Re: No true relativist!

Liste des GroupesRevenir à p relativity 
Sujet : Re: No true relativist!
De : ross.a.finlayson (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ross Finlayson)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 09. Nov 2024, 22:14:42
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <5LadnUgJXa5fTbL6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
On 11/09/2024 09:26 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/09/2024 04:27 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 09.11.2024 05:43, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
No true space is flat according to relativity.
>
>
No water surface is flat according to Newton.
>
>
According to Poincare, there's a notion of the
plane, that is rough, instead of smooth, that
the Euclidean smooth plane and Poincare rough plane,
make for that the notions like the zollfrei metric,
or any other sort "continuous manifold" makes it
so that the many-fold, surface, makes for that
the plain geometry the plane geometry is as well
a continuous: manifold, as then usually in the
theory is according to a space-time a Space-Time
the vector fields associated with the space field
their contents with as well the contradistinction
and juxtaposition the Euclidean smooth plane,
and Poincare rough plane.
>
In mathematics then this is usually with regards
to the "continuous and differentiable", with regards
to the non-differentiable, everywhere, which makes
for a reasoning that of course the Laplacian that
most usual reasoning about the quadratic and partials,
and also harmonic theory with regards to Chladni functions,
that the Laplacians are at best partial, and that the
analysis situs makes for that both the integral analysis
and the differential analysis are required for a
better mathematics what may suffice.
>
The meniscus and the difference in fluid models
between skin effect of electricity and core effect
of liquids, has that water is merely an extreme
of sorts among properties of liquids their surface
tensions, and that of course some liquids have
no meniscus and are thusly of course flat.
>
Of course it's pretty easy to come up with mathematical
propositions that result in terms of motion that
there's no _nothing_ and that it takes a great wider
and fuller dialectic with more and better mathematics
of infinities and infinitesimals with the law(s), plural,
of large numbers, to explain convergence and mergence,
and statistical expectations and uncertainty, and bunch
of other things starting with Zeno and Aristotle.
Anyways according to the latest purposed experiments,
space-time is more-than-less flat, and, the cosmological
constant, is: a mathematical non-zero infinitesimal.
Signed, Science

Date Sujet#  Auteur
9 Nov 24 * No true relativist!55LaurenceClarkCrossen
9 Nov 24 +* Re: No true relativist!38Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24 i+* Re: No true relativist!36LaurenceClarkCrossen
10 Nov 24 ii+* Re: No true relativist!5Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24 iii+- Re: No true relativist!1LaurenceClarkCrossen
11 Nov 24 iii`* Re: No true relativist!3LaurenceClarkCrossen
11 Nov 24 iii `* Re: No true relativist!2Ross Finlayson
12 Nov 24 iii  `- Re: No true relativist!1LaurenceClarkCrossen
10 Nov 24 ii+- Re: No true relativist!1LaurenceClarkCrossen
10 Nov 24 ii+* Re: No true relativist!14LaurenceClarkCrossen
10 Nov 24 iii`* Re: No true relativist!13Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24 iii +* Re: No true relativist!8LaurenceClarkCrossen
10 Nov 24 iii i`* Re: No true relativist!7Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24 iii i +* Re: No true relativist!4rhertz
10 Nov 24 iii i i`* Re: No true relativist!3Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24 iii i i `* Re: No true relativist!2LaurenceClarkCrossen
11 Nov 24 iii i i  `- Re: No true relativist!1Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24 iii i +- Re: No true relativist!1LaurenceClarkCrossen
10 Nov 24 iii i `- Re: No true relativist!1LaurenceClarkCrossen
11 Nov 24 iii `* Re: No true relativist!4rhertz
11 Nov 24 iii  +- Re: No true relativist!1Ross Finlayson
11 Nov 24 iii  `* Re: No true relativist!2Ross Finlayson
11 Nov 24 iii   `- Re: No true relativist!1Ross Finlayson
12 Nov 24 ii`* Re: No true relativist!15LaurenceClarkCrossen
12 Nov 24 ii `* Re: No true relativist!14Thomas Heger
12 Nov 24 ii  +* Re: No true relativist!6Ross Finlayson
12 Nov 24 ii  i+- Re: No true relativist!1LaurenceClarkCrossen
14 Nov 24 ii  i`* Re: No true relativist!4Thomas Heger
14 Nov 24 ii  i `* Re: No true relativist!3Ross Finlayson
14 Nov 24 ii  i  +- Re: No true relativist!1Ross Finlayson
15 Nov 24 ii  i  `- Re: No true relativist!1Thomas Heger
12 Nov 24 ii  `* Re: No true relativist!7LaurenceClarkCrossen
12 Nov 24 ii   +* Re: No true relativist!2Ross Finlayson
12 Nov 24 ii   i`- Re: No true relativist!1Ross Finlayson
12 Nov 24 ii   +* Re: No true relativist!3LaurenceClarkCrossen
12 Nov 24 ii   i`* Re: No true relativist!2Ross Finlayson
12 Nov 24 ii   i `- Re: No true relativist!1Ross Finlayson
14 Nov 24 ii   `- Re: No true relativist!1Thomas Heger
10 Nov 24 i`- Re: No true relativist!1LaurenceClarkCrossen
9 Nov 24 +* Re: No true relativist!11Maciej Wozniak
9 Nov 24 i+* Re: No true relativist!9rhertz
9 Nov 24 ii+- Re: No true relativist!1Maciej Wozniak
10 Nov 24 ii+* Re: No true relativist!3LaurenceClarkCrossen
10 Nov 24 iii`* Re: No true relativist!2Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24 iii `- Re: No true relativist!1Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24 ii+- Re: No true relativist!1Maciej Wozniak
10 Nov 24 ii+* Re: No true relativist!2Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24 iii`- Re: No true relativist!1LaurenceClarkCrossen
10 Nov 24 ii`- Re: No true relativist!1LaurenceClarkCrossen
9 Nov 24 i`- Re: No true relativist!1LaurenceClarkCrossen
9 Nov 24 +- Re: No true relativist!1LaurenceClarkCrossen
9 Nov 24 +* Re: No true relativist!3Ross Finlayson
9 Nov 24 i+- Re: No true relativist!1Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24 i`- Re: No true relativist!1LaurenceClarkCrossen
12 Nov 24 `- Re: No true relativist!1Bertietaylor

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal