From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 01/28/2026 11:10 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 28.01.2026 20:04, skrev Paul B. Andersen:

Hint: d-#v/dt-# = 10 m/s-#

Should be:
Hint: dv/dt = 10 m/s-#

I like the guy who one time put it:
"I: am a measure-man".

I think what he meant by that, was both
that as an observer himself, he could only
see what _was_ away, distant, yet at the
same time, it's to include that his own
objective view was included, "I am: a measure-man".

That I thought was one of the most profound
accounts of perspective and projection, and
the discussion around it was pretty good.


If you're familiar with the Vedic accounts of
Atman and Brahman, one way to look at them is
as of their being a technical sort of discussion
about perspective and projection and the objective
and subjective and the absolute and relative in
the geometry and motion, of individuals. The
interplay of the Vedics about the Atman and Brahman
include that often what's considered is "trading places",
that the key aspect of objectivity, is, inter-subjectivity.


So, then about accounts of the gravitational equivalence
principle, distance and length are not necessarily the
same thing, and the far and near their norm and metric
are not necessarily the same thing. The gravitational
equivalence principle just like the energy equivalence
principle is an _abstraction_ toward a _restriction_,
generally enough about the "severe abstraction" of the
"mechanical reduction" as one can read about, for example,
quite more thoroughly in the "A Dictionary of The History
of Science".

(Here there's considered what must be a _realists's_ and
thusly an _anti-reductionists's_ account, of theory
overall not just instances of instants of heuristics
of planks of platforms of partial accounts of physics.)


So, that "galaxies don't fly apart because their entire
frame is rotating", is just a totally usual sort of account
since the most ancient recorded traditions on matters of
observation and reflection, and then as well about the most
scrutinized accounts or since Aristotle, "there is no un-moved
mover" yet "circular movement is eternal".

"I am a measure-man."





--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 01/28/2026 12:32 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 01/28/2026 11:10 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 28.01.2026 20:04, skrev Paul B. Andersen:

Hint: d-#v/dt-# = 10 m/s-#

Should be:
Hint: dv/dt = 10 m/s-#

I like the guy who one time put it:
"I: am a measure-man".

I think what he meant by that, was both
that as an observer himself, he could only
see what _was_ away, distant, yet at the
same time, it's to include that his own
objective view was included, "I am: a measure-man".

That I thought was one of the most profound
accounts of perspective and projection, and
the discussion around it was pretty good.

If you're familiar with the Vedic accounts of
Atman and Brahman, one way to look at them is
as of their being a technical sort of discussion
about perspective and projection and the objective
and subjective and the absolute and relative in
the geometry and motion, of individuals. The
interplay of the Vedics about the Atman and Brahman
include that often what's considered is "trading places",
that the key aspect of objectivity, is, inter-subjectivity.

So, then about accounts of the gravitational equivalence
principle, distance and length are not necessarily the
same thing, and the far and near their norm and metric
are not necessarily the same thing. The gravitational
equivalence principle just like the energy equivalence
principle is an _abstraction_ toward a _restriction_,
generally enough about the "severe abstraction" of the
"mechanical reduction" as one can read about, for example,
quite more thoroughly in the "A Dictionary of The History
of Science".

(Here there's considered what must be a _realists's_ and
thusly an _anti-reductionists's_ account, of theory
overall not just instances of instants of heuristics
of planks of platforms of partial accounts of physics.)

So, that "galaxies don't fly apart because their entire
frame is rotating", is just a totally usual sort of account
since the most ancient recorded traditions on matters of
observation and reflection, and then as well about the most
scrutinized accounts or since Aristotle, "there is no un-moved
mover" yet "circular movement is eternal".

"I am a measure-man."

I have here a book called "Elements of Newtonian Mechanics:
Including Nonlinear Dynamics", by Knudsen and Hjorth,
might be useful.

Chapter 7 is titled "The Problem of Motion", chapter 12
"The Laws of Motion", the appendix "Vectors and Vector Calculus".

About non-linear analysis the best survey I've seen is Nayfeh's.
Bateman has one of the best surveys of integral and differential
analysis, circa 1910. Maclaurin about infinitesimal analysis
is pretty great, and for something like Courant.

Zeno, though, everybody has to know Zeno first.




--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2