From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
On Sun, 07 Dec 2025 21:39:47 -0800, The Starmaker
wrote:
>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.
Of course, it goes without saying..
you need to place the flat glass
containing the universe under a microscope.
I don't know if anyone has discovered yet
the milky way cell cluster galazy contains a
virus..Earth.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
