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

On 12/19/2024 12:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/19/2024 06:51 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> 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.

>
That seems too optimistic an assesment to me,
>
Jan
>

>
How about Sedov?
>
>

For example, Sedov's "Macroscopic Theories
of Matter and Fields: A Thermodynamic Approach",
it's a very thorough account of practical physics,
and helps explain why and how the Galilean
should be interpreted and where it is so with
regards to the Lorentzian and about the Euclidean
or "pseudo-Euclidean" and about the Riemannian
or "pseudo-Riemannian", and how it has the various
empirical settings where what popular-blatters
put out as "Relativity" is not directly applicable, say.
So, considering that over the past couple years
there are more things that you've, "learned", say,
or what contradict what you used to say,
were those ever right? How should we then
interpret otherwise your quoting of whatever
the browser pops in your head pops out your keyboard?
It's like, all you need is one dimensional unit,
call it "right", say it's infinity, now your theory's
really complete, yet, if you quantify over those,
it results one of them's bad, that anyways science
has a variety of milieus that help explain, for example,
that your "popular Relativity", is _not_, Einstein's, Relativity.
You know, "SR is local", is pretty common these days,
yet only some years ago your SR-ian-ness was quite
thorough, yet Einstein already pooh-poohed that
about 75 years ago.
So now when you laugh and point at SI and say
"look, it's almost none left, all SR" and it's
like "yeah, it's almost none left, all SR".
Don't get me wrong, I got nothing for cranks
except a plain usual generosity in reading
and a mild sort of remonstrance, yours has
about run out. Yet another bot, ....
Usenet posts last about forever. They're on the
whole so small that not only does the Library of
Congress keep each one, they each have their own URL.