Re: Acceleration's higher orders

On 03/20/2024 02:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/11/2024 10:56 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/11/2024 10:09 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/10/2024 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/09/2024 11:44 PM, Ismael Balazowsky Homutov wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

On 03/09/2024 12:37 PM, Ramiro Juárez wrote:

gharnagel wrote:
>

Volney wrote:

For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat
whimsical)
names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is
called
jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the
derivative
of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone
was a
breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's
actually used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or
railroads from straight to a curve they try to minimize the
'snap' of
a vehicle following the transition segment.

>
I'd heard of jerk.  Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean
drive, a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of
the
masses being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle.  He
showed that the weight of the assembly was decreased when running
- on
a bathroom scales.

>
my friend, heard?? It's enough to push body on a line with a
forcemeter
on it. You get the slope for the jerk since the acceleration is not
constant.
Ohh my, heard of. And you want to speed higher than light, do you.
Are
we from amrica??

>
What you get is that scales, measure deflection, in the system, while
balances, measure not deflection, according to references.
Physics is an open and closed system.

>
whatever you say it's completely nonsense. Pushing an object on a
line,
and bouncing back repeatedly, makes acceleration NOT constant, me
friendo.
Plotting the data shows the jerk directly and no debate. You
relativists
around here, beyond arduino, have no laboratory experience
whatsoever in
physics. All you know is Einstine, a lower than mediocre highschool
student.
>

>
>
Hey now, we're talking about f = ma, and about the infinitely-many
higher-order derivatives of velocity, and meters/second and
seconds/meter, that it is possible to have constant velocity,
constant rest for that matter, constant acceleration and so on,
but to get there it goes from zero to one, each higher order
contribution going from 0 to 1 and back to 0 again, with regards
to acceleration and deceleration, starting and stopping, and
parting and meeting, all the objects in their ephemerides each
other, in a world where all the orbits add up to the geodesy's
world-lines, according to a theory of sum potentials, where
all the real fields are potential fields including the classical
field their sum in the middle, with least action and conservation,
then about Einstein's bridge and rotational space-contraction,
because Einstein's theory is classical in the limit.
>
Usually the unit impulse function, and, the radial basis function,
are two analytical features, of interest. For example, the
Dirac delta, also known as unit impulse, is not-a-real-function,
that's modeled as a continuum limit of real functions, that
always has area 1, but is a spike of infinite height and infinitesimal
width at the origin. The radial basis function, is a round bump
on the line, with area 1, say. A droplet, is like a sphere,
yet it's pointed in a direction, which is the direction of
the classical force vector, in the theory of waves.
>
>
So, here we're talking about the infinitely-many higher-order
derivatives of velocity, calling those "v^prime(infinity)".
>
Correspondingly there's about "e^x + e^-x", and also the
power series out both sides of that, and, the sinusoidal,
with respect to, the inch-worm.
>
Einstein knows Newton, and, Newton doesn't define what
happens except "rests stays at (constant) rest, motion
stays at (constant) motion, all interactions follow a
billiard ball model of perfect inelastic collisions",
yet things don't and they aren't. It's undefined.
So, Einstein, helps recognize, that there are some
sorts these "Newton's Zero-eth laws of motion".
>
>
I studied this for a while the other day and the
usual gimme-gimme-gratification or cursory search
arrives pretty much at "well, you see, it's undefined ...".
>
Yet, life goes on.
>
>

>
I got to wondering about this and well it basically gets
to Galileo and the great relation of constant acceleration,
usually enough in the terrestrial setting the only source
of which being gravity, which is really only "constant"
in relatively short distances like from the table to the
floor, vis-a-vis "high-altitude low-opening parachuting"
or "a hole to the center of the Earth", it's sort of so
that the usual framing of terrestrial gravity as constant
acceleration is contrived, and, Newtonian gravity pretty
much works when the objects are quite massive and independent,
yet, quite far apart, when they see each other as curves,
or walls, instead of points, for objects with about equal
masses, vis-a-vis objects with inequal masses, vis-a-vis
their orbits, and their kinematics as systems together.
>
"Physics is open and closed, and it's open."
>
>
Mathematically of course for v = dp/dt and a = dv/dt = v'
and all the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration,
and deceleration, is about sum-of-potentials, and it's
about rest-exchange momentum, about why "physics is open
so momentum is in part virtual or pseudo with regards
to released potential".
>
It's like, a Mexican jumping bean, is actually a sort
of chrysalis, and inside is a wound-up spring, and it
wants out. Physics is an open system, ....
>
>
So anyways, Galilean invariance, is about the greatest
thing, in terms of that "force is fictitious", that
what that really means is "our classical force model,
where the classical force is real, is actually the
sum result of all... the potentials, which are actually
the real, that it results that classical force, is really
just the first or last fictitious force, being the
impulse of a singularity in potential theory, which
is to explain why Galilean invariance holds, at each
instant, while in each instant, also continuously apply
all... the dynamics, in a continuum mechanics."
>
>
Thus, concepts here involve:
>
v-prime-infty: the series of the infinitely-many orders of acceleration,
which are non-zero, yet mostly vanishing,
that in the classical limit, results Galileo and Newton
and Einstein's laws of rest and motion.
>
classical limit:
classically there is one of superclassical theories,
superclassically the classical is the limit instead.
>
fictitious force:
defined as that classical force is truncated from a
moment to a scalar, anything else, while in the theory
of sum potentials, it's exactly that, and results real force.
>
>
So, looking for a theory where gravity is a force,
and, forces are real, and, of course it's a field
theory and a gauge theory, space-time is a continuous
manifold, and there's effectively a particle model
of the sub-atomic, according to pretty much mass and
charge together, in space.
>
That's sort of missing from "physics" today but actually
it's among the most very usual sorts of notions that
arrive in theoretical physics to unification theories,
"sum the potentials: physics is a system".
>
>
>

>
Classical physics is really great,
it's, linear, then, differential.
>
It's usually all according to "time", of course,
which is almost always labelled "t".
>
So, classical physics is great, then when
trying to fulfill the greater physics, what
happens is what results "non-linearities",
and, "singularities".
>
The essential concept of singularity, though,
needs to be thoroughly understood, in a world
of "open" and "closed", that in a "closed" world,
singularities don't exist, and in an "open" world,
singularities are multiplicities.
>
The very definition of "singularity" in mathematics
has multiple terms that describe it, one of which
is "perestroika" which means "opening", and another
of which is "opening" which means "opening".
>
>
So, classical physics:  _is a singularity itself_.
>
Classical physics is a closed singularity,
in the open world of greater physics,
which is open, it's an open system.
>
Classical physics _is a singularity itself_.
>
>
So, singularity theory, which is, multiplicity theory,
makes for the great usual theoretical edifice called
"metaphysics", "metaphysics:  a systems theory,
a system theory, system, a theory".
>
Classical theory _is a singularity itself_.
>
Then, the idea that, greater physics is open,
then ultimate physics is open and closed,
gets into things like, for example, "neither
Big Bang nor Steady State is falsifiable and
either can be made fit the data".
>
They're a theory - it's a theory.
>
So, the infinitely-many higher-orders of acceleration,
basically follows directly for the infinitely-many
divisions of _time_, all together, altogether,
that "the physics", is a theory of sum potentials,
a theory of omega potentials, and altogether:  real.
>
>
This helps rehabilitate metaphysics for logicism
and positivism, for stronger logicism and stronger
positivism, greater metaphysics, for both "Being and
Thought" and "Being and Time", a theory.  ("A Theory.")
>
>
Same goes for the rest of it.
>
>

>
Moment and Motion:  inertial momentum
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=32
>
>
Acceleration, mechanics, interaction, higher-order acceleration,
motion and rest, continuity, hologram universe, Mach,
physical quantities, point to total, dp/dt, dv/dt, change
in time, dimensional analysis, immovable and unstoppable,
dimensioned quantities, algebra and units, implicits
and implicit zero, reaching and finding equilibrium,
dimensional dynamics analysis, the un-linear, connection
of cascade and carriage, linearity of units of momentum and units
in inertia, higher-order linearity, complex and harmonic analysis,
dimensional resonator, Lucretius and Polybius, Aristotle's science
of physics, a place to stand, Aristotle's platonism,
Feynman's notes, configuration and energy of experiment,
forces and the classical limit, independence of coordinates,
stop-derivative, dimensional resonance, book-keeping,
momentum phase and phase momentum, Cerenkov and
Brehmsstrahlung, Huygens principle and boom angle,
d'Espagnat on objectivity, re-flux.
>

Moment and Motion:  history of mechanics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXy4rfQkps
The history and language of science, kinetics and kinematics, laws of
physics, invariant and symmetry and conservation, continuity laws and
symmetry flex and running constants, reduction to fundamental elements,
sum of histories and sum of potentials, energy and entropy and dunamis
and heat, mathematical and physical constants, Langrangians and
functions of time, Kelvinists and Maxwellites, field theory and
fundamental particles and force carriers, general relativity and gravity
and quantum mechanics, rest-exchange momentum, history of mechanics,
Heilbrom's histories, machines and mechanical advantage,natural and
violent motion,Buridan and impetus, mathematical models of physical
models and nominalism, units of meters and inchworm-hourglass,
positional gravity and virtual displacement, Varignon and Lamy and
momentum, momentum versus vis-viva, vis-viva and pseudomomentum,
Maupertuis and Fermat and least action, Euler and resultant of external
forces, Zeno and motion.
https://philarchive.org/archive/MILHIO-8
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004HisSc..42..189T
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation
https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article-abstract/59/10/31/412666/The-vis-viva-dispute-A-controversy-at-the-dawn-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext