Elizabeth
https://r%74.com/news/594082-uk-aircraft-carrier-fire/

That's why I said that the best thing they can do with this hunk of junk
is to tow it to gulf of Aden and let the Yemeni Houthis use it as a
practice target !!

It's only the beginning of the collapse....Britain is ruined by those
zionist politicians being bribed to drive the country to ruin for their
own gains...

Bigger fire is coming

The British need dentist. Not war ships. Bunch of inbred assholes

No wonder these clowns from their moldy island are paying the ukros to
fight with Russia, they cannot nor dare do it themselves.....

Britain's flagship aircraft carrier like a piece of excrement floating in
the toilet...

[Andrea Krakowski]

William O. Davis analyzed the system which was referred to by John W.
Campbell, Jr. as "the fourth law of motion" - i.e., jerk. Davis and G.
Harry Stine got together and tested the invention. They hung it from a
wire and oriented it so the supposed thrust would be horizontal. There
was no net thrust. The "weight loss" was due to nonlinearities in the
bathroom scales because of the thumping around of the weights.

Yes, a mistake that is made over and over again.
There was some ado some time ago about some students who had put a
gyroscope on a precision 'balance'.
They noticed a change of weight that depended on the sense of rotation.
Apparently the bearings are smoother in the direction in which they are
normally run, producing less vibration to rectify, Jan

nonsense, the center of mass is moving along the axis of rotation, which is a fact. See a doctor.

Loading Image...

𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗔_𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗗_𝗣𝗧._10_-_𝗪𝗔𝗦𝗧𝗘_𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗔𝗚𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧,_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗚𝗜𝗟𝗗𝗘𝗗_𝗔𝗚𝗘_2022-04-22 https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/jgztuv98EroM