usenet weirdness

If anecdote is to be believed Hawking and Penrose were exceptions. Hawking in particular seems to have done most of his work by visualising space-time diagrams, in his mind.

There is always second-best,

Jan

And he sailed over Pacific standing on a snotter once.

My impression is that GPS satellites are constantly getting the timebase signal from ground stations, and that global positioning satellites are part of a geopositioning and geosynchrony system where the differences in their clocks and the ground's clocks vary, besides simply according to space contraction (which is always length contraction and time dilation together) then that GPS satellites vary the signal on which they broadcast, so that all the terminal receivers get a constant frequency signal, while the geosynchrony advises the JPL PPN ephemeris daily.

It's called 'Parameterized Post-Newtonian', "PPN".

So, this is for an account of "real space-contraction" then about space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational, which can be made as an interpretation of GR General Relativity, explaining the things while having a global clock-hypothesis.

Tri-dimensionality is special in various examples about, for examples, crossings and knots, sharpness, then here mostly about an account that a linear continuum has infinities and infinitesimals so encoding a 3-D space into a 1-D space makes for the kind of unified holographic structure of the space, that it's natural.

With timing being a ray instead of a dimension, then about motion and change, that "geometry is motion", is actually that besides whether humans are evolved to think in spatial terms in 3-D, actually that space "is" 3-D for a reason.

Then, about matters of perspective and projection, is for the simple abstraction of an assignment of numbering for points in space to points in another dimension, "The Fourth Dimension", is simply about abstraction, while that then attaching that to "time", is particularly apropos.

Then, when getting above _that_, space _and_ time, "a fifth dimension", it's just a mathematical scratch-pad.

So, Kaluza-Klein and beyond is the usual account of "higher dimensional models of space-time", yet, nature does it in 3 (plus 1/2).

Sort of for a, "Silver Thread", and, "Golden Braid", time and space, then about a linear continuum and for the usual ideas of dimensions "curling up" or "rolling up", is the idea that a number can look like this:

x iota + y + z Iota

with iota for "infinitesimal" and Iota for "infinity", then that there's a simple sort of arithmetic about adding those and making treatment of them as vectors, componentwise, then as well about rotations how then also rotations get built among those, since, it's simply enough "rotate", the terms, then why that's particular 3-many terms is because there's only one "infitesimals" and only one "infinites" for otherwise the plain old real numbers their values.

So, that's then a "holographic" or "hologrammatic" sort of account, about the 1 <-> 3 directly, though.

Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.

I have this conviction that that is exactly what is happening with quantum computing. It's time someone exposes the delusion.

Jeroen Belleman

So, with that being an empty space in a ray of time, "space-time", then there's the usual consideration of all the objects and contents in it, usually "Space-Time".

As a mental model it's minimal.

The idea then of the contents of "Space-Time" is to see the arrival of a, "tetrad of quantities". The idea is that there are four quantities, mass and charge and neutron lifetime and light's speed, say, for examples, that the reason there is a tetrad or 4-many is because it's a natural dual or complementary dual to the time's and space's three.

Then, about matter as inert, charge as restless, lifetime as enduring, and lux as fleeting, is again for the account of "geometry is motion", and usual sorts of seemingly at once profound yet meaningless accounts as "the only constant is change".

Then, making for a brief mental model of continuity and change, and about inversion and complementary duals, for example about creation and destruction or the conservation and exchange, gets to arriving at reasoning for examples about fall-gravity, Rest Exchange Momentum, and Light-Speed Rest-Frame accounts that happen to fulfill the formalisms of the inner products of usual accounts of gravity and general and special relativity.

These are often enough accounts of models of change in an open system, as "wave mechanics", then furthermore about "wave-spirals" and "spiral-waves", about line-drawing and the spiral-space-filling-curve, and about models of state, like frame-spaces and space-frames.

Thusly, there's arrived at a bit of a "Theory of Everything" from a "Theory of Nothing".

"A Theory"

It might help to realize that anything these days called "quantum computing" would better be called "simulated-quantum computing".

For example, Maugin's account of the surface acoustic wave transducer, is more-than-less a wide gate array implementing a surface acoustic wave transducer, that somebody calls a "D-Wave".

Certainly. Too many kids are getting degrees in engineering. And in sociology, filmmaking, music theory, political science, english, and probably physics.

At least many low-talent engineering grads can become sales reps or test technicians or something.

I know of one physics grad who is programming FPGAs. He's OK.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

The "digital" is eventually "analog", ....

Don't get me wrong, there are all kinds of architectures about custom logic and free-form 3-D IC's, three-dimensional integrated circuits, about things like putting rollers and shifters together or "the barrel shifter", about combining electronics and photonics, or as well heat-pipes about about any other means of conduction and radation, "systems on chip", "reversible computing", all kinds of possible microarchitectures according to materials science.

According to "quantum mechanics" its usual formalisms, it can only be "simulated". A proper "continuum mechanics" of the sub-atomic and trans-Planckian, though, that would be ultimately an "analog computer".

Since we don't know all that much about human talent - the IQ testers are remarkably reluctant to sort it out into it's component elements (what ever they might be) this probably isn't a well-founded opinion.

Australia from 1942 to 1971, the UK from 1971 to 1993 (in Cambridge from 1982), the Netherlands from (1993 60 2011) and back in Australia since then

Sure they do.

My wife supervised a lot of them - at least 43 - but in psycholinguistics rather than physics. I ran into a few graduate student in chemistry (when I first arrived in the UK as a post-doc) and in physics when I was working on electron microscopes at Cambridge Instruments.

Working out the problem that their Ph.D. project is going to address can be done in cooperation with the supervisor - my wife seemed to do a pretty good job with her students - but supervisors are a very mixed bag.

I'm sure that there are Ph.D. factories which are quite as bad as you claim, but none of the places I knew worked liked that.

Some graduate students subvert their supervisors plans. I certainly did. There was a whole lot of technical stuff in my project that he didn't have a clue about, and while I measured the rate constants that he wanted measured, there was a whole lot of technical stuff and computer processing that he'd didn't know much about.

It certainly doesn't stop good students from finding their own way.

Not in my experience.

There are plenty of bad supervisors. My wife picked up a few of her graduate students from them, over the years. Her first graduate student moved over to her when his - very clever but gay - original supervisor made a pass at him.

There are also a whole lot of good ones. Science funding does get bent by good supervisors to look after good students.

But on a small enough segment of the surface of a sphere it doesn't matter.

But the curvature of the earth is imperceptible on any triangle you can measure with hand-tools.

The Tasmanian devil is an animal. I grew up in Tasmania, but never got to see one close up until I went back on a nostalgia trip with my wife (who also grew up there) and got to go to a "preserve the Tasmanian Devil" centre - they were getting decimated by transmissible facial tumours at time, and still are , but it looks as if the preservation schemes will save the species, if not the remaining wild population.

A devil is mythical creature that only exists in fantasy.

Which wasn't all I said - you've snipped the rest of what I posted in a effort to make what you went on to post somewhat less obviously irrational.

Science is certainly a complicated mechanism. The proposition that I'm dumb may appeal to you, but there's counter evidence around, if you know where to look. Getting a Ph.D. isn't evidence of dumbness, nor getting stuff published in peer-reviewed journals, nor a patent or two.

Based on the nonsense you post here, it's not a task that you seem to be equipped to take on. And nobody sane would pay any attention to it if you went to the trouble of making the attempt.

I wonder what that sentence was intended to mean

Some of them - not all that often.

You don't really have a clue how GPS works, do you. To a user it's hand-held radio receiver that can work out where you are on the surface of the planet to a couple of feet. I regularly use it to get places I haven't been before, relying on the maps built into the device, and the satellite transmissions that tell the unit where it is.

John Larkin thinks that Donald J Trump has common sense. God only knows what he understands by common sense, or you either.

If you knew the exact temperatures (and thus the lengths of the pendulum) for the entire period you were trying to measure, you might have been able to correct for that particular error. Nobody did. There were others

You do seem to be lunatic enough for your motives to be inaccessible to rational logic. <snip>

You are confusing station keeping with satellite location.

The satellites can drift from their desired orbit, and if they drifted too far, the ground stations (as in my hand-held GPS unit) wouldn't be able to see enough satellites to know where it was. The satellites always know exactly where they.

Good question.

We weren't talking about relevance. I wanted to see a coherent world picture.

It's a lot easier than doing plasma stability calculations.

And are very willing to tell people how difficult it is.

I do take care not to behave too much like a crank.

There are lots of real-world engineering problems to solve. And most get solved just fine.

If we never solve any more theoretical Big Physics problems (and maybe we won't) life will go on.

What do you do? I design electronics.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

You are imagining things I never said anything about.

Yes, and what the time really is.

I answered it for myself long ago. (as you might have noticed)

Jan

A coherent world picture involves having correct ideas about orders of magnitude, and relevance or irrelevance. Or do you also include a note on the phases of the moon in your electronics measurements?

Sure, any excuse for not having a fusion reactor yet will do.

FYI, you are behaving too much like a crank on this. No better than for example TH on his growing Earth. Is it really too hard for you to admit for once that you goofed?

Jan