Re: Relativity theory from other angles

On 10/20/2024 05:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 10/20/2024 01:54 PM, bertietaylor wrote:

So if we forget iwrong Aristotle and obsolete steam engines explained by
Carnot, we need have no use for conservation of energy laws and entropy
- we say bye-bye to the laws of thermodynamics, following Arindam's
inertia violation experiment.
>
 From that advance, getting rid of the depravity of relativity and the
bunkum of quantum is but a step.
>
Woof-woof
>
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

>
>
No, that's foolish, also that's a mis-reading,
what is meant is that there are other regimes of relative
and that quantum mechanics is a continuum mechanics,
then as with regards to that this mostly means revisiting
earlier abandoned theories, like vis-viva, Lagrange principle,
superstring/supercorde theory as a continuum mechanics,
pseudomomentum, Heaviside/Larmor/Faraday field theories,
aether field theory, the "revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs"
which since I mentioned that decades ago has seen Aspect-like
photons as definitely waves and all, JWST panning Hubble,
and Higgs and Little Higgs, for a theory with a gravity
like a fall-gravity, that this is for improving _mathematics_
and resultig improving _mathematical physics_, and
_explaining_ it in apologetics, in foundations.
>
>

What's intended is you actually can gather each these
search terms and enter each these search expressions
and find each these search hits and gather each these
search results and notice for example that physics,
is both very very uniform, and very very mute on
many many subjects, the theory, then that all sorts
of usual opinions are just that, and there are a lot
of them in physics, not mathematics, not physics,
not science, merely opinion, and the popular (if
you don't find that entirely the wrong word) press
of science gets more and more biased and un-unscientific
in its language, that anyways there are lots and lots
of opinions in physics, and like any other opinion
there are others, which as much as they are mathematical
and are physical and are scientific, are so.
Of course physics needs a great deal from mathematics
about continuum mechanics that it's missing and
that mathematics _owes_ physics better and more
law(s) of large numbers to help facilitate the
zero'eth law(s) of mechanics to help arrive at
thusly the more law(s) of probability as via the
more law(s) of convergence and emergence what result
the more law(s) of physics, plural.
Gravity, for example is such a good idea,
that it's a _law_.
Then you might say "well all's fair in war and
and they don't know we're atheists on the Internet
and we don't need no stinking laws and we'll just
log-normal the g-2 and coat-tail and paper-trail
until we get a giant gold scissors" and it's like
"you know you might be right that you need not the law(s)".
That's not a mathematical physics anymore, yet
for some people that's not the ends they intend to mean.