From Newsgroup: sci.math
On 07/27/2026 08:08 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
You refuse to undertand the NVIDIA Volta
archecture. You claim to like in the
sense of "That's a good quote" some
completely made up nonsense? Bravo! I just
copied a nasa article title, which had nothing
to do with "time" per se:
CLARREO Pathfinder
https://science.nasa.gov/mission/clarreo-pathfinder/
Its more a very big vacuum cleaner, that can
scan highly accurate measurements of sunlight
reflected by the Earth and the Moon.
You are just a moron, that still feels harware
evelution a treat, but would like to see data
from a Einstein pathfinder. As if this
is not the ultimate tech cult?
As always you suck, like nobody else ever
sucked on the usenet. You are just completely
bonkers, the bigger crank than Archimedes
Plutonion and John Gabriel.
Bye
Ross Finlayson schrieb:
Well, like Einstein says, relativity is defined
by at least two different clocks -
might as well be three.
That's a good quote, I quote me on that.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
reached a significant milestone this summer.
The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
to measure time, so forget Colorado.
Bye
Ross Finlayson schrieb:
So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
measuring time.
So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Ross Finlayson schrieb:
Or shaves pennies.
X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVMrao) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
Cost/hour: $200,000.00
LoL
Bye
P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
Version release notes
XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
probing, and look at some newer beast.
This looks bad:
?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
9122171.18175435
Expected result:
?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
9122171.181754
Bye
BTW: Tested using this test tester:
X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVMrao) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
Mild Shock schrieb:
See also:
https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
That addled nincompoop, it cut the original context.
That's misrepresentation for you: making idiots worse.
Perhaps one of the best references for Einstein's theory of relativity
is Einstein's "Out of My Later Years", though it's a bit biographical in
the beginning and end, the middle sees laid out very specifically
what Einstein says is "relativity theory" ("a simple negative
stipulation").
The space contraction comes first from FitzGerald, decades before
Lorentz, and various accounts of Lorentzians, any account of which
models "relativity theory", make for real space contraction, in GR,
then Einstein for example separates the "spatial" and "spacial" of
"GR" and "SR".
Einstein also takes pains to clarify that "SR is local", then as with
regards to a clock hypothesis _and_ a universal clock hypothesis,
you can read Einstein explaining why it's so.
Here there are quite a variety of Lorentzians, about things like
Levi-Civita's "the indefiniteness of ds^2".
The plain pure SR-ians are partial, incomplete, and merely local.
Much like "meeting the Lorentzian" makes for a model of
relativity theory, "meeting the Schreodingerian" makes
for models of quantum mechanics.
So, a "doubly-objective relativity theory" may have
both relativity of motion and aside relativity of
space, so that once again there's an aether theory
in it, for example about how in "Sidelights on Relativity",
that Einstein makes accords for an aether in the theory.
Similarly for Born's infinite self-energy and Feynman's
renormalizibility of theories, after Reichenbach about
"Schroedingerians", the quantum mechanics can be a
continuous, deterministic quantum mechanics.
Then a "clock hypothesis" which is usually for anyone
a "universal clock hypothesis" and not the apologet-a-lit's "not-a-clock-hypothesis-hypothesis" is a usual idea, that
in general relativity usually keeps the geodesy (or other
accounts of the world-lines) current everywhere constantly,
or establishes all matters of time-dependence and time-ordering
in any account of quantum theory.
A) The geodesy's instantaneously evaluated everywhere over everywhere
all the time.
B) The time-ordering and time-dependence defines the action of QM.
By the time orthogonality, unitarity, _and_ complementarity get
satisfied, a universal "time" is always about the most moderating
influence.
About the charge-parity-time symmetries, charge symmetry and
parity symmetry have been broken, yet time symmetry has _never_
been falsified: making of itself that as a large overall experiment its
data supporting a "universal clock hypothesis".
Lagrangians are universally parameterized by _time_,
and, force the usual account as a vector is
always itself a function of _time_. (Instead of a tensor, ....)
Then, Einstein could be read as "you know, sometimes people read
too much into what I say, ...", then also "well, you know, Einstein's relativity theory that's Newtonian in the limit is very good at that,
not saying much, actually I have a bit of a problem with the Newtonian
and by that I mean the Galilean, so, here's a reasoning why the space-contraction if it would be would vary for space-contraction-linear
and space-contraction-rotational, and about classical mechanics
itself before we get to the Mach-ian and a total field theory since
there's always an extra-local aspect to any field theory, which physics is".
Now I notice that some recent literature has been absconding with
the term "time-dependence" after "time-ordering", this is that
various accounts of causality and quantum causality which Reichenbach
says that Schroedingerians (as systems) as they would be have only
one job about "quantum causality", that in the recent literature
there are accounts of
A) "clock hypothesis" that's _not_ a clock hypothesis
B) "time-dependence" that's _not_ time-dependence
and other usual accounts since "negative time" (that's since
time-symmetry has never been falsified, has always been falsified,
as about "there are no closed finite time-like curves"),
that those are considered incompatible with the rest of
the literature.
So, those modern accounts worming around matters of definition
are as of a Babel-style babble their abuses of language.
Then about notions like "A-Theory" and "B-Theory" of time, ...,
here there's a universal clock hypothesis and clocks either
slow or meet, so there's never "negative time", and then
that in a convolutive sort of framework, for complementarity,
the stacks of derivation are re-visitable. (Then here there's
that "The A-Theory" as an axiomless then formal system with principles
of the Inverse and Thorough Reason" is so named a decade or more
before these other "A-Theory" accounts, and these days is
further expounded upon as "thea-theory", then with quite a
thorough attachment to both the idealistic and analytical traditions,
for an overall account of reason.)
Most people understand "relativity theory" naturally
as having their own account of having a perspective among perspectives,
and theorizing things as from more than one perspective,
that's mostly all there is to it, then for the more formally
specified bits about "relativity of motion" making for "relativity of
space", a "doubly-objective" relativity theory, then that this gets into natural definitions of space-frames and frame-spaces or Rahme-Raumen and Raume-Rahmen, then that the L-principle is a usual enough thing, most
people with any sense in their head who aren't entirely self-ish
"understand" "relativity theory".
Then they also usually understand "absolutes" first, also.
When thinking about "theory", I like the idea of having just one theory.
I think you may also, though if you're a nominalist fictionalist who's
a fragmented pluralist and absent ideals of regularities and rulialities
their repleteness in truth and causality for infinity and continuity, it
may be difficult.
That said the idea that all the accounts amount makes for a usual
sort of "one-world" hypothesis and a "universal clock hypothesis",
usually enough according to a "cosmological principle" that the
laws of nature are the same everywhere, even if the finite creatures
that usual thinking and feeling beings are have limits.
Thusly for paradox-free reason and constancy in definition for
a constant, consistent, complete, concrete theory, it's a usual
notion that students and researchers in "Foundations" find appealing.
And compelling, ....
Also there's that relativity theory and quantum mechanics disagree
with each other "120 orders of decimal magnitude", also there's
that neither has gravity in the theory, and neither has "rest" itself,
though of course there's a usual notion of "rest frame" and "particle"
and as about "the geodesy" and "the weakest force".
So, a reasonable sort of theory would be putting gravity into the
theories as alike a fall-gravity for the geodesy (or orbifold) for
relativity theories so that energy conservation isn't constantly
violated everywhere, and fall-gravity for the strong nuclear force
for quantum mechanics so that energy conservation isn't constantly
violated everywhere.
fall-gravity
That's why there are all the other systems of units.
What about that _length_ and _distance_ have different units,
about the _metric_ and _norm_, about _distance_ being _length_
in _time_, that time (its elapsed duration) could be defined
according to space-contraction instead of the other way around?
According to "references", ....
Otherwise those are going to vary under gravity, under acceleration,
and so on.
While there's often mentioned the GPS reference frequency,
not so much the GPS station operator's and station-keeping guide,
with that receivers >> stations.
So, another way to identify a metrology of time is "quasars"
instead of "hyper-fine transitions of the cesium atom,
in a museum in France".
It follows from the functional-freedom bit and various other
reasonings (that relativity theory and quantum theory falsify
each other).
If "creationists" is to mean "Big-Bang cosmologists with their
inflationary cosmology and expanding universe", that's the cosmology
they have, yet, there are others.
Of course everybody knows that the Earth's ephemeris is according
to "parameterized post-Newtonian", and that the definitions of the
quantum mechanics these days include gamma or quadru/multi-pole moments.
The NIST Particle Data Group CODATA releases the measured values
of fundamental physical constants every few years, the small ones
get not only more precise, also _smaller_, helping also inform that
the "running constants" of physics get involved.
So, physics is according to NIST CODATA, with SI: Systeme
Internationale, a reduced second, i.e. not first and quite reduced.
Then most people are also unawares how things like Boltzmann and
Planck constants as physical constants are much mathematical constants
that reflect their placement in terms for algebraic reductions again,
for example the roots of x^2 +-x +-1 like the molar gas constant in
the Boltzmann constant, then as with regards to Planck constant about
what mathematical reductionism is ongoing in the Planckian, why
those aren't exactly "physical" constants.
Anyways that "time" can be defined by "an average field of quasar
measurements" is a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron
So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
measuring time.
So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
Thanks for writing.
I'm curious how to interpret the smiley, usually enough it's
a reaction of spontaneous happiness, yet in some regards it's
as like the monkey's grimace that's usually aggression or fear.
Then, the idea that there are "collective clocks" and that for
time there are independent metrologies of time as about
the atomic clock,
the synchroton clock,
and the quasar clock,
that would advise a lot of the context about "the clock hypothesis",
and also the role of clocks with rigid measuring rods of length,
for the metrology (the science of measurement) of space,
the metrologies, a metrology.
See, by ignoring trolls and omitting my put-downs of them,
concatenating my posts makes natural linear narrative.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2