Re: Acceleration.

On 04/18/2025 01:00 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/18/2025 11:52 AM, kinak wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

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.
>
==============================

>
In drawing a circle, there is acceleration at every point along its
circumference.
>

>
>
>

>
>
There are at least two ways to look at circular motion.
>
One has the centrifugal, then it's called centripetal,
where the fugal is kind of like the center or gyrofuge,
while, the petal is about the feet, what kicks it takes
to start the merry-go-round.
>
>
Then another is that "worlds turn", that a sufficiently
large spinning system is its own reference frame, for
example the Earth to the Sun to the North Star and out
to the galaxy, when it's far enough away from other
systems that it's essentially a dot, it doesn't matter
how much it spins, it is its, "own little world", worlds turn.
>
>
When, when spinning enough, then this results also what
looks like what's called, "Magnus effect", which is the
effect of "heft", that's a bit simpler yet about the,
"rotational space contraction", why things that are
spinning have more heft, and can fly as they're lofted
or hefted, _not_ like Galileo's perfect parabolas,
and about the "vis viva" and "vis insita", the "live force"
and "inner force", as different than "vis motrix", "motive force",
that any sort thing has these things.
>
>
So, it's known that Magnus effect has partially an aerodynamic
explanation, then also it has empirical extra in it,
that go along with these ideas of "heft" in spin,
as a separate thing than "weight" in gravity, as
after "mass" the restful inertial content.
>
>
The "vis viva" and "vis insita" are sort of obsolete terms
since before Galileo, since they were also used to include
things like friction, yet since there are still empirical
extra (unexplained by the usual theory) amounts measurable,
not-Galilean, then they're same sort of terms. Then the
"heft" is a natural word then as a quantity given to these
extra terms.
>
>
>
Aristotle one time was like "there is no un-moved mover",
yet, he also said "circular motion is eternal".
>
>
Then in usual theories these are called "gyroscopic" terms,
whatever's used to add up what are called "fictional" forces,
like the centrifugal, that though given whether they're in
effect, of course being the real forces, that it's all about
a theory of sum-potentials, and the usual since Galilean and
Newtonian and Einsteinian account, is sort of unawares -
these are natural super-classical notions that the real theory has.
>
>
>
>

https://einstein.stanford.edu/STEP/information/data/gravityhist2.html
"Einstein extended the Equivalence Principle and made it a postulate for
his theory of General Relativity. The Strong or Einstein Equivalence
Principle states that all of the laws of physics (not just the laws of
gravity) are the same in all small regions of space, regardless of their
relative motion or acceleration. Since the weaker universality of free
fall is a logical consequence of this, the entire theory of General
Relativity rests on the single experimental fact that all objects fall
with the same acceleration."
"General relativity is a magnificent theory, deep, potent, and
aesthetically appealing, but Einstein was not satisfied. Gravity
remained separate from electricity, and the connection of mass to
geometry was incomplete. For thirty years, Einstein tried to formulate a
theory that would solve these problems and unify physics. He failed."
"In 1881, J.J. Thomson deduced that an electric charge moving through
its own 'field' acquires, in addition to any ordinary mass it may have,
an electromagnetic mass -- just as a moving ship gains extra mass from
the water it drags along with it. In fact, by connecting electromagnetic
energy with mass, Thomson anticipated Einstein's E=mc^2. When he
discovered the electron 16 years later, he conjectured that its mass was
entirely electromagnetic. Though he was wrong, he raised issues about
mass that remain unresolved. Later in the 19th century Ernst Mach
speculated, vaguely, about the origins of mass and inertia in distant
bodies. "
See, it's sort of over-simplified, yet, can be re-simplified,
making it more real, classical mechanics, super-classical mechanics.