Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.1

Liste des GroupesRevenir à sp relativity 
Sujet : Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.1
De : ross.a.finlayson (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ross Finlayson)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 27. May 2025, 17:44:49
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <tbGcnYJq7LSWcaj1nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
On 05/26/2025 07:34 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 26/05/2025 05:47, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 26/05/2025 02:41, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
Hmm..., "retro-causation", ..., not causation?
>
Causation, too: but nobody seems bothered by that. :)
<snip>
Coherence conditions is my best bet, as opposed to
everything goes, as that immediately makes no sense:
ultimately in a quantum mechanical form (information),
but already geometrically because *zero* (proper)
distance along a light-like path I take for serious:
zero distance is direct contact, and even sameness...
>
# A coherence law for retro-causation: the observer.
>
The observer from the future...
>
The idea of a "fixed block universe", such that all past,
present, and future is already fixed and given (and that
all thought of free will or chance is illusory) is neither
satisfactory nor warranted: and not even quite reasonable.
>
The idea of a "growing block universe" is a bit better,
but, either the past does not exist either, i.e. only the
*proper* present exists, or the future does exist, too
(that difference being mostly a matter of "conventions").
>
The idea of a "dynamic block universe" is most natural:
*we are pure induction in action*, which is beyond and
before *physics*...
>
Meanwhile:
- symmetry <=> conservation
- coherence <=> (cancellation down to least) action
>
And that should be my last post on the matter for a
while, though I remain open to questions/questioning.
>
Cheers,
>
-Julio
>
The, sum-of-histories, or sum-over-histories, is the
usual idea of inductive carriage, say. The, sum-of-potentials,
has that it's that the potential fields are the real fields,
and deductive carriage say.
Induction alone can never complete the supertasks
about Zeno's thusly paradoxes, it must be that there's
deduction to arrive at via reasoning itself, why there
is that the transcendental results, complete.
So, the idea of a "sum-of-histories, sum-of-potentials",
and for a "least action, least gradient", results arriving
at a "sum-of-potentials", since the potential fields are
the real fields and the superclassical must emerge transcendental.
Then for that three space dimensions naturally tent up
about then a ray of time, in some simplest continuum mathematically,
is for a holographic or hologrammatic principle, that happens
to work up transcendental and after sum-of-potentials.
Then super-string theory and super-symmetry are both as
simple about that the continuous reticulated manifold,
a continuum with Poincare completion, super-classical transcendental.
It's a continuum mechanics.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
21 May 25 * [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.133Julio Di Egidio
24 May14:16 +- Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.11Julio Di Egidio
24 May15:48 +* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.114Ross Finlayson
24 May16:21 i`* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.113Julio Di Egidio
24 May18:34 i +- Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.11Otniel Abuhov
24 May18:53 i +* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.15Ross Finlayson
25 May05:31 i i`* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.14Thomas Heger
25 May12:46 i i +* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.12Julio Di Egidio
26 May07:18 i i i`- Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.11Thomas Heger
25 May15:26 i i `- Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.11Ross Finlayson
25 May12:08 i `* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.16Paul.B.Andersen
25 May15:22 i  +* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.14Maciej Woźniak
25 May15:34 i  i`* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.13Delman Vamvakidis
25 May15:52 i  i `* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.12Maciej Woźniak
25 May15:57 i  i  `- Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.11Arden Vassilopulos
25 May15:27 i  `- Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.11Walton Molnár
25 May20:46 `* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.117Julio Di Egidio
25 May22:08  +- Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.11Bladimir Rudawski
26 May01:41  `* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.115Ross Finlayson
26 May04:47   `* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.114Julio Di Egidio
26 May05:19    +* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.12Ross Finlayson
26 May05:42    i`- Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.11Julio Di Egidio
26 May15:34    +* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.13Julio Di Egidio
27 May17:44    i`* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.12Ross Finlayson
27 May23:35    i `- Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.11Julio Di Egidio
26 May19:11    `* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.18Paul.B.Andersen
26 May20:17     `* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.17Python
26 May21:30      `* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.16Maciej Woźniak
26 May21:42       `* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.15Python
26 May22:49        `* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.14Maciej Woźniak
26 May23:12         `* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.13Python
27 May00:28          `* Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.12Richard Hachel
27 May21:23           `- Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.11Ross Finlayson

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal