Scalar waves

Post by Thomas Heger
Hi Ng
I had read recently something from Tom Bearden.
He wrote, that scalar waves are longitudinal waves, which vary in
velocity and are acompanied by a wave, which runs backwards in time.
The idea is a little strange and would require to give up the constancy
of the speed of light in vacuum, but to allow a variation of the speed
of light in vacuum.
This would cause a wavelike behavior, but longitudinal (opposite to
classical em-waves).
This behaviour was called 'polarized in the time-domain'.
Is this somehow correct?
(The 'backwards in time wave' is actually no prblem for me, because I
had assumed something similar before.)
TH

It only goes backward, if at all: zero, so, ....

What that models is that there is a region, all the region
of the affected course of the wave, that is a "locale",
that is a locality, and that according to observer
effect and "real wave collapse", of a superclassical
wave of a locale an extended region, that the "real
wave collapse" is "superclassical flux", i.e. instantaneous.

I.e., the only reason "model of a wave backward in time
as if time was a dimension not a ray", is because,
otherwise it's "model of a wave instantaneous in an
extended region of space". It's only a projection,
because, the real perspective, is a regional perspective,
which is the locale, not just the point perspective.

Waves are considered general models of change in open systems.

Dominick Csikós

2024-04-28 16:44:06 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
Is this somehow correct?
(The 'backwards in time wave' is actually no prblem for me, because I
had assumed something similar before.) TH

you talk nonsense, that's a fictitious "locale" since locale doesn't even
exists. Here's more info for you to undrestand. What is been said in
relativity so many times before, the fucking putina is a fucking traitor.

𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗲,_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗨𝗻𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰_-_𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹_𝗖𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗴_𝗥𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀
https://bi%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69deo/qzfe1tcU0qxR

Ross Finlayson

2024-04-28 17:44:08 UTC

It only goes backward, if at all: zero, so, ....
What that models is that there is a region, all the region
of the affected course of the wave, that is a "locale",
that is a locality, and that according to observer
effect and "real wave collapse", of a superclassical
wave of a locale an extended region, that the "real
wave collapse" is "superclassical flux", i.e. instantaneous.
I.e., the only reason "model of a wave backward in time
as if time was a dimension not a ray", is because,
otherwise it's "model of a wave instantaneous in an
extended region of space". It's only a projection,
because, the real perspective, is a regional perspective,
which is the locale, not just the point perspective.
Waves are considered general models of change in open systems.

What happens is that perspective, includes,
a "point at infinity".

Now, in SR, for the L-principle and light's speed,
it's often considered in "natural units", the c = 1,
everything else in proportion to that.

Yet, as a "point at infinity", thusly, because as
a "natural unit" also is "beyond the bounded",
in the usual model of SR and in deep space in
an un-moving medium and freely untrammeled,
as a "point at infinity", in perspective,
behind it is another "point at infinity", "at infinity".

It's similar to consider when the medium is
measured by the travel of sound through air,
that the "natural unit" of Mach-1, is this same
sort of "point at infinity", "beyond the bounded",
that beyond it is that according to light speed,
"point at infinity", and beyond that is yet another
"point at infinity", when c_g gravity's speed is
"infinite", "natural units", or "scalars", for,
what results a, "scalar infinity".

Now, it's well-known, that the images received,
of objects in the Solar System, the sources,
are received as of after their travel. It's
also well-known, that, the principal component
of the instantaneous vector of force, of gravity,
always points at the _source_, not, the _image_,
except as so contrived when distances are fixed
and immobile and unvarying, which is not so in
the locale of the Solar System. So, c_g >= c.

So, the "scalar", in these considerations of
"point, local, global, total", get directly
involved with projection and perspective,
a "point at infinity" and "point(s) at infinity",
and, the "scalar" of "natural units", and,
the "scalar", of, "scalar infinity".

Then, this superclassical flux is as of whatever
recedes, so maintaining the symmetry of balance of
a continuity law, as so much more general than
a conservation law, that it's a "continuity-conservation"
law, that according to time symmetry "back-and-forth
from the point(s) at infinity", that it can be
considered rather directly, in terms of sound's
speed, and light's speed, and, light's speed,
and gravity's speed.

Thomas Heger

2024-04-29 04:36:45 UTC

It only goes backward, if at all: zero, so, ....
What that models is that there is a region, all the region
of the affected course of the wave, that is a "locale",
that is a locality, and that according to observer
effect and "real wave collapse", of a superclassical
wave of a locale an extended region, that the "real
wave collapse" is "superclassical flux", i.e. instantaneous.
I.e., the only reason "model of a wave backward in time
as if time was a dimension not a ray", is because,
otherwise it's "model of a wave instantaneous in an
extended region of space". It's only a projection,
because, the real perspective, is a regional perspective,
which is the locale, not just the point perspective.
Waves are considered general models of change in open systems.

I had written this 'book':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

There I use a certain mathematical construct about which I assume, that
nature would behave similarly on a very fundamental level.

This contains an expansion and a contraction (wave), which build a
standing wave and that 'timelike stable structures', which I assume to
be what we call 'matter'.

The concept is therefor called 'structured spacetime'.

The wave and the anti-wave are actually connected, because the world is
assumed to be composed from anti-symmetric pointlike elements of
spacetime. These are connected with the neighbors, as if these elements
would twist each other in a certain mathematical way, as if they were
multiplied to the neighbours like quaternions (actually bi-quaternions).

Now it easy to assume, that the negative timeline is regarded as
positive for a comoving observer, who in turn would regard our timeline
as negative.

That is quite an unusual concept, but would make sense (at least to me).

TH

Ross Finlayson

2024-04-29 13:28:15 UTC

It only goes backward, if at all: zero, so, ....
What that models is that there is a region, all the region
of the affected course of the wave, that is a "locale",
that is a locality, and that according to observer
effect and "real wave collapse", of a superclassical
wave of a locale an extended region, that the "real
wave collapse" is "superclassical flux", i.e. instantaneous.
I.e., the only reason "model of a wave backward in time
as if time was a dimension not a ray", is because,
otherwise it's "model of a wave instantaneous in an
extended region of space". It's only a projection,
because, the real perspective, is a regional perspective,
which is the locale, not just the point perspective.
Waves are considered general models of change in open systems.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
There I use a certain mathematical construct about which I assume, that
nature would behave similarly on a very fundamental level.
This contains an expansion and a contraction (wave), which build a
standing wave and that 'timelike stable structures', which I assume to
be what we call 'matter'.
The concept is therefor called 'structured spacetime'.
The wave and the anti-wave are actually connected, because the world is
assumed to be composed from anti-symmetric pointlike elements of
spacetime. These are connected with the neighbors, as if these elements
would twist each other in a certain mathematical way, as if they were
multiplied to the neighbours like quaternions (actually bi-quaternions).
Now it easy to assume, that the negative timeline is regarded as
positive for a comoving observer, who in turn would regard our timeline
as negative.
That is quite an unusual concept, but would make sense (at least to me).
TH

It's rather as there's a physical constant.

It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.

Or, there's a physical constant.

It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

That pretty much is the entire idea of that
light's speed in the Theory of Special Relativity, SR,
(if not, the Special Theory of Relativity, STR,
those being different or if one or the other
is after "SI Redefinition 2019", say), that
light's speed, "c", is a constant, and,
with respect to bradyonic matter's, infinite.

That's not so in all theories, for example
any theory where c_g, gravity's speed,
is infinite, and light's speed is instead
a particular fixed constant that's one of
the universal fundamental physical constants,
light's speed in a vacuum, and as that optical
light, is not electromagnetic, as radiation,
that light is fundamentally a sort of
nuclear superclassical flux, radiation.

Anyways, the idea is that "time", a continuous
quantity, is exactly and specifically the closest
thing anywhere, to a continuous quantity. Also,
it's always really a _positive_ continuous quantity,
that any expression in "negative t", is of course
according to that it's just the universal parameter
and all such matters of symmetry and reversibility,
are in it, t, not so much anywhere "negative" in
quantity, only representing differences as according
to the additive inverse, and that's all.

Thomas Heger

2024-04-30 05:55:34 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while
speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.

Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had to
have units.

Now 1 has no units whatsoever (because it is just a number) you cannot
say, that c is one.

Actually meant were:

lightyears and years.

And c = 1 lightyear/year

This is (trivially) true, but has units.

TH
...

Thomas Heger

2024-04-30 06:10:19 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while
speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had to
have units.
Now 1 has no units whatsoever (because it is just a number) you cannot
say, that c is one.
lightyears and years.
And c = 1 lightyear/year
This is (trivially) true, but has units.
TH
...

The reason to require a unit for c:

EVERY physical quantity is composed from a numerical value and a unit!

In case you would like to use something called 'natural unit(-s)' as
unit, this would be perfectly ok, but only if - say - 'nu' is properly
defined.

If you like to define 'nu' you would end up in a dilemma, because c is
assumed to be 1 one these natural units.

That would be a definititon, which is based on itself (what is not allowed).

Such a 'circular' definition is something, which is referring to itself.

Such definitions violate important principles of logic.

TH

Ross Finlayson

2024-05-01 05:27:49 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while
speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had
to have units.
Now 1 has no units whatsoever (because it is just a number) you cannot
say, that c is one.
lightyears and years.
And c = 1 lightyear/year
This is (trivially) true, but has units.
TH
...

EVERY physical quantity is composed from a numerical value and a unit!
In case you would like to use something called 'natural unit(-s)' as
unit, this would be perfectly ok, but only if - say - 'nu' is properly
defined.
If you like to define 'nu' you would end up in a dilemma, because c is
assumed to be 1 one these natural units.
That would be a definititon, which is based on itself (what is not allowed).
Such a 'circular' definition is something, which is referring to itself.
Such definitions violate important principles of logic.
TH

The dimensional analysis of course is the attachment of a mathematical
model to a physical model at all, then with regards to usual
"dimensions" being quantitative and geometrical.

The dimensionless really does have any number of "balanced implicits"
in it. Any sort of "1 unit/unit" is a thing, and as well in the
quantities, "1 goes-to-1-from-the-left/goes-to-1-from-the-right",
sort of arrives at the same thing.

Here in this podcast, is mentioned
first, Dirac delta, "the only non-standard function",
second, in singular integrals where 1 <= p <= infinity, inclusive,
then getting into geometric equations, Scheveningen, Zygmund,
Einstein, and the scalar.

It gets right into talking about relativity theory
since Scheveningen.

https://inspirehep.net/conferences/966266

Lately I've been introducing notions for mechanics of motion
"dimensionless resonator" and "dimensionless alternator",
extensions to mathematics for explaining classical mechanics
and for providing Einstein his request "zero-eth law(s) of
motion" as from a passage in "Out of My Later Years" where
Einstein introduces his "Einstein's bridge" concept.

These are the kinds of definitions that mathematics
needs to provide physics a resolution between
vis-motrix and vis-viva.

Thomas Heger

2024-05-01 06:18:45 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while
speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had
to have units.
Now 1 has no units whatsoever (because it is just a number) you cannot
say, that c is one.
lightyears and years.
And c = 1 lightyear/year
This is (trivially) true, but has units.
TH
...

Well, in reality 1 means a natural dimensionless number.

Having no units says, that c is unitless and has only the numerical value 1.

Since it assumed to be measured in 'natural units' (called 'nu' here),
these nu have to cancel out, because nu would also have to have
dimensions (because ALL physical quantities have numerical value and
dimension).

Since c=1=nu/nu

these 'nu' things must be equal in dimensions and numerical value.

But we know also, that c ~= 300.000 km/s

The assumption is: 300.000 km/s =c =1

But, how do we get rid of the dimensions 'length' and 'time' in the
usual speed of light measure?

This would require :

300000 km/s =1
hence
1nu=300.000 km =1 s = 1nu

hence:

c*t=1 nu

That would define 'nu'.

But this is not allowed, because that would be a 'circular definition',
because c is already based on nu.

...

TH

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-01 07:46:09 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while
speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had
to have units.
Now 1 has no units whatsoever (because it is just a number) you cannot
say, that c is one.
lightyears and years.
And c = 1 lightyear/year
This is (trivially) true, but has units.
TH
...

Well, in reality 1 means a natural dimensionless number.

Nonsense. That 'dimensionless' doesn't belong there.
And 1 being a natural number doesn't have a meaning.
It is, by the mathematical definition of natural number.

Post by Thomas Heger
Having no units says, that c is unitless and has only the numerical value 1.

Your misunderstandings in a nushell.
All it says is that 'length' and 'time' are measured in the same unit.
(apart from an inconvenient numerical factor)

This is precisely what all working physicists have been doing
ever since the abolition of the meter as an independent unit
at the 17th CIPM, 1983.

Jan

--
[snip more misunderstandings]

Maciej Wozniak

2024-05-01 09:23:54 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder
Your misunderstandings in a nushell.
All it says is that 'length' and 'time' are measured in the same unit.
(apart from an inconvenient numerical factor)
This is precisely what all working physicists have been doing
ever since the abolition of the meter as an independent unit
at the 17th CIPM, 1983.

Not quite. Just like Like other groups of religious
cranks - you only pretend ou're obeying the rules
you've officially announced.

Thomas Heger

2024-05-03 06:46:27 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
The dimensional analysis of course is the attachment of a mathematical
model to a physical model at all, then with regards to usual
"dimensions" being quantitative and geometrical.
The dimensionless really does have any number of "balanced implicits"
in it. Any sort of "1 unit/unit" is a thing, and as well in the
quantities, "1 goes-to-1-from-the-left/goes-to-1-from-the-right",
sort of arrives at the same thing.

Well, in reality 1 means a natural dimensionless number.

Nonsense. That 'dimensionless' doesn't belong there.
And 1 being a natural number doesn't have a meaning.
It is, by the mathematical definition of natural number.

Post by Thomas Heger
Having no units says, that c is unitless and has only the numerical value 1.

Your misunderstandings in a nushell.
All it says is that 'length' and 'time' are measured in the same unit.
(apart from an inconvenient numerical factor)
This is precisely what all working physicists have been doing
ever since the abolition of the meter as an independent unit
at the 17th CIPM, 1983.

The symbol '1' has a meaning: it is meant as numerical value 'one'.

Since it is a number only, it contains no units or dimensions of
whatever kind.

This is the meaning of the term 'number'.

Physical quantities are never numbers only, because any quantity is
composed of a numerical value and a definition, to what that number belongs.

Since c=1 means 'the speed of light in vacuum is always one', the
dimensions 'length' and 'time' in c=~ ckm/s' must have somehow vanished
(mysteriously).

In our usual world you cannot cancel km and seconds, hence in the realm
of light-speed space and time must be of the same dimension (otherwise
they could not be canceled).

The number 300.000 is no big deal, of course, and we could use
lightseconds and seconds instead of km and seconds.

BUT: still lightsecond is a unit of length, which you must not cancel
with seconds.

TH

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-01 07:46:09 UTC

Right. Dimensional analysis is meta-analysis.
It doesn't analyse Nature,
it analyses systems of equations used to describe Nature.

If, in addition, you introduce systems of units
to go with those equations the dimensional considerations
naturally transfer to those units.

All this is completely irrelevant, as far as Nature is concerned.
For that you need to go back to the original equations,

Jan

Maciej Wozniak

2024-04-30 08:44:39 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while
speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had to
have units.
Now 1 has no units whatsoever (because it is just a number) you cannot
say, that c is one.

Yes, they can. They can even say it's natural.
Oh, they're true idiots.

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-01 07:46:08 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

You really need to work on your misunderstandings about units and
dimensions.
In particular, physical quantities do not -have- a dimension.
Conversely dimension is not a property of physical quantity.
You cannot measure a dimension.

Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
limited only by the need to be consistent about it.

You cannot deduce anything from a clash of dimensions
beyond the undeniable fact that you have made a mistake.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now 1 has no units whatsoever (because it is just a number) you cannot
say, that c is one.

Of course you can, and people (who know better than you)
do it all the time.

Jan

Maciej Wozniak

2024-05-01 09:21:11 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder
Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
limited only by the need to be consistent about it.

Oh, your idiot guru has refuted this common sense
prejudice and demonstrated us consistency isn't
necessary in physics.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Of course you can, and people (who know better than you)

Or at least they believe they do...

Thomas Heger

2024-05-03 06:56:23 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

Sure, you measure physical quantities.

Lets say: you measure a current in Amperes.

Then the measurement of - say- 100 mA means, that a certain electrical
current has a current strength of 100 mA.

Now 'current strength' is the quantity which is measured. This current
strength is then the dimension of the measurement and the value depends
on the used units, which are Ampere in this case.

Now all measured quantities need some kind of dimension and unit, if
they should make sense in physics.

Even pure numbers have a dimension this way.

E.g. if you count eggs, the result would be a number. But the number
alone would not make sense, since 'number of eggs' can also be a dimension.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
limited only by the need to be consistent about it.

'Human contruct' is ok, while to 'arbitrary' I would not agree.

E.g. if you measure a distance, than the measure has the dimension
'length', even if you don't use the meter as unit, but angström,
light-years or fourlongs instead.

...

TH

Ross Finlayson

2024-05-04 15:38:34 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

Sure, you measure physical quantities.
Lets say: you measure a current in Amperes.
Then the measurement of - say- 100 mA means, that a certain electrical
current has a current strength of 100 mA.
Now 'current strength' is the quantity which is measured. This current
strength is then the dimension of the measurement and the value depends
on the used units, which are Ampere in this case.
Now all measured quantities need some kind of dimension and unit, if
they should make sense in physics.
Even pure numbers have a dimension this way.
E.g. if you count eggs, the result would be a number. But the number
alone would not make sense, since 'number of eggs' can also be a dimension.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
limited only by the need to be consistent about it.

'Human contruct' is ok, while to 'arbitrary' I would not agree.
E.g. if you measure a distance, than the measure has the dimension
'length', even if you don't use the meter as unit, but angström,
light-years or fourlongs instead.
...
TH

In mathematical logic, often there's something like a quantifier,
that there are explicit quantifiers, and implicit quantifiers.

So, sort of like dimensional analysis, is a quantifier analysis,
representing fixed or free parameters, and the implicitly
infinitely-many quantifiers, in front of a given classical
quantifier.

The quantities, are results of derivations, to represent measurables,
or the "real" and "virtual" quantities that result real quantities
that are measurables.

So, quantities are often results of infinite expressions and
thusly completions of infinite limits or continuum limits.

The dimensional analysis and what results the dimensionless,
gets into degrees of freedom as independent parameters, then
also gets into the implicits. The quantities are not purely
algebraic, yet ensconced in their derivations.

Consider the length of a body vis-a-vis the distance it
travels: both in units of length, yet distance as only
after a derivation of all the higher orders of acceleration
and deceleration whether it results a distance at rest, or,
a distance marking motion, that the other factors of the
dimensional analysis, go along with it, though algebraically,
at each point dimensionless.

Thomas Heger

2024-05-05 06:00:05 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
Consider the length of a body vis-a-vis the distance it
travels: both in units of length, yet distance as only
after a derivation of all the higher orders of acceleration
and deceleration whether it results a distance at rest, or,
a distance marking motion, that the other factors of the
dimensional analysis, go along with it, though algebraically,
at each point dimensionless.

A physical system has attributes.

These attributes can be measured.

The measure of this measurement has a dimension and a value.

The pyhsical system is space in this case.

In this space we have two points, which are somehow identifiable.

The distance is the length of a connecting streight line.

This length has the dimension 'length', which is quantified by
approriate units (meters in case of SI-units).

So the measure of that distance has a certain value (say 2) and certain
units (meters) and a certain dimension (length).

TH

Ross Finlayson

2024-05-05 13:56:56 UTC

A physical system has attributes.
These attributes can be measured.
The measure of this measurement has a dimension and a value.
The pyhsical system is space in this case.
In this space we have two points, which are somehow identifiable.
The distance is the length of a connecting streight line.
This length has the dimension 'length', which is quantified by
approriate units (meters in case of SI-units).
So the measure of that distance has a certain value (say 2) and certain
units (meters) and a certain dimension (length).
TH

Space has a metric and a norm, this of course makes for
all the application of triangle or Cauchy/Schwartz inequality,
which is used throughout the application of tensor products,
what results that the vectors after tensors,
are commensurable (measurable together).

Saying that distance-measurable and distance-measured,
or distance-measurable and distance-traveled,
have different implicit units yet same explicit units,
has that the units come and go in the derivation,
the "dimensionless" implicits and "dimensioned" explicits.

The sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, is an idea that
all the notions of least-action and so on just result
that state is sum-of-histories, and the gradient is sum-of-potentials.

(This is the gradient that's the geodesy the world-lines.)

Many empirical settings start to require this extra book-keeping
of the derivations and their implicits, while that each formula
or step of the derivation the system of equations or system of
inequalities is readable in its "least" dimensioned units, the
derivation indicates also the "implicit" dimensioned units.

Then as with regards to which of those are negligeable,
is for all the higher orders of acceleration,
of which of those that all above are zero.

So, the singular and its branches
and non-linear and multi-pole,
and even the plain starting/stopping
and stop/walk and run/pause,
have this sort of fuller dimensional analysis,
about dimensional/dimensionless resonator/alternator,
that mathematically book-keeps the moments of the motion.

I've been studying this in my recent podcasts,
see "Moment and Motion" under "Philosophical Foreground",
recently about "vis-motrix" and "vis-viva",
and about Einstein's goal of understanding classical motion.

- https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

It's a field theory, it's a gauge theory, it has an "R" gauge,
"R" for "Real".

Ross Finlayson

2024-05-05 14:49:40 UTC

A physical system has attributes.
These attributes can be measured.
The measure of this measurement has a dimension and a value.
The pyhsical system is space in this case.
In this space we have two points, which are somehow identifiable.
The distance is the length of a connecting streight line.
This length has the dimension 'length', which is quantified by
approriate units (meters in case of SI-units).
So the measure of that distance has a certain value (say 2) and certain
units (meters) and a certain dimension (length).
TH

Space has a metric and a norm, this of course makes for
all the application of triangle or Cauchy/Schwartz inequality,
which is used throughout the application of tensor products,
what results that the vectors after tensors,
are commensurable (measurable together).
Saying that distance-measurable and distance-measured,
or distance-measurable and distance-traveled,
have different implicit units yet same explicit units,
has that the units come and go in the derivation,
the "dimensionless" implicits and "dimensioned" explicits.
The sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, is an idea that
all the notions of least-action and so on just result
that state is sum-of-histories, and the gradient is sum-of-potentials.
(This is the gradient that's the geodesy the world-lines.)
Many empirical settings start to require this extra book-keeping
of the derivations and their implicits, while that each formula
or step of the derivation the system of equations or system of
inequalities is readable in its "least" dimensioned units, the
derivation indicates also the "implicit" dimensioned units.
Then as with regards to which of those are negligeable,
is for all the higher orders of acceleration,
of which of those that all above are zero.
So, the singular and its branches
and non-linear and multi-pole,
and even the plain starting/stopping
and stop/walk and run/pause,
have this sort of fuller dimensional analysis,
about dimensional/dimensionless resonator/alternator,
that mathematically book-keeps the moments of the motion.
I've been studying this in my recent podcasts,
see "Moment and Motion" under "Philosophical Foreground",
recently about "vis-motrix" and "vis-viva",
and about Einstein's goal of understanding classical motion.
It's a field theory, it's a gauge theory, it has an "R" gauge,
"R" for "Real".

"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."

Ross Finlayson

2024-12-25 00:12:59 UTC

A physical system has attributes.
These attributes can be measured.
The measure of this measurement has a dimension and a value.
The pyhsical system is space in this case.
In this space we have two points, which are somehow identifiable.
The distance is the length of a connecting streight line.
This length has the dimension 'length', which is quantified by
approriate units (meters in case of SI-units).
So the measure of that distance has a certain value (say 2) and certain
units (meters) and a certain dimension (length).
TH

Space has a metric and a norm, this of course makes for
all the application of triangle or Cauchy/Schwartz inequality,
which is used throughout the application of tensor products,
what results that the vectors after tensors,
are commensurable (measurable together).
Saying that distance-measurable and distance-measured,
or distance-measurable and distance-traveled,
have different implicit units yet same explicit units,
has that the units come and go in the derivation,
the "dimensionless" implicits and "dimensioned" explicits.
The sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, is an idea that
all the notions of least-action and so on just result
that state is sum-of-histories, and the gradient is sum-of-potentials.
(This is the gradient that's the geodesy the world-lines.)
Many empirical settings start to require this extra book-keeping
of the derivations and their implicits, while that each formula
or step of the derivation the system of equations or system of
inequalities is readable in its "least" dimensioned units, the
derivation indicates also the "implicit" dimensioned units.
Then as with regards to which of those are negligeable,
is for all the higher orders of acceleration,
of which of those that all above are zero.
So, the singular and its branches
and non-linear and multi-pole,
and even the plain starting/stopping
and stop/walk and run/pause,
have this sort of fuller dimensional analysis,
about dimensional/dimensionless resonator/alternator,
that mathematically book-keeps the moments of the motion.
I've been studying this in my recent podcasts,
see "Moment and Motion" under "Philosophical Foreground",
recently about "vis-motrix" and "vis-viva",
and about Einstein's goal of understanding classical motion.
It's a field theory, it's a gauge theory, it has an "R" gauge,
"R" for "Real".

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."

This sort of arrived at "worlds turn",
"a formally un-linear account".

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-05 21:27:54 UTC

A physical system has attributes.
These attributes can be measured.
The measure of this measurement has a dimension and a value.
The pyhsical system is space in this case.
In this space we have two points, which are somehow identifiable.
The distance is the length of a connecting streight line.
This length has the dimension 'length', which is quantified by
approriate units (meters in case of SI-units).
So the measure of that distance has a certain value (say 2) and certain
units (meters) and a certain dimension (length).

Again, how would you go about measuring a dimension?
(as opposed to defining it)

Jan

Thomas Heger

2024-05-06 05:26:56 UTC

A physical system has attributes.
These attributes can be measured.
The measure of this measurement has a dimension and a value.
The pyhsical system is space in this case.
In this space we have two points, which are somehow identifiable.
The distance is the length of a connecting streight line.
This length has the dimension 'length', which is quantified by
approriate units (meters in case of SI-units).
So the measure of that distance has a certain value (say 2) and certain
units (meters) and a certain dimension (length).

Again, how would you go about measuring a dimension?
(as opposed to defining it)

???

Before you measure something, you need to define WHAT you measure.

Without such a definition a measurement would be nonsense.

E.g. you have a multimeter and read out e.g. '204.5' from the display.

Now such a value makes no sense at all, if you do not say, what this
value is meant to measure.

In case of 'length' you need to say, what is meant with this word.

Something like 'spatial distance along a straight line' would be part of
that definition and that these distances can be summed up and these
partial distances may be infinetesially small.

Something in that realm would be a definition of 'length'.

And once you measure something similar, you need to say, that this
measurement should be understood as length, even if the line measured is
not streigth, but e.g the circumference of a circle.

TH

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-06 09:36:27 UTC

A physical system has attributes.
These attributes can be measured.
The measure of this measurement has a dimension and a value.
The pyhsical system is space in this case.
In this space we have two points, which are somehow identifiable.
The distance is the length of a connecting streight line.
This length has the dimension 'length', which is quantified by
approriate units (meters in case of SI-units).
So the measure of that distance has a certain value (say 2) and certain
units (meters) and a certain dimension (length).

Again, how would you go about measuring a dimension?
(as opposed to defining it)

???
Before you measure something, you need to define WHAT you measure.
Without such a definition a measurement would be nonsense.
E.g. you have a multimeter and read out e.g. '204.5' from the display.
Now such a value makes no sense at all, if you do not say, what this
value is meant to measure.
In case of 'length' you need to say, what is meant with this word.
Something like 'spatial distance along a straight line' would be part of
that definition and that these distances can be summed up and these
partial distances may be infinetesially small.
Something in that realm would be a definition of 'length'.
And once you measure something similar, you need to say, that this
measurement should be understood as length, even if the line measured is
not streigth, but e.g the circumference of a circle.

No need for all that at all.
A measurement is not a measurement unless it can be traced
to a primary standard.
So your multimeter measures 204.5 mA when it says so
because the manufacturer of it says so.
Your manufacturer can guarantee that,
because he has calibrated the thing
against his standard ampere meter.
He knows that his standard meter measures amps
because he takes it to his national standards lab,
where they calibrate it for him.
And ultimately (if you live in a small country)
your national lab takes their standards to NIST, or BIPM,
where they do have a primary standard.

None of your verbiage is needed for any of this.
Nothing but calibrations and comparisons involved.

And of course it is just the same for other physical quantities,

Jan

Mikko

2024-05-06 10:48:16 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder
A measurement is not a measurement unless it can be traced
to a primary standard.
So your multimeter measures 204.5 mA when it says so
because the manufacturer of it says so.
Your manufacturer can guarantee that,
because he has calibrated the thing
against his standard ampere meter.
He knows that his standard meter measures amps
because he takes it to his national standards lab,
where they calibrate it for him.
And ultimately (if you live in a small country)
your national lab takes their standards to NIST, or BIPM,
where they do have a primary standard.

Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.

--
Mikko

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-06 11:52:52 UTC

Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.

Certainly. Whatever,
the point is and remains that a measurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be traced to an SI standard.
In many cases this is even required by law.
Whatever is doing the calibrating must be a state-approved agency.

For example, your tape rule, or balance, or... may have a marking
that says 'not for purposes of trade'.
What it says is an impression only.
Selling goods using it is illegal,
and will be punishable.

BTW, setting standards for weights and measures
is one of the oldest functions of the state,
going back as least 4 000 years,

Jan

Thomas Heger

2024-05-07 07:43:50 UTC

Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.

Well, no!

You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like
SI-units.

I personally dislike the so called 'imperial units'. But those are
consistent and well defined, too.

Or you invent something on your own and use that.

Post by J. J. Lodder
For example, your tape rule, or balance, or... may have a marking
that says 'not for purposes of trade'.
What it says is an impression only.
Selling goods using it is illegal,
and will be punishable.

Science and trade are not exactly the same thing.

Sure, for trade, especially international trade, you need agreements
about the used measures.

But that is a different topic and political in nature.

Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, setting standards for weights and measures
is one of the oldest functions of the state,
going back as least 4 000 years,

Sure.

But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.

That term refers to WHAT is measured, while units define the quantities
of the measurement results.

Simple example:

you have a distance of roughly 1 meter and want to measure that.

you could use inch, yards, forlongs, lightseconds, Angstroem, mm and the
size of the emperors feet.

The choice of a unit would only influence the numerical value, but not
the measured distance.

TH

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-07 16:42:30 UTC

Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.

Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like
SI-units.

Certainly, and you can use any other system of dimensions
than the one that is conventionally associated with the SI.

Post by Thomas Heger
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.
That term refers to WHAT is measured, while units define the quantities
of the measurement results.

Sure, you can invent your own definitions,
but that is not how the term 'dimension' is used in physics.

Post by Thomas Heger
you have a distance of roughly 1 meter and want to measure that.
you could use inch, yards, forlongs, lightseconds, Angstroem, mm and the
size of the emperors feet.
The choice of a unit would only influence the numerical value, but not
the measured distance.

You forget the only length unit that is still in everyday use,
the second, up to an unconvenient conversion factor.
Do I really need to remind you again that the meter has been abolished
as a primary standard, and that all length measurements
must (by the definition of the meter) be calibrated in seconds?

And yes, that includes your tape rule,

Jan

Maciej Wozniak

2024-05-07 16:53:49 UTC

Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.

Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like
SI-units.

Certainly, and you can use any other system of dimensions
than the one that is conventionally associated with the SI.

Post by Thomas Heger
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.
That term refers to WHAT is measured, while units define the quantities
of the measurement results.

Sure, you can invent your own definitions,
but that is not how the term 'dimension' is used in physics.

Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies, Lod.

Thomas Heger

2024-05-08 06:04:10 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.

Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like
SI-units.

Certainly, and you can use any other system of dimensions
than the one that is conventionally associated with the SI.

Post by Thomas Heger
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.
That term refers to WHAT is measured, while units define the quantities
of the measurement results.

Sure, you can invent your own definitions,
but that is not how the term 'dimension' is used in physics.

Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies, Lod.

The dimensions 'time' and 'length' are different, hence you cannot
define units of length by units of time.

That idea itself stems from Einstein's SRT.

But Einstein's SRT is in my view a bunch of crap.

If you actually do that and define the meter by a certain fraction of
the lightsecond, you need the lightsecond in the first place.

To define the lightsecond, you would need the speed of light and the second.

To define the speed of light, you would need the meter.

Now we get apparently a 'circular definition' (what is not allowed),
because the meter is based on the speed of light.

TH

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-08 12:52:33 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.

Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like
SI-units.

Certainly, and you can use any other system of dimensions
than the one that is conventionally associated with the SI.

Post by Thomas Heger
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.
That term refers to WHAT is measured, while units define the quantities
of the measurement results.

Sure, you can invent your own definitions,
but that is not how the term 'dimension' is used in physics.

Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies, Lod.

The dimensions 'time' and 'length' are different, hence you cannot
define units of length by units of time.

Again, your 'are' is wrong.
What you should say is:
'my preferred dimensions of length and time are different'

Again again, a 'dimension' is NOT a property of a physical quantity,
it is a property you assign to it, in any way you please.
(as long as you are consistent about it)

Jan

--
The best system of dimensions of all is the trivial one:
dimension = [I] for every physical quantity.
You can't go wrong with it.
It is obviously consistent, hence a valid system of dimensions,
and length and time do obviously have the same dimension.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-05-08 13:20:46 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder
Again, your 'are' is wrong.
'my preferred dimensions of length and time are different'
Again again, a 'dimension' is NOT a property of a physical quantity,
it is a property you assign to it, in any way you please.
(as long as you are consistent about it)

After all these years - it's still amazing how
completely physicists are lost in their delusions.

Thomas Heger

2024-05-09 07:49:40 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Thomas Heger
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like
SI-units.

Certainly, and you can use any other system of dimensions
than the one that is conventionally associated with the SI.

Post by Thomas Heger
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.
That term refers to WHAT is measured, while units define the quantities
of the measurement results.

Sure, you can invent your own definitions,
but that is not how the term 'dimension' is used in physics.

Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies, Lod.

The dimensions 'time' and 'length' are different, hence you cannot
define units of length by units of time.

Again, your 'are' is wrong.
'my preferred dimensions of length and time are different'
Again again, a 'dimension' is NOT a property of a physical quantity,
it is a property you assign to it, in any way you please.
(as long as you are consistent about it)

No!

See here:
https://www.me.psu.edu/cimbala/Learning/General/units.htm

Quote:

"There is a difference between dimensions and units. A dimension is a
measure of a physical variable (without numerical values), while a unit
is a way to assign a number or measurement to that dimension.

For example, length is a dimension, but it is measured in units of feet
(ft) or meters (m). "

TH

Mikko

2024-05-08 09:15:05 UTC

Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.

Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like SI-units.

In a measurement only one usint is used so there is no requirement on system.

Post by Thomas Heger
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.

You need not use a defined system of dimensions. You may define your own
dimension system. For example, you can define a system whith different
dimensions for horizontal and vertical distances.

--
Mikko

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-08 12:52:33 UTC

Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.

Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like SI-units.

In a measurement only one unit is used so there is no requirement on system.

Right. Only final results of measurements should be converted.
Our American frieds may have problems with this,
so they may crash a Mars lander every now and then.
And aforteriori, there is never any need for any 'dimension'
in anny measurement proces.
The main use of 'dimensions' is to have something
to teach to the kiddies, to set exam questions about.
Real scientists don't need them to know what to do.

Post by Thomas Heger
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.

You need not use a defined system of dimensions. You may define your own
dimension system. For example, you can define a system whith different
dimensions for horizontal and vertical distances.

Indeed, 'pilots units' from one of my postings of long long ago.
Pilots measure vertical distances in feet,
and horizontal distances in (nautical) miles.
So their glide angle is in feet per mile. [1]
Whether or not you define a systems of dimensions
to go with those units is, just like you say, optional.

Jan

[1] Real piots do have a very good idea of what the value of it is.
It really helps when you are going to park your Airbus,
in the Hudson river.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-05-08 13:18:08 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder
Right. Only final results of measurements should be converted.
Our American frieds may have problems with this,
so they may crash a Mars lander every now and then.
And aforteriori, there is never any need for any 'dimension'
in anny measurement proces.

Sure, true measurement is a liturgy in which
a physicist unite with The Nature to speak in
Her name. No dimensions needed for that.

Ross Finlayson

2024-05-08 20:13:43 UTC

Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.

Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like SI-units.

In a measurement only one unit is used so there is no requirement on system.

Post by Thomas Heger
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.

You need not use a defined system of dimensions. You may define your own
dimension system. For example, you can define a system whith different
dimensions for horizontal and vertical distances.

Indeed, 'pilots units' from one of my postings of long long ago.
Pilots measure vertical distances in feet,
and horizontal distances in (nautical) miles.
So their glide angle is in feet per mile. [1]
Whether or not you define a systems of dimensions
to go with those units is, just like you say, optional.
Jan
[1] Real piots do have a very good idea of what the value of it is.
It really helps when you are going to park your Airbus,
in the Hudson river.

The usual notion of various coordinate settings,
each having a metric and norm in the near and far field,
yet, only after some affine (if that) transformation,
or even the "non-linear" or "highly-non-linear" in
the dynamics of the relativistic extremes, resulting
yet all what is overall an isotropic and flat space-time,
makes that tensors are a very general claim of the
conformal mapping, with regards to, Regge map and Ricci tensor.

In my podcasts besides reading Einstein and into space-contraction
for Einstein's bridge, then these days is ponderance of the
classical mechanics, with regards to, nominally non-zero
infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, in any change,
as about any moment, of all motion.

So, besides issues with relativistic mechanics,
is that physics and science still has debts owed
by mathematics, to even effectively reflect
classical mechanics.

All according to dimensional analysis, of course, ...,
due the ubiquitous success of mathematics in the
mathematical physics, the science.

Theoretical and empirical, ....

Thomas Heger

2024-05-09 07:55:08 UTC

Am Mittwoch000008, 08.05.2024 um 22:13 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
...

Post by Ross Finlayson
The usual notion of various coordinate settings,
each having a metric and norm in the near and far field,
yet, only after some affine (if that) transformation,
or even the "non-linear" or "highly-non-linear" in
the dynamics of the relativistic extremes, resulting
yet all what is overall an isotropic and flat space-time,
makes that tensors are a very general claim of the
conformal mapping, with regards to, Regge map and Ricci tensor.

????????

Do you use software to generate buzz-words randomly??

(or drugs)??????

TH

Ross Finlayson

2024-05-09 20:02:46 UTC

????????
Do you use software to generate buzz-words randomly??
(or drugs)??????
TH

I am a regular user: of caffeine and nicotine.

Caffeine: beams of light,
Nicotine: the five-minute RAM doubler.

... And that is all.

Neither gets either blame nor respect
for I write all my own words, courtesy
all the experienced mutual influences, of my
schooling, learning, education, and practice.

Once they studied people who'd grown up
in the cold mountains, and those who'd
grown up on the hot seaside. What they
found was, less oxygen and heat overall
was better for most people.

The "scalar infinity", and natural units
where the unit is also a limit, make for
much reflection about total inversion about
points, near zero, and, going to infinity.

...And getting there.

MfG / E.S. / keine Beleidigung beabstichticht

Ross Finlayson

2024-05-09 20:18:00 UTC

????????
Do you use software to generate buzz-words randomly??
(or drugs)??????
TH

I am a regular user: of caffeine and nicotine.
Caffeine: beams of light,
Nicotine: the five-minute RAM doubler.
... And that is all.
Neither gets either blame nor respect
for I write all my own words, courtesy
all the experienced mutual influences, of my
schooling, learning, education, and practice.
Once they studied people who'd grown up
in the cold mountains, and those who'd
grown up on the hot seaside. What they
found was, less oxygen and heat overall
was better for most people.
The "scalar infinity", and natural units
where the unit is also a limit, make for
much reflection about total inversion about
points, near zero, and, going to infinity.
...And getting there.
MfG / E.S. / keine Beleidigung beabstichticht

Thomas Heger

2024-05-10 16:46:20 UTC

????????
Do you use software to generate buzz-words randomly??
(or drugs)??????
TH

I am a regular user: of caffeine and nicotine.
Caffeine: beams of light,
Nicotine: the five-minute RAM doubler.
... And that is all.
Neither gets either blame nor respect
for I write all my own words, courtesy
all the experienced mutual influences, of my
schooling, learning, education, and practice.
Once they studied people who'd grown up
in the cold mountains, and those who'd
grown up on the hot seaside. What they
found was, less oxygen and heat overall
was better for most people.
The "scalar infinity", and natural units
where the unit is also a limit, make for
much reflection about total inversion about
points, near zero, and, going to infinity.
...And getting there.
MfG / E.S. / keine Beleidigung beabstichticht

http://youtu.be/tODnCZvVtLg

(Sorry for my comment above...

Now I'm listening to your video.)

I had some years ago contact with professor Peter Rowland.

He wrote a book 'From zero to infinity':

https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142

Its extremely difficult to read, but I think you will like it.

TH

Ross Finlayson

2024-05-10 20:04:22 UTC

????????
Do you use software to generate buzz-words randomly??
(or drugs)??????
TH

I am a regular user: of caffeine and nicotine.
Caffeine: beams of light,
Nicotine: the five-minute RAM doubler.
... And that is all.
Neither gets either blame nor respect
for I write all my own words, courtesy
all the experienced mutual influences, of my
schooling, learning, education, and practice.
Once they studied people who'd grown up
in the cold mountains, and those who'd
grown up on the hot seaside. What they
found was, less oxygen and heat overall
was better for most people.
The "scalar infinity", and natural units
where the unit is also a limit, make for
much reflection about total inversion about
points, near zero, and, going to infinity.
...And getting there.
MfG / E.S. / keine Beleidigung beabstichticht

http://youtu.be/tODnCZvVtLg

(Sorry for my comment above...
Now I'm listening to your video.)
I had some years ago contact with professor Peter Rowland.
https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
Its extremely difficult to read, but I think you will like it.
TH

Hmm. From the blurb,

"[Rowland] next seeks to demonstrate that the most convenient packaging
of the of the [sic] mathematical structure is the one that provides the
shortest route to zero totality, which he argues also leads to the
fundamental equation that drives the whole of physics."

The "World Scientific" publisher is a usually good mark.

My approach to a "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" from some
"Axiomless Natural Deduction" is basically that there's Truth
and then there's Inverse, it's a platonistic notion that makes
for arriving at these kinds of ideas, for about 25 years I've
been calling that "A Theory" and the "Null Axiom Theory".

The idea of "division algebras" doesn't quite altogether
suffice, as it gets involved "the extra-ordinary" and
"the continuum" right away.

Don't worry, I don't take insults usually.

It's a continuum mechanics, ..., and there is much that
mathematics _owes_ physics, about infinity and continuity.

I hope you enjoy those videos, that "Reading from Nozick..."
in the "Philosophical Foreground" section, cares to address
what's called "the fundamental question of metaphysics: why
is there something rather than nothing".

Then, with regards to 3-dimensional space and a ray of time,
is the idea that it's sort of natural courtesy mathematics,
why it's the space of things.

It's a continuum mechanics, ..., there are no closed time-like curves.

"Scalar Waves", then, back to the topic, I'd suggest you look
to "Resonance/Wave duality" to complement "Wave/Particle duality",
helping explain the, "Theory of Potentials", with regards to that,
the usual, "least action", is, a "sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials",
theory.

The scalar, and infinity, has what there's the projective point
at infinity with various notions of geometry, and what's
called fixed-point, compactification of number theory, at infinity,
also usually number theory.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

Here there are at least _three_ definitions of continuous domain,
that coincide at the linear continuum. Also you can read my posts
on de.sci.mathematik, besides fr.sci.physics and sci.math and sci.logic.

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-05 21:18:03 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

Sure, you measure physical quantities.
Lets say: you measure a current in Amperes.
Then the measurement of - say- 100 mA means, that a certain electrical
current has a current strength of 100 mA.
Now 'current strength' is the quantity which is measured. This current
strength is then the dimension of the measurement and the value depends
on the used units, which are Ampere in this case.
Now all measured quantities need some kind of dimension and unit, if
they should make sense in physics.
Even pure numbers have a dimension this way.
E.g. if you count eggs, the result would be a number. But the number
alone would not make sense, since 'number of eggs' can also be a dimension.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
limited only by the need to be consistent about it.

'Human contruct' is ok, while to 'arbitrary' I would not agree.
E.g. if you measure a distance, than the measure has the dimension
'length', even if you don't use the meter as unit, but angström,
light-years or fourlongs instead.
...
TH

In mathematical logic, often there's something like a quantifier,
that there are explicit quantifiers, and implicit quantifiers.
So, sort of like dimensional analysis, is a quantifier analysis,
representing fixed or free parameters, and the implicitly
infinitely-many quantifiers, in front of a given classical
quantifier.
The quantities, are results of derivations, to represent measurables,
or the "real" and "virtual" quantities that result real quantities
that are measurables.
So, quantities are often results of infinite expressions and
thusly completions of infinite limits or continuum limits.
The dimensional analysis and what results the dimensionless,
gets into degrees of freedom as independent parameters, then
also gets into the implicits. The quantities are not purely
algebraic, yet ensconced in their derivations.
Consider the length of a body vis-a-vis the distance it
travels: both in units of length, yet distance as only
after a derivation of all the higher orders of acceleration
and deceleration whether it results a distance at rest, or,
a distance marking motion, that the other factors of the
dimensional analysis, go along with it, though algebraically,
at each point dimensionless.

Right. A system of dimensions is just a consistent mapping
of a system of equations into a finite-dimensional algebra,

Jan

Ross Finlayson

2024-05-05 22:12:43 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

Sure, you measure physical quantities.
Lets say: you measure a current in Amperes.
Then the measurement of - say- 100 mA means, that a certain electrical
current has a current strength of 100 mA.
Now 'current strength' is the quantity which is measured. This current
strength is then the dimension of the measurement and the value depends
on the used units, which are Ampere in this case.
Now all measured quantities need some kind of dimension and unit, if
they should make sense in physics.
Even pure numbers have a dimension this way.
E.g. if you count eggs, the result would be a number. But the number
alone would not make sense, since 'number of eggs' can also be a dimension.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
limited only by the need to be consistent about it.

'Human contruct' is ok, while to 'arbitrary' I would not agree.
E.g. if you measure a distance, than the measure has the dimension
'length', even if you don't use the meter as unit, but angström,
light-years or fourlongs instead.
...
TH

In mathematical logic, often there's something like a quantifier,
that there are explicit quantifiers, and implicit quantifiers.
So, sort of like dimensional analysis, is a quantifier analysis,
representing fixed or free parameters, and the implicitly
infinitely-many quantifiers, in front of a given classical
quantifier.
The quantities, are results of derivations, to represent measurables,
or the "real" and "virtual" quantities that result real quantities
that are measurables.
So, quantities are often results of infinite expressions and
thusly completions of infinite limits or continuum limits.
The dimensional analysis and what results the dimensionless,
gets into degrees of freedom as independent parameters, then
also gets into the implicits. The quantities are not purely
algebraic, yet ensconced in their derivations.
Consider the length of a body vis-a-vis the distance it
travels: both in units of length, yet distance as only
after a derivation of all the higher orders of acceleration
and deceleration whether it results a distance at rest, or,
a distance marking motion, that the other factors of the
dimensional analysis, go along with it, though algebraically,
at each point dimensionless.

Right. A system of dimensions is just a consistent mapping
of a system of equations into a finite-dimensional algebra,
Jan

It's more the point that classical mechanics has a richer
system of implicitly involved dimensions with regards to
the derivations of the equations or formulas of systems
of moving bodies and the dynamics of change, in the
orbifold of the orbits of the geodesy of moving bodies
their world-lines and trajectories, that length and
distance and metric and norm have separate derivational
attributes as systemic.

"Algebras", as generically "magmas", have that just like
anything else in the non-linear or singular, that there
are sometimes systems of equations in algebras,
and sometimes completions of limits of systems of inequalities,
what represent dimensional passage, in the implicits,
what result the simplified results, the classical linear impulse,
vis-a-vis the entire sum-of-histories and sum-of-potentials,
all the higher order moments in effect.

Or: force is a function of time.

So, metric and norm, for length and distance,
aren't the same thing.

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-06 09:36:27 UTC

[-]

Post by Ross Finlayson
In mathematical logic, often there's something like a quantifier,
that there are explicit quantifiers, and implicit quantifiers.
So, sort of like dimensional analysis, is a quantifier analysis,
representing fixed or free parameters, and the implicitly
infinitely-many quantifiers, in front of a given classical
quantifier.
The quantities, are results of derivations, to represent measurables,
or the "real" and "virtual" quantities that result real quantities
that are measurables.
So, quantities are often results of infinite expressions and
thusly completions of infinite limits or continuum limits.
The dimensional analysis and what results the dimensionless,
gets into degrees of freedom as independent parameters, then
also gets into the implicits. The quantities are not purely
algebraic, yet ensconced in their derivations.
Consider the length of a body vis-a-vis the distance it
travels: both in units of length, yet distance as only
after a derivation of all the higher orders of acceleration
and deceleration whether it results a distance at rest, or,
a distance marking motion, that the other factors of the
dimensional analysis, go along with it, though algebraically,
at each point dimensionless.

Right. A system of dimensions is just a consistent mapping
of a system of equations into a finite-dimensional algebra,
Jan

Again, your -has- is fundamentally wrong.
a dimension is a human construct,
it is not a property of a physical quantity,

Jan

Ross Finlayson

2024-05-06 19:39:28 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder
[-]

Right. A system of dimensions is just a consistent mapping
of a system of equations into a finite-dimensional algebra,
Jan

Again, your -has- is fundamentally wrong.
a dimension is a human construct,
it is not a property of a physical quantity,
Jan

Backslider

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-05 21:18:03 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

See? You are hopelessly confused betwen units and dimensions.
What you measure is a current in Amps.
One may asign a dimension [Current] to the unit Ampere.
(which is what is done in the conventional system of dimensions
for the SI)
You may also measure it in another system of units,
and assign other dimensions to it.
Even for the SI you can define other systems of dimensions.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now all measured quantities need some kind of dimension and unit, if
they should make sense in physics.

Wrong.

Post by Thomas Heger
Even pure numbers have a dimension this way.

Again, wrong.

Post by Thomas Heger
E.g. if you count eggs, the result would be a number. But the number
alone would not make sense, since 'number of eggs' can also be a dimension.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
limited only by the need to be consistent about it.

'Human contruct' is ok, while to 'arbitrary' I would not agree.

The simple fact that you can define different systems of dimensions
for the same system of units should make it clear
that you are mistaken in this.
Perhaps you should look up the formal definition of 'dimension'
in general.

Your problem is that you know nothing at all about dimensions
beyond the -conventional- system of dimensions
that is usually associated with the SI.

Jan

Thomas Heger

2024-05-06 05:35:31 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

See? You are hopelessly confused betwen units and dimensions.
What you measure is a current in Amps.
One may asign a dimension [Current] to the unit Ampere.

No, that's wrong.

Any measurement measures something real.

This measured something is the real entity and has some attributes,
which we can eventually measure.

So we have e.g. some current in a wire and want to measure the strength
of this current.

The current strength is an attribut of the electric current, but no
current itself.

Therefore the Ampere measures the strength of electrical current, which
is therefore the dimension, to which the unit Ampere belongs.

The unit is only altering the numerical value of the measurement, but
not the measured quantity, if the units are changed (e.g. to milliAmps).

TH

...

J. J. Lodder

2024-05-06 09:36:28 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

See? You are hopelessly confused betwen units and dimensions.
What you measure is a current in Amps.
One may asign a dimension [Current] to the unit Ampere.

No, that's wrong.
Any measurement measures something real.

One can hope so.

Post by Thomas Heger
This measured something is the real entity and has some attributes,
which we can eventually measure.
So we have e.g. some current in a wire and want to measure the strength
of this current.
The current strength is an attribut of the electric current, but no
current itself.
Therefore the Ampere measures the strength of electrical current, which
is therefore the dimension, to which the unit Ampere belongs.

DO look up what physicists mean when they use the word 'dimension'
in the context of unit systems.

It is not your fantasy meaning,

Jan

Ollis Kalakos

2024-05-06 17:28:06 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
Therefore the Ampere measures the strength of electrical current, which
is therefore the dimension, to which the unit Ampere belongs.

DO look up what physicists mean when they use the word 'dimension'
in the context of unit systems. It is not your fantasy meaning,

both wrong, the strength is actually the Intensity, which is directly
related to space and time. The coulomb is related to space and the second
to time. These physicists are unable to translate units!

<link href='
IJEh52QDOWeT/
P83pAFr7a3aUHYV0qN7BmiJ9T9DfPAuTh+DaOTcAdF7QFKeOjCO3gt+DRClfJ0fgBZauA689Y+VYKBtB0kKf5dET+SnYeV92B6cyFyGwjshL28SIjISDnB/
Fl4odzgB6GDdDBD85K3Fi0lTH5ITXNZ1SVZ4aU1gjOYU+DXwAFayzdyB0yLwxA0YhiQk5grgnZGq+A4+4znIlBman7bVTqqDK3OS1jeQXwBQaxnAskPveF1yCU5TsyoAEe0ZyflbKE8vLCVA6ooYik0B65dcC6tEf8s2rAJT2Dg7zYWt2mwoeSgWTqpsmYj3giV9o7WBc8HM5nldXCHBvGEbeSgCS3eeV5oKkfKqSdrdXZNQRAut5ELeziIcID57YXIhnPm5VsjxKwI3RNbrp1JngFxr63kUR5BCzrl+wQwCzu2fBTJFISd4/
IApBJI/
FcAGoq37Usv3Dgq3s0W7CGhcShK17gAFNrvxb2BHJ18B1p2eOPWTB6BIQtU0jwQZDmRwNQ0gS7853ZJlcLIT1wLwB/
3j/
lt3rUXMSdXaFNdoNoJA8T4SZ1TuAMt8A4Ynij2jo8YcV03t49G4+1OT+DyKz80Ahy4ZwmZ12yDaBZnjZNsW1pZ2Hvuga4+59vYy9bD7A8y370KMtC/
92NtsvZHbsEheBydIYhT6AAHXU0fxdnnmLuGjBj064Qtsue9Ar6f5DkK4K64QHCX6euZ/
aOK+rOu8D6wAAAAASUVORK5CYII=' rel="icon" type="image/x-icon" />

Thomas Heger

2024-05-07 07:50:44 UTC

Post by Ollis Kalakos

Post by Thomas Heger
Therefore the Ampere measures the strength of electrical current, which
is therefore the dimension, to which the unit Ampere belongs.

DO look up what physicists mean when they use the word 'dimension'
in the context of unit systems. It is not your fantasy meaning,

Apparently you mean 'current density'.

But that is something else, because that quantity contains 'space' and
measures the current through an area-unit.

The usual interpretation of 'current' ignores that quantity and sums up
the current over the entire wire in question, while the term current
density does not.

TH

Parkis Escarrà

2024-05-07 09:48:14 UTC

Post by Ollis Kalakos

Post by Thomas Heger
Therefore the Ampere measures the strength of electrical current,
which is therefore the dimension, to which the unit Ampere belongs.

DO look up what physicists mean when they use the word 'dimension'
in the context of unit systems. It is not your fantasy meaning,

Apparently you mean 'current density'.
But that is something else, because that quantity contains 'space' and
measures the current through an area-unit.
The usual interpretation of 'current' ignores that quantity and sums up
the current over the entire wire in question, while the term current
density does not.

"entire wire"?? you must be kidding, this usenet user doesn't know what a
current is in physics. But that's also related to time, said above, and you
cannot "ignore" anything, once directly not related, but connected. Just as
a translation of pig from engilsh to swine in gearmon. It's the same pig,
you eat alot. How many pigs did you eat along your journey?

Thomas Heger

2024-05-08 06:09:53 UTC

Post by Parkis EscarrÃ

Post by Ollis Kalakos

Post by Thomas Heger
Therefore the Ampere measures the strength of electrical current,
which is therefore the dimension, to which the unit Ampere belongs.

DO look up what physicists mean when they use the word 'dimension'
in the context of unit systems. It is not your fantasy meaning,

Apparently you mean 'current density'.
But that is something else, because that quantity contains 'space' and
measures the current through an area-unit.
The usual interpretation of 'current' ignores that quantity and sums up
the current over the entire wire in question, while the term current
density does not.

Well, actually I mean:

the Ampere addresses the current in a conductor, which is usually a wire.

There Ampere does not say, whether the wire is thick or thin, or whether
or not the current distributes evenly within the wire.

If you have a wire with a current of 1 A, you don't mean the
distribution of the current within the conductor, but the sum of all
small partial currents within that wire.

TH

Tamerlane Oldfart Lefévre

2024-05-08 08:20:41 UTC

Post by Parkis EscarrÃ
"entire wire"?? you must be kidding, this usenet user doesn't know what
a current is in physics. But that's also related to time, said above,
and you cannot "ignore" anything, once directly not related, but
connected. Just as a translation of pig from engilsh to swine in
gearmon. It's the same pig,
you eat alot. How many pigs did you eat along your journey?

Well, actually I mean: the Ampere addresses the current in a conductor,
which is usually a wire.
There Ampere does not say, whether the wire is thick or thin, or whether
or not the current distributes evenly within the wire.
If you have a wire with a current of 1 A, you don't mean the
distribution of the current within the conductor, but the sum of all
small partial currents within that wire.

me frendo, that's irrelevant for the problem in case, at any point at any
time you measure the same current along a wire. That you think that more
Coulombs go through a wire "where is thinner", this is false. But that's
not the point. As I remember Q=It, which is charge equals the current times
time. I related to space, t related to time.

your country is run by liars, wankers and whores. The liars are the khazar
goym lying in media, ie the Tageshaw24. I beg you to reconsider

𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗖𝗛_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗲_𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗸𝗲_𝗨𝗦-𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲_𝗔𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘀_𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗸
Another Abrams has been taken out on the Donbass battlefield
https://r%74.com/russia/597177-abrams-drone-video-donbass/

Now I am waiting for the F-16 junk planes to show up (if they dare to show
up). Cant wait for a video showing a F-16 being shot down...

Everyone knows that US weapons are too expensive and zero performance but
still many vassal countries have to purchase it just becauae their defense
minister are corrupt or the rulers/ dictators has to follow American
orders.

This never happens in Hollywood fiction movies....Or in videos on Youtube.

The leading junk tank in the world Abrams is just worthless crap. Very easy
to wipe out

Oh hasn't Joe Biden got money to waste?

Thomas Heger

2024-05-11 06:12:33 UTC

Well, actually I mean: the Ampere addresses the current in a conductor,
which is usually a wire.
There Ampere does not say, whether the wire is thick or thin, or whether
or not the current distributes evenly within the wire.
If you have a wire with a current of 1 A, you don't mean the
distribution of the current within the conductor, but the sum of all
small partial currents within that wire.

I actaually wrote, that the thickness of a wire is irrelevant for the
measure 'current strength'.

If you like to include the diameter of the wire, you get a different
measure, which is called 'current density'.

Both measures are -btw- not always constant in time.

...

TH

Ross Finlayson

2024-05-11 13:59:07 UTC

Well, actually I mean: the Ampere addresses the current in a conductor,
which is usually a wire.
There Ampere does not say, whether the wire is thick or thin, or whether
or not the current distributes evenly within the wire.
If you have a wire with a current of 1 A, you don't mean the
distribution of the current within the conductor, but the sum of all
small partial currents within that wire.

I actaually wrote, that the thickness of a wire is irrelevant for the
measure 'current strength'.
If you like to include the diameter of the wire, you get a different
measure, which is called 'current density'.
Both measures are -btw- not always constant in time.
...
TH

It's true that "bulk" or "current", Ampere physics,
and "test particle", or electron physics,
are two different things, that attain to the same thing.

It's like mathematics and "make a line from points" or
"break a line into points", either way results an
infinite comprehension.

The Democritan or atomic theory, of course is great,
it's fantastic, and results in the classical, the
entire notion of the stoichiometric in ratio, of the
effectively unboundedly-small what to it is the
effectively unboundedly-large, about infinities.

It's like, if you look at the definition of "hysteresis"
these days on the Wiki, it's among examples of terms
that are collected all such manners of differences between
the fundamental and the empirical, the "anomalies",
what are going into the non-standard analysis in mathematics,
of probabilities as mostly in use to reflect statistical ensembles,
and the quasi-invariant measure theory for continuum mechanics,
that it's getting back into the foundations of mathematics,
the continuum mechanics, how to arrive at the quasi-invariant,
for the pseudo-differential, what adds back up,
"classical in the limit".

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

Current, is an integration, of cross-sections, of a path.
It's a contour integral of a path. (And needn't necessarily
include complex analysis or the Eulerian-Gaussian at all.)

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

There's much to be studied in a heat equation,
and the theory of heat equations, or Fourier-style.

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

Then, usual notions like "Lienard-Wiechert and
the test-particle", are the usual fundamental
derivation these days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential

Then, Einstein gets into things like "Einstein's bridge"
and "Einstein's final formalism", and these days there's
a lot of "well Gauss is biased so let's just log-normal",
then about things like Maugin and the monomode process,
for things like Fritz London and superclassical models.

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

Ross Finlayson

2024-05-12 17:40:26 UTC