Re: Why a time of the real world must be galilean (motion, Mach-ian)

On 12/18/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/18/2024 12:29 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

On 2024-12-17 19:08:49 +0000, Ross Finlayson quoted
>
56000 characters of quoted posts in order to post a few lines of comment:

>
Besides Richardson on electron theory,
been reading Tinkham on quantum mechanics.
>
Similarly to Richardson providing context
into what are conventions and then thusly
the derivations, Tinkham provides much context
and many references to follow.

>
Why don't you ever snip anything? It's not worthwhile scrolling through
line after line of quotations in order to read what may or may not be a
few words of wisdom.
>
I don't think you're as crazy as Wozzie or George Hammond (MS physics,
Hyannis) or "Dr" Hachel, etc., but in your own way you're just as
irritating.
>

>
It's like the other day, some new outlet or
Physics Today said one of the 10 greatest things
last year was getting nucleon physics and quark physics
back together on the same diagram of the nuclear model.
>
Like physics had been selling a one-sided view and
all the "SR-Higgs-ians" are still all, "standard".
>
Partial and incomplete, though, and in various
senses un-scientific and hypocritical if not naive.
>
What _interests_ me though is getting above that.
>
"Foundations: Above That"
>
>
What irritates me is stuff like "g2 log-normal:
this is what we call doing science" and it's like
"that's what we call copying-and-pasting a piece
of log-linear graph paper".
>
>
Then with regards to the prompted text, where
Google Gemini says "yeah lots of science has
got problems like it's not scientific or not
acceptible theoretically or not consistent"
and these kinds of things - un-scientific
or invalid reasoning, has that of course many
scientists know things like "SR is local,
QR and QM don't agree 120 orders of magnitude,
classical gravity violates conservation,
after electron physics there's neutrino/muon/hadron physics,
it's really a continuum mechanics, and waves
are super-classical", that ten or fifteen years
ago would not have been the usual talking points,
but of course show up all over the lit-rature
only having been wall-papered and forgotten
by coat-tailing wall-paperers.
>
It's like "log 2 the g-normal" and it's like
"what we _arrive_ at is a _continuum mechanics_".
>
>
That said the ideas, and here topically,
about "galilean invariants even in relativity theory",
about space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
and for experiments like "neutral linac and charged cyclotron"
and "rigid and rotational atomic clock lattices",
also here is expressing a galilean linear invariant,
and _in_ relativity theory.
>
All entirely consistently, merely equipping the
otherwise unstated assumptions and dividing the theory, ....
>
Not even "changing" the theory.
>
>
Then, where "fall-gravity" is like "well obviously
gravity has to be a fall-gravity if not to constantly
violate conservation of energy everywhere",
then for "the inertial" as also "the graviton",
what acts in the field that carries the force
a carrier in the particle models to each other,
then when there's already that momentum is over-defined,
and not even getting into the quantum and all classical,
is that physics still has under-defined and over-defined
_classical_ terms, and it's an inertial system and it's
a differential system and it's a continuum mechanics in
a continuum.
>
>
Reading Tinkham is quite the fire-hose, I'll look to get
a copy of his superconductivity book, while, his discussions
of quantum mechanics, is pretty great.
>
>
>
So anyways, even today in some places saying something
like "SR is local, and for that matter Relativity of
Simultaneity is non-local", will have that some adherents
to a particular stack of derivation to a particular formalism
through a particular lens their particular view, of SR the
theory, "STR", say, they will say, "thou art wrong", and
it's like, "I got this guy over here named Einstein and
he says you're doing it wrong".
>
>

One other thing to mention is that all those, "quotes",
are what I wrote there and what exactly GG there output -
I always try to not merely re-post things and it's always
something new.
So, I hope this goes to suggest that by resolving
misunderstandings, that it is possible to encourage
more plain, gentle etiquette, that of course my interest
is more to educate or entertain than irritate, then that
here there's a particular entire approach to Foundations,
writ large, that is looking at physics as a theory.
Then, when a usual "linear-thinker" or "bot-thinker"
as it may be, like usual SR-ians, say, or Burse and
his latest bot's balks, balks, it just goes to show
that it's simple to interact with a system like
Google Gemini, and have it emit voluble and reasonable
comment with regards to the points made.
So, have it as some value and for some values,
or just somebody studying continuity and infinity
for a few decades then thinking that gives insight
into the super-classical mechanics of real physics.