On 04/15/2025 01:32 PM, kinak wrote:
'Acceleration' might mean 'circular motion'
Well, the world is turning, and Archimedes and his lever
always must have a place to stand, so one may aver that
dynamics of any sort is always, "un-linear", and that only
in the abstract mental geometry is the, "linear",
that it may always be, "un-linear".
Einstein in one of his last books writes another derivation
of the mass-energy equivalency about the "centrally symmetric".
It's sort of called "Einstein's bridge", and what it does is
make it so that the dynamics is always, "un-linear", in the
abstract mental geometry of the, "linear".
Most people don't know it mostly since they're not taught it.
Yet, it's there.
--------------------------------
On 04/15/2025 01:32 PM, kinak wrote:
'Acceleration' might mean 'circular motion'
Well, the world is turning, and Archimedes and his lever
always must have a place to stand, so one may aver that
dynamics of any sort is always, "un-linear", and that only
in the abstract mental geometry is the, "linear",
that it may always be, "un-linear".
Einstein in one of his last books writes another derivation
of the mass-energy equivalency about the "centrally symmetric".
It's sort of called "Einstein's bridge", and what it does is
make it so that the dynamics is always, "un-linear", in the
abstract mental geometry of the, "linear".
Most people don't know it mostly since they're not taught it.
Yet, it's there.
On 04/18/2025 04:35 AM, kinak wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/15/2025 01:32 PM, kinak wrote:
'Acceleration' might mean 'circular motion'
Well, the world is turning, and Archimedes and his lever
always must have a place to stand, so one may aver that
dynamics of any sort is always, "un-linear", and that only
in the abstract mental geometry is the, "linear",
that it may always be, "un-linear".
Einstein in one of his last books writes another derivation
of the mass-energy equivalency about the "centrally symmetric".
It's sort of called "Einstein's bridge", and what it does is
make it so that the dynamics is always, "un-linear", in the
abstract mental geometry of the, "linear".
Most people don't know it mostly since they're not taught it.
Yet, it's there.
--------------------------------
Why does the universe swirl.
Why does it change at all?
A usual idea of chance is dice-rolling,
then the idea that there is chance at all
may be called something like "root probabilistic flaw",
that probabilities are random at all, while
only in the very least infinitesimal amount,
allowing change at all, while state at all, and laws at all.
Then, "swirl" involves the vorticial and the spiral,
and the "wash" of things, about flow and flux.
The idea is that spirals go out while vortices go in.
Then, something like the sigmoid and double-spiral,
reflect two centers connecting, yet, un-linearly.
So, everyone knows Zeno's thought experiments. Then,
those usually start with it's given that there's a
beginning, then velocity, then an end, the arrow simply
starts with an unstoppable force resulting a finite velocity,
and ends with an immovable object resulting a zero velocity.
Yet, that start must start and its start must start,
and its end must end and its end must end, "ad infinitum",
to infinity.
Then, these are the "infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration",
as they get higher they get smaller yet it results infinitely many, infinitesimally small, all the time.
Then, any one these things is an exchange, from any common
center or contact, so it's always somehow rotational with
respect to the rotating frame that it's in, even when it's
simply stored and linearly symmetrical like reaction mass
from a rocket, it's always also in the centrally symmetrical.
Then, something like "vortices" you can find in DesCartes
and Kelvin, while, something like "spirals" is pre-historic
and associated with both Anantha and Thoth, as "the symbol"
of mathematics, then that attenuation and dissipation, and
oscillation and restitution, result any double-sigmoid, "swirl".
Also relevant is turbulence and the turbid and "wash",
what all non-linear in kinematics, is barely modeled
in a partial account in the linear in kinetics.
Maybe something like Kinnear's "The Great Wheel: Zero the Un-Naming"
you'd enjoy.
==============================
Wow you guys are so thoroughly wrongly educated about the fundamentals
of physics.
Your schooling must have been terrible.
Woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 491 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 113:59:35 |
| Calls: | 9,685 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,725 |
| Messages: | 6,176,038 |