From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 18:16:32 -0800, Ross Finlayson
wrote:
>On 12/07/2025 06:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 12/07/2025 05:59 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2025 02:03 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> Of course, you will agree that 1) the solar system is in a geodesy
>>>>> that's always instantaneously evaluated everywhere its orbifold,
>>>>> and the apparent force vectors of gravity are by the bodies in
>>>>> their orbifold as modeled by the geodesy not their image's locations,
>>>>> and 2) dark-matter/dark-energy or rather the observations that imply
>>>>> their existence have long ago falsified standard cosmology
>>>>> (Einsteinian/Newtonian/Galilean), then also there's that 3) readily
>>>>> apparent gyroscopic effects are not explained by Magnus effect and
>>>>> have falsified Galilean theories of trajectory.
>>>>
>>>> How can I possibly agree to this? It is pseudo-scientific word salad,
>>>> bereft of meaning.
>>>>
>>>> For example, an orbifold (orbit-manifold) does NOT have to do with
>>>> orbits in
>>>> celestial mechanics, but with orbits as understood in *group theory*:
>>>> "The
>>>> orbit of an element x in X is the set of elements in X to which x can be
>>>> moved by the elements of G [which is acting on X]:
>>>>
>>>> G ? x = {g ? x : g ? G}."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You keep using words because they sound scientific, not because you
>>>> know and
>>>> have understood their meaning. The result is utter nonsense, not even
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now that you mention it I do intend "orbifold" for "geodesy".
>>> The geodesy is the usual notion that anything anywhere (or,
>>> material points in Einstein's parlance) is going on a straight
>>> line (as from its own perspective) its world-line in the geodesy,
>>> which is basically a vector field.
>>>
>>> So, "orbits" for "trajectories", is the ideas that since the
>>> geodesy always is instantaneously evaluated everywhere, it's
>>> no different than "orbits" the trajectories, and then also
>>> that it _is_ an orbifold, the symmetries splitting the difference
>>> between left and right, or directionality.
>>>
>>> Then, indeed, "orbifold" fits when the "geodesy" is re-interpreted
>>> as that in the theory as accordingly about _gravity_, that objects
>>> orbit each other in a fall-gravity instead of somehow constantly
>>> doing work pulling themselves together (or, that Einstein's geodesy
>>> is a sort of "follow-gravity" after the ideas of Newton "pull-gravity",
>>> Fatio-LeSage "push-gravity", Einstein "follow-gravity", and here
>>> "fall-gravity".
>>>
>>>
>>> Then, why I suggest that one _must_ agree with these points 1, 2, 3,
>>> now that the first mis-understood word that caused the entire thing
>>> to be puked back is a bit better defined, is that 1) the
>>> geodesy/orbifold _follows the changes_, i.e. it's _instantaneously
>>> evaluated everywhere_, so, "gravity's speed" can't be less than
>>> light's speed. Then, 2) dark-matter/dark-energy have long ago
>>> falsified standard models of cosmology and since mechanics and
>>> including relativistic dynamics, except for making for a
>>> space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational, and 3) there
>>> are well-known un-explained empirical effects in the gyroscopic
>>> of spinning bodies that falsify Galilean trajectories the parabolic.
>>>
>>>
>>> I.e., one must agree or abandon being "scientific", say.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, I hope this helps establish that given this sort of generous
>>> reading with that "orbifold" is anywhere so locally with regards
>>> to directionality as an interpretation of "the geodesy", so,
>>> it stays, then that the rest of these example 1, 2, 3 also stand.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's orbits everywhere, the continuous manifold is for Euclid's
>>> smooth plane and Poincare's rough plane and the Zollfrei a
>>> reticulum, and the "trajectifold" (that being its own word)
>>> is an orbifold.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gravity's in all classical theories, yet any account making
>>> for continuous infinite violation of conservation of energy,
>>> seems wrong, and, can't be right. So, ideas like "fall-gravity"
>>> help fix that up, from spoiling the entire endeavor.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, if I was factually incorrect or misusing terms,
>> I would want to know and proffer retraction and correction,
>> then it's a sort of academic "Golden Rule" to also point out
>> the hypocrisies or plain errors in reasoning or as well obstinance
>> in confronting the perceived problems or incoherencies or the
>> un-scientific not-meeting-the-data, while as well being quite
>> aware of the accuracies of the approximations so afforded.
>>
>>
>> It's a potentialistic theory, it's a continuum mechanics.
>> ("Physics", the theory.)
>>
>> Of course then you'd also want a paradox-free Mathematics, ....
>>
>>
>
>
>I'd suggest that next time you don't get what I'm saying,
>that you challenge me to relate it in terms,
>instead of walking into a gap for fools
>and reading off what you see in the mirror.
>
>I suggest that.
>
>
>So, 1) the geodesy's always current (and it's an orbifold),
>2) galaxies appear to be their own frames in their own spaces,
>3) linear and rotational settings are different,
>the science its data supports each these.
>
>And falsifies what doesn't, ....
>
you are too close to the trees to see the forest.
A galaxy is actually the same as a human cell cluster.
You need a microscope (not a telescope)
to focus on the milky way...
the earth is a virus.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
