usenet weirdness

Sorry, but this is nonsense again. General relativity was a purely theoretical project, made necessary by Newtonian gravity being obviously wrong. The only observational constraint into it was that it should reproduce Newtonian gravity in the limit of v << c.

The unexpected bonus of an observable v/c effect came out, it didn't go in, and it's known existence beforehand didn't provide a clue.

There was no cosmological constant in the original 1915 theory. That came much later, and doesn't really belong.

He hoped for unification of classical electrodynamics and gravity, which isn't a bad idea, a priori. There was Kaluza-Klein theory for example, which was a precursor for supergravity and string theory.

No, merely gratuitous,

Jan

Den 10.03.2026 16:56, skrev Ross Finlayson:

I find your symmetrical and reflective convolutive setting which is going to zero instead of off to infinity rather convoluted.

Den 11.03.2026 08:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak:

Maciej is referring to the SI-standard (International System of Units).

'nuff said!

Intelligence is multifacetted. Whatever Einstein had was pretty good.

Who cares. It got a lot f attention at the time, and we are still talking about it here

I was married to a psycholinguist for some forty years (she died in

He was famous for what he wrote and communicated, but you don't seem to be able to understand why.

Nicely put.

The idiot here is you. GPS satellites are accurate enough that they have to be corrected for relativistic effects to maintain a uniform time base.

It not just that the orbiting satellites are moving fast enough relative to planet underneath to need correction for Lorenz effects, but they are also high enough to be in a less powerful gravitational field, so they run faster than ground-based clocks. You can test the effects without getting into orbit. This was done in 1971.

Or looking at it another way, some people do get silly ideas into their heads and can't understand the evidence that most people understand to show that their ideas are wrong.

Some results are very hard to reconcile with some theories.

The Americans claimed that Saddam Hussein was working on weapons of mass destruction, but were never able to come up with any evidence that supported the theory, even after they'd taken over Irak (and its oil fields).

Yes I am (except that it's no way any standard). Paul is a piece of lying s*it, but sometimes he admits that serious clocks [of GPS]

I guess he's too stupid to realize that if a mean solar day lasts 86400 seconds of a serious clock, then one second of a serious clock lasts 1/86400 of a mean solar day.

Go ahead.

I'm well aware of it. Tidal excursions will still dissipate some energy.

Any satellite that orbits faster than the planet underneath rotates is going to spiral in.

Maybe the universe is sufficiently complex that humans can never understand it. Newton, Einstein, Feynman got us about as far as we will ever go.

Given that, we don't need many theoretical physicists.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. Those "relativistic" corrections are straightly FORBIDDEN by the Holiest Postulate. According to The S*it and the idiot we should leave the clocks identical and desynchronizing (indicating t'<>t). GPS wouldn't work, of course - but we would have some proper, magnificient symmetry instead.

Stop f****ng. Time is "what clocks indicate". That's the idiot's own definition, accepted by all of his idiot minions. Now: when a clock in GPS ground base is indicating t = 2026-03-11 13:00:00.000000000000 - what are the indications of a satellite clock? I say t'= 2026-03-11 13:00:00.000000000000 with the precision of an acceptable error. What do you say?

Geometric algebras for mechanics or E&M are plenty successful.

There's Hestenes who wrote classical mechanics and Baylis who wrote classical E&M in hypercomplex numbers.

There's Lounesto with "triality is quadratic".

"Finding" the Majorana particle is simply enough after the Majorana spinor, that's more than less as simply an account as "Wick rotation".

I enjoy Lounesto, I spoke with him on several occasions. He has an Erdos number of 3.

It would be cool if my simple enquiry reaches 1000 followup posts.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Well, in looking at these kinds of things I even got to thinking about an "original" analysis about the identity line as identity dimension.

When convolution is introduced then that the convolution of functions is given its own operator or "star", about the composition of functions "under convolution", about the involution and convolution, besides being used in the regular course in the checklist of things to try in solving differential equations, and besides the usual sort of placement in the addressal of integral equations, it's quite thoroughly its own "setting", about what it can make of boundedness and compactness and about the symmetry and reflection.

The "original analysis" or "identity dimension" is its own sort of account, since it has "higher symmetry" in the usual sense of both inverses and transposes, that the convolutions and transposes (transpositions) make for also the "hypergeometric" where the regular singular points are: 0, 1, and infinity.

Yeah I was studying a second course in differential analysis live in 'Descriptive Differential Dynamics" podcasts then I arrived at "original analysis" after finding that the first course in differential analysis had skipped the fundamentals of integral analysis.

The complex analysis after the deMoivre then the Euler identity then about the Gaussian branch as the principal branch, has a number of things that people naturally think would be so with the superimposition of R^2 and C in their diagram, that are not necessarily so.

For example, for deMoivre there's that much like boundedness, it also has an orientation, since small-angle approximation depends on always crossing the horizontal and the vertical bounds. Then the Euler identity has it so that the reasoning of e^ (i pi) = -1, imagines an Archimedean spiral, yet adding that to classical constructions, is its own construction, or about "squaring the circle", not that there's anything wrong with that, and the Archimedean spiral added to classical constructions the compass and edge makes for both "circle-squaring" and "cubing squares" geometrically, it's though so that mostly as an account of Euler's telescoping series, that they've implicitly added another bound, another boundedness, more boundary conditions, and otherwise it lives in a box. Then Gauss about the principal branch of complex numbers' division, has that the definition of division of complex numbers is naturally multi-valued, so it's sort of like that using complex numbers to fill the roots of real numbers, and there are other ways of looking at filling the roots of real numbers, that making complex numbers, then has that the operation of division makes its own new "field" of roots of complex numbers as they may be, that are simply ignored.

So, these are among reasons why "complex analyticity" doesn't always suffice for "real analyticity", which is all anybody really cares when all measurements and observations are eventually "real-valued", even if they're said to live in Hilbert space, since the physical interpretation is according to the complex diagram superimposing R^2 and C.

While that's so, the usual account of Hilbert space makes for writing lots of relations in e and pi, it's just not always correct to say they hold, exist, or even let out.

With eventually making for triangle-inequality and about the metric and norm, since that's entirely central in the developments of the definitions and derivations of the usual account of linear and vector relation, in physics, then, for examples, the convolutive setting and with Haar, or about the original analysis and the identity dimension and the complex-complex left-right diagram with branches of complex division, make their own reasons when in the actual they are central, to the real analytical character under analysis.

"Cube doubling", rather, than "cubing squares". There's Nicomachus theorem and the like if you've ever discovered that before.

This is before even getting into the independence of arithmetic in the laws of large numbers, or about "The Atlas of Mathematical Independence", and more and real mathematics of continuity and infinity about convergence and emergence in the standard and non-standard, those above are standard derivations and totally bog-standard and implicit in anybody's stack who says anything about "complex numbers" beyond defining the existence of an even root of -1 that lives in a vector space and as of a vector field.

It's convenient when it's cumulative, yet when unravelling the branches and the boxes, it makes a deconstructive account that to be constructivist and constructionist or structuralist again, must make for rebuilding all the fundamental theorems again to then claim to obtain as "arithmetizations", "algebraizations", and, "geometrizations".

For example, "convolutivizations".

Here there's a usual account of continuity in geometry as for a "spiral space-filling curve" as for Hilbert's postulate of continuity that's a restatement of Leibnitz' postulate of perfection for the gapless-ness in point-set topologies, the "line-drawing" of "iota-values", for the real analytical character of infinitesimals as standard among definitions of continuous domains, like line-reals, field-reals, and signal-reals.

The "boxing" and "branching" then, and the "un-boxing" and "un-branching", is about usual notions of that: singularities in a singularity theory are branches in a multiplicity theory.

So, ideas like the multi-valued results of division of complex numbers, exist as simply as does negative even roots of positive numbers or imaginary even roots of real numbers.

Then, setting up their real analytical character is often in a convolutional setting, about various diagrams relating spaces of numbers, like the Argand or Wessel plane, or here for example the identity dimension in quadrant 1 and folding out complex-complex left-right division in quadrants to the side.

It's not so much that they didn't already have one, as they forgot where they left it.

Yet, as well, these sorts of things are readily discovered independently.

Yes. The grapes hang too high, and they are probably sour anyway.

No point in trying,

Jan