On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:42:30 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Reading the other day the gravitational 3-body problem
> had a newer approach, working up some systematic
> "quantum" (or stochastic, quantized) approach, making
> it easier for parallel solvers to work in total potential,
> it's an example that there's still quite a lot for mathematics
> to deliver for physics what usually then in the higher order
> results in usual local approaches.
>
> Of course what all I invented after the "Factorial/Exponential
> Identity", here what my opinion is usual and maintained.
>
> Picked up this "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" Barnett's 1962.
>
> The index is thick with names, quantities, fields, and rays.
>
> This fall gravity still seems this direct unification in physics
> after matter forces.
>
> (For some years I have been maintaining that a fall gravity
> falls out of a unification in the usual models of physics what
> is very unifying in that being the usual sense of progress in
> physics.)
>
> Which makes sense for me and I keep.
>
> That more or less "frame contractions" make for space contraction
> as real there's really I think a way forward as what that's all
> fundamental with respect of course to all reality.
>
> Thanks this has helped form a very modern and historical
> view of the physics as theory, a mathematical physics.

"Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today"

"Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today, the Lagrangian held up the derivative"

-- "it is not a lemma"

Finding some new systems solving upwards in vector spaces,
looking into some new approaches for solving usual symmetrical
systems then besides, numerical forms.

Fall gravity or potential well models of course, is for screen models,
the potential well and the potential screen about that the well,
is also in the well.

The screen as the giant wall, is that in the middle is a rise,
and in it is a well.

For a neatly graphical "and this is why mathematics about
it is total", helps explain why the integral in surface under
deformation, from, "fall gravity", is that the same part of
the solution of the multiples is also one.

I think we can agree that it is as simple to have a well as
a sheet model, where the sheet model is everywhere deformable
or continuously deformable, that the objects on it are not,
while in the well model, that would be as a screen model.

Then it's clear for example that a sheet model so made
non-deformable, the rolling coin's friction itself holds
its orbit according to the dimensions, then for at the
end that on the hard sheet model, in the world model
the result of arbitrary objects so placed is collision,
where in the demonstration up to decision the ball
or coin demonstration, is the same.

According to that it happens as simply "start from
rest or start from current velocity across" as "start
from current velocity down", what are orbits.

Then for whatever reason, is that I should be contrite,
nope, I have left enough room down here to not be
crushed by the machinery.

The difference between boat and river is acceleration.

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:29:28 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:42:30 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > Reading the other day the gravitational 3-body problem
> > had a newer approach, working up some systematic
> > "quantum" (or stochastic, quantized) approach, making
> > it easier for parallel solvers to work in total potential,
> > it's an example that there's still quite a lot for mathematics
> > to deliver for physics what usually then in the higher order
> > results in usual local approaches.
> >
> > Of course what all I invented after the "Factorial/Exponential
> > Identity", here what my opinion is usual and maintained.
> >
> > Picked up this "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" Barnett's 1962.
> >
> > The index is thick with names, quantities, fields, and rays.
> >
> > This fall gravity still seems this direct unification in physics
> > after matter forces.
> >
> > (For some years I have been maintaining that a fall gravity
> > falls out of a unification in the usual models of physics what
> > is very unifying in that being the usual sense of progress in
> > physics.)
> >
> > Which makes sense for me and I keep.
> >
> > That more or less "frame contractions" make for space contraction
> > as real there's really I think a way forward as what that's all
> > fundamental with respect of course to all reality.
> >
> > Thanks this has helped form a very modern and historical
> > view of the physics as theory, a mathematical physics.
> "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today"
>
> "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today, the Lagrangian held up the derivative"
>
> -- "it is not a lemma"
>
>
> Finding some new systems solving upwards in vector spaces,
> looking into some new approaches for solving usual symmetrical
> systems then besides, numerical forms.
>
> Fall gravity or potential well models of course, is for screen models,
> the potential well and the potential screen about that the well,
> is also in the well.
>
> The screen as the giant wall, is that in the middle is a rise,
> and in it is a well.
>
> For a neatly graphical "and this is why mathematics about
> it is total", helps explain why the integral in surface under
> deformation, from, "fall gravity", is that the same part of
> the solution of the multiples is also one.
>
> I think we can agree that it is as simple to have a well as
> a sheet model, where the sheet model is everywhere deformable
> or continuously deformable, that the objects on it are not,
> while in the well model, that would be as a screen model.
>
> Then it's clear for example that a sheet model so made
> non-deformable, the rolling coin's friction itself holds
> its orbit according to the dimensions, then for at the
> end that on the hard sheet model, in the world model
> the result of arbitrary objects so placed is collision,
> where in the demonstration up to decision the ball
> or coin demonstration, is the same.
>
> According to that it happens as simply "start from
> rest or start from current velocity across" as "start
> from current velocity down", what are orbits.
>
> Then for whatever reason, is that I should be contrite,
> nope, I have left enough room down here to not be
> crushed by the machinery.
>
>
> The difference between boat and river is acceleration.

I suppose the problem is "sure, it's easy to model gravity as
fall gravity, now build up all the support for all the classical,
in that, instead of attractive or pull gravity, that results from
it according to surfaces in effect in constants in gravity".

I.e., here to also be atomic number, for its mass the element
in neutrons, ..., just like gravity for example with respect to
Earth, and for example Newton's laws, ..., defines the integral
of elements with respect to time.

That is to say, it's very easy to just say "there is a perfect theory,
it's nowhere imperfect, that a theory with one force everywhere
is the same force theory as a fall gravity", it's totally irrelevant where
"all the forces here are effectively in result under conditions,
where the expectations of the entirely free theory are irrelevant,
all that is needed is terms for exactly two bodies", is for what
results that "according to these constants, ..., and these measurements,
...., fall gravity in effect and mass not gravitating but resting and occluding
the force of gravity which is really "a flow away", that mass falls together
and rests together thus looks same as the attraction of gravity according
to inverse-square the force over distance, in terms of the spatial and
dimensionality constants, is pointing out it would also be furthest removed.

Still, there's estimating what the constants would be, that result from
"actually all this data is according to ..., the force computed the inverse
square, the constant of which is in g the gravitational constant", is for
making a refinement of the gravitational constant, then showing for
example that according to visible and expected timing, it predicts
better at small angles, angles of dispersion forces.

I.e. "fall gravity can't be proven, it's too infinite" here is for actually
working out for what are distance terms, for what are the products
of masses in terms of their distance term, what is inverse-square,
what any section of motions across orbits detail in differences,
happen to print products for two objects at rest with respect
to each other, and gravity, the gravitational constant, in
that "in inverse square the gravitational constant is a dimensionless
constant, besides inverse square", adding terms, order, ..., to
the terms according to the differential, what defines units in g.

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:49:39 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:29:28 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:42:30 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > Reading the other day the gravitational 3-body problem
> > > had a newer approach, working up some systematic
> > > "quantum" (or stochastic, quantized) approach, making
> > > it easier for parallel solvers to work in total potential,
> > > it's an example that there's still quite a lot for mathematics
> > > to deliver for physics what usually then in the higher order
> > > results in usual local approaches.
> > >
> > > Of course what all I invented after the "Factorial/Exponential
> > > Identity", here what my opinion is usual and maintained.
> > >
> > > Picked up this "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" Barnett's 1962.
> > >
> > > The index is thick with names, quantities, fields, and rays.
> > >
> > > This fall gravity still seems this direct unification in physics
> > > after matter forces.
> > >
> > > (For some years I have been maintaining that a fall gravity
> > > falls out of a unification in the usual models of physics what
> > > is very unifying in that being the usual sense of progress in
> > > physics.)
> > >
> > > Which makes sense for me and I keep.
> > >
> > > That more or less "frame contractions" make for space contraction
> > > as real there's really I think a way forward as what that's all
> > > fundamental with respect of course to all reality.
> > >
> > > Thanks this has helped form a very modern and historical
> > > view of the physics as theory, a mathematical physics.
> > "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today"
> >
> > "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today, the Lagrangian held up the derivative"
> >
> > -- "it is not a lemma"
> >
> >
> > Finding some new systems solving upwards in vector spaces,
> > looking into some new approaches for solving usual symmetrical
> > systems then besides, numerical forms.
> >
> > Fall gravity or potential well models of course, is for screen models,
> > the potential well and the potential screen about that the well,
> > is also in the well.
> >
> > The screen as the giant wall, is that in the middle is a rise,
> > and in it is a well.
> >
> > For a neatly graphical "and this is why mathematics about
> > it is total", helps explain why the integral in surface under
> > deformation, from, "fall gravity", is that the same part of
> > the solution of the multiples is also one.
> >
> > I think we can agree that it is as simple to have a well as
> > a sheet model, where the sheet model is everywhere deformable
> > or continuously deformable, that the objects on it are not,
> > while in the well model, that would be as a screen model.
> >
> > Then it's clear for example that a sheet model so made
> > non-deformable, the rolling coin's friction itself holds
> > its orbit according to the dimensions, then for at the
> > end that on the hard sheet model, in the world model
> > the result of arbitrary objects so placed is collision,
> > where in the demonstration up to decision the ball
> > or coin demonstration, is the same.
> >
> > According to that it happens as simply "start from
> > rest or start from current velocity across" as "start
> > from current velocity down", what are orbits.
> >
> > Then for whatever reason, is that I should be contrite,
> > nope, I have left enough room down here to not be
> > crushed by the machinery.
> >
> >
> > The difference between boat and river is acceleration.
> I suppose the problem is "sure, it's easy to model gravity as
> fall gravity, now build up all the support for all the classical,
> in that, instead of attractive or pull gravity, that results from
> it according to surfaces in effect in constants in gravity".
>
> I.e., here to also be atomic number, for its mass the element
> in neutrons, ..., just like gravity for example with respect to
> Earth, and for example Newton's laws, ..., defines the integral
> of elements with respect to time.
>
> That is to say, it's very easy to just say "there is a perfect theory,
> it's nowhere imperfect, that a theory with one force everywhere
> is the same force theory as a fall gravity", it's totally irrelevant where
> "all the forces here are effectively in result under conditions,
> where the expectations of the entirely free theory are irrelevant,
> all that is needed is terms for exactly two bodies", is for what
> results that "according to these constants, ..., and these measurements,
> ..., fall gravity in effect and mass not gravitating but resting and occluding
> the force of gravity which is really "a flow away", that mass falls together
> and rests together thus looks same as the attraction of gravity according
> to inverse-square the force over distance, in terms of the spatial and
> dimensionality constants, is pointing out it would also be furthest removed.
>
> Still, there's estimating what the constants would be, that result from
> "actually all this data is according to ..., the force computed the inverse
> square, the constant of which is in g the gravitational constant", is for
> making a refinement of the gravitational constant, then showing for
> example that according to visible and expected timing, it predicts
> better at small angles, angles of dispersion forces.
>
> I.e. "fall gravity can't be proven, it's too infinite" here is for actually
> working out for what are distance terms, for what are the products
> of masses in terms of their distance term, what is inverse-square,
> what any section of motions across orbits detail in differences,
> happen to print products for two objects at rest with respect
> to each other, and gravity, the gravitational constant, in
> that "in inverse square the gravitational constant is a dimensionless
> constant, besides inverse square", adding terms, order, ..., to
> the terms according to the differential, what defines units in g.

Fall has its own time dilation and kinetic energy
just like orbital speed.

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:49:39 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:29:28 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:42:30 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > Reading the other day the gravitational 3-body problem
> > > had a newer approach, working up some systematic
> > > "quantum" (or stochastic, quantized) approach, making
> > > it easier for parallel solvers to work in total potential,
> > > it's an example that there's still quite a lot for mathematics
> > > to deliver for physics what usually then in the higher order
> > > results in usual local approaches.
> > >
> > > Of course what all I invented after the "Factorial/Exponential
> > > Identity", here what my opinion is usual and maintained.
> > >
> > > Picked up this "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" Barnett's 1962.
> > >
> > > The index is thick with names, quantities, fields, and rays.
> > >
> > > This fall gravity still seems this direct unification in physics
> > > after matter forces.
> > >
> > > (For some years I have been maintaining that a fall gravity
> > > falls out of a unification in the usual models of physics what
> > > is very unifying in that being the usual sense of progress in
> > > physics.)
> > >
> > > Which makes sense for me and I keep.
> > >
> > > That more or less "frame contractions" make for space contraction
> > > as real there's really I think a way forward as what that's all
> > > fundamental with respect of course to all reality.
> > >
> > > Thanks this has helped form a very modern and historical
> > > view of the physics as theory, a mathematical physics.
> > "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today"
> >
> > "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today, the Lagrangian held up the derivative"
> >
> > -- "it is not a lemma"
> >
> >
> > Finding some new systems solving upwards in vector spaces,
> > looking into some new approaches for solving usual symmetrical
> > systems then besides, numerical forms.
> >
> > Fall gravity or potential well models of course, is for screen models,
> > the potential well and the potential screen about that the well,
> > is also in the well.
> >
> > The screen as the giant wall, is that in the middle is a rise,
> > and in it is a well.
> >
> > For a neatly graphical "and this is why mathematics about
> > it is total", helps explain why the integral in surface under
> > deformation, from, "fall gravity", is that the same part of
> > the solution of the multiples is also one.
> >
> > I think we can agree that it is as simple to have a well as
> > a sheet model, where the sheet model is everywhere deformable
> > or continuously deformable, that the objects on it are not,
> > while in the well model, that would be as a screen model.
> >
> > Then it's clear for example that a sheet model so made
> > non-deformable, the rolling coin's friction itself holds
> > its orbit according to the dimensions, then for at the
> > end that on the hard sheet model, in the world model
> > the result of arbitrary objects so placed is collision,
> > where in the demonstration up to decision the ball
> > or coin demonstration, is the same.
> >
> > According to that it happens as simply "start from
> > rest or start from current velocity across" as "start
> > from current velocity down", what are orbits.
> >
> > Then for whatever reason, is that I should be contrite,
> > nope, I have left enough room down here to not be
> > crushed by the machinery.
> >
> >
> > The difference between boat and river is acceleration.
> I suppose the problem is "sure, it's easy to model gravity as
> fall gravity, now build up all the support for all the classical,
> in that, instead of attractive or pull gravity, that results from
> it according to surfaces in effect in constants in gravity".
>
> I.e., here to also be atomic number, for its mass the element
> in neutrons, ..., just like gravity for example with respect to
> Earth, and for example Newton's laws, ..., defines the integral
> of elements with respect to time.
>
> That is to say, it's very easy to just say "there is a perfect theory,
> it's nowhere imperfect, that a theory with one force everywhere
> is the same force theory as a fall gravity", it's totally irrelevant where
> "all the forces here are effectively in result under conditions,
> where the expectations of the entirely free theory are irrelevant,
> all that is needed is terms for exactly two bodies", is for what
> results that "according to these constants, ..., and these measurements,
> ..., fall gravity in effect and mass not gravitating but resting and occluding
> the force of gravity which is really "a flow away", that mass falls together
> and rests together thus looks same as the attraction of gravity according
> to inverse-square the force over distance, in terms of the spatial and
> dimensionality constants, is pointing out it would also be furthest removed.
>
> Still, there's estimating what the constants would be, that result from
> "actually all this data is according to ..., the force computed the inverse
> square, the constant of which is in g the gravitational constant", is for
> making a refinement of the gravitational constant, then showing for
> example that according to visible and expected timing, it predicts
> better at small angles, angles of dispersion forces.
>
> I.e. "fall gravity can't be proven, it's too infinite" here is for actually
> working out for what are distance terms, for what are the products
> of masses in terms of their distance term, what is inverse-square,
> what any section of motions across orbits detail in differences,
> happen to print products for two objects at rest with respect
> to each other, and gravity, the gravitational constant, in
> that "in inverse square the gravitational constant is a dimensionless
> constant, besides inverse square", adding terms, order, ..., to
> the terms according to the differential, what defines units in g.

Here this explains the Fall Gravity theory all well.

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:29:28 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:42:30 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > Reading the other day the gravitational 3-body problem
> > had a newer approach, working up some systematic
> > "quantum" (or stochastic, quantized) approach, making
> > it easier for parallel solvers to work in total potential,
> > it's an example that there's still quite a lot for mathematics
> > to deliver for physics what usually then in the higher order
> > results in usual local approaches.
> >
> > Of course what all I invented after the "Factorial/Exponential
> > Identity", here what my opinion is usual and maintained.
> >
> > Picked up this "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" Barnett's 1962.
> >
> > The index is thick with names, quantities, fields, and rays.
> >
> > This fall gravity still seems this direct unification in physics
> > after matter forces.
> >
> > (For some years I have been maintaining that a fall gravity
> > falls out of a unification in the usual models of physics what
> > is very unifying in that being the usual sense of progress in
> > physics.)
> >
> > Which makes sense for me and I keep.
> >
> > That more or less "frame contractions" make for space contraction
> > as real there's really I think a way forward as what that's all
> > fundamental with respect of course to all reality.
> >
> > Thanks this has helped form a very modern and historical
> > view of the physics as theory, a mathematical physics.
> "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today"
>
> "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today, the Lagrangian held up the derivative"
>
> -- "it is not a lemma"
>
>
> Finding some new systems solving upwards in vector spaces,
> looking into some new approaches for solving usual symmetrical
> systems then besides, numerical forms.
>
> Fall gravity or potential well models of course, is for screen models,
> the potential well and the potential screen about that the well,
> is also in the well.
>
> The screen as the giant wall, is that in the middle is a rise,
> and in it is a well.
>
> For a neatly graphical "and this is why mathematics about
> it is total", helps explain why the integral in surface under
> deformation, from, "fall gravity", is that the same part of
> the solution of the multiples is also one.
>
> I think we can agree that it is as simple to have a well as
> a sheet model, where the sheet model is everywhere deformable
> or continuously deformable, that the objects on it are not,
> while in the well model, that would be as a screen model.
>
> Then it's clear for example that a sheet model so made
> non-deformable, the rolling coin's friction itself holds
> its orbit according to the dimensions, then for at the
> end that on the hard sheet model, in the world model
> the result of arbitrary objects so placed is collision,
> where in the demonstration up to decision the ball
> or coin demonstration, is the same.
>
> According to that it happens as simply "start from
> rest or start from current velocity across" as "start
> from current velocity down", what are orbits.
>
> Then for whatever reason, is that I should be contrite,
> nope, I have left enough room down here to not be
> crushed by the machinery.
>
>
> The difference between boat and river is acceleration.

How many Nernsts is that there? Is that the right number of Helmholtz?
How far up the Hall is that? Will Sagnac please revert the needful?

Equations, effects, ....

"Lagrangians: not just Hamiltonians any more, now with more Laplacians."

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 9:59:02 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:49:39 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:29:28 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:42:30 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > Reading the other day the gravitational 3-body problem
> > > > had a newer approach, working up some systematic
> > > > "quantum" (or stochastic, quantized) approach, making
> > > > it easier for parallel solvers to work in total potential,
> > > > it's an example that there's still quite a lot for mathematics
> > > > to deliver for physics what usually then in the higher order
> > > > results in usual local approaches.
> > > >
> > > > Of course what all I invented after the "Factorial/Exponential
> > > > Identity", here what my opinion is usual and maintained.
> > > >
> > > > Picked up this "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" Barnett's 1962.
> > > >
> > > > The index is thick with names, quantities, fields, and rays.
> > > >
> > > > This fall gravity still seems this direct unification in physics
> > > > after matter forces.
> > > >
> > > > (For some years I have been maintaining that a fall gravity
> > > > falls out of a unification in the usual models of physics what
> > > > is very unifying in that being the usual sense of progress in
> > > > physics.)
> > > >
> > > > Which makes sense for me and I keep.
> > > >
> > > > That more or less "frame contractions" make for space contraction
> > > > as real there's really I think a way forward as what that's all
> > > > fundamental with respect of course to all reality.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks this has helped form a very modern and historical
> > > > view of the physics as theory, a mathematical physics.
> > > "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today"
> > >
> > > "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today, the Lagrangian held up the derivative"
> > >
> > > -- "it is not a lemma"
> > >
> > >
> > > Finding some new systems solving upwards in vector spaces,
> > > looking into some new approaches for solving usual symmetrical
> > > systems then besides, numerical forms.
> > >
> > > Fall gravity or potential well models of course, is for screen models,
> > > the potential well and the potential screen about that the well,
> > > is also in the well.
> > >
> > > The screen as the giant wall, is that in the middle is a rise,
> > > and in it is a well.
> > >
> > > For a neatly graphical "and this is why mathematics about
> > > it is total", helps explain why the integral in surface under
> > > deformation, from, "fall gravity", is that the same part of
> > > the solution of the multiples is also one.
> > >
> > > I think we can agree that it is as simple to have a well as
> > > a sheet model, where the sheet model is everywhere deformable
> > > or continuously deformable, that the objects on it are not,
> > > while in the well model, that would be as a screen model.
> > >
> > > Then it's clear for example that a sheet model so made
> > > non-deformable, the rolling coin's friction itself holds
> > > its orbit according to the dimensions, then for at the
> > > end that on the hard sheet model, in the world model
> > > the result of arbitrary objects so placed is collision,
> > > where in the demonstration up to decision the ball
> > > or coin demonstration, is the same.
> > >
> > > According to that it happens as simply "start from
> > > rest or start from current velocity across" as "start
> > > from current velocity down", what are orbits.
> > >
> > > Then for whatever reason, is that I should be contrite,
> > > nope, I have left enough room down here to not be
> > > crushed by the machinery.
> > >
> > >
> > > The difference between boat and river is acceleration.
> > I suppose the problem is "sure, it's easy to model gravity as
> > fall gravity, now build up all the support for all the classical,
> > in that, instead of attractive or pull gravity, that results from
> > it according to surfaces in effect in constants in gravity".
> >
> > I.e., here to also be atomic number, for its mass the element
> > in neutrons, ..., just like gravity for example with respect to
> > Earth, and for example Newton's laws, ..., defines the integral
> > of elements with respect to time.
> >
> > That is to say, it's very easy to just say "there is a perfect theory,
> > it's nowhere imperfect, that a theory with one force everywhere
> > is the same force theory as a fall gravity", it's totally irrelevant where
> > "all the forces here are effectively in result under conditions,
> > where the expectations of the entirely free theory are irrelevant,
> > all that is needed is terms for exactly two bodies", is for what
> > results that "according to these constants, ..., and these measurements,
> > ..., fall gravity in effect and mass not gravitating but resting and occluding
> > the force of gravity which is really "a flow away", that mass falls together
> > and rests together thus looks same as the attraction of gravity according
> > to inverse-square the force over distance, in terms of the spatial and
> > dimensionality constants, is pointing out it would also be furthest removed.
> >
> > Still, there's estimating what the constants would be, that result from
> > "actually all this data is according to ..., the force computed the inverse
> > square, the constant of which is in g the gravitational constant", is for
> > making a refinement of the gravitational constant, then showing for
> > example that according to visible and expected timing, it predicts
> > better at small angles, angles of dispersion forces.
> >
> > I.e. "fall gravity can't be proven, it's too infinite" here is for actually
> > working out for what are distance terms, for what are the products
> > of masses in terms of their distance term, what is inverse-square,
> > what any section of motions across orbits detail in differences,
> > happen to print products for two objects at rest with respect
> > to each other, and gravity, the gravitational constant, in
> > that "in inverse square the gravitational constant is a dimensionless
> > constant, besides inverse square", adding terms, order, ..., to
> > the terms according to the differential, what defines units in g.
> Here this explains the Fall Gravity theory all well.

What causes unstable man made orbits to fall in the atmosphere
doesn't the Moon affect them?

On 08/18/2022 02:49 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:29:28 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:42:30 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>> Reading the other day the gravitational 3-body problem
>>> had a newer approach, working up some systematic
>>> "quantum" (or stochastic, quantized) approach, making
>>> it easier for parallel solvers to work in total potential,
>>> it's an example that there's still quite a lot for mathematics
>>> to deliver for physics what usually then in the higher order
>>> results in usual local approaches.
>>>
>>> Of course what all I invented after the "Factorial/Exponential
>>> Identity", here what my opinion is usual and maintained.
>>>
>>> Picked up this "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" Barnett's 1962.
>>>
>>> The index is thick with names, quantities, fields, and rays.
>>>
>>> This fall gravity still seems this direct unification in physics
>>> after matter forces.
>>>
>>> (For some years I have been maintaining that a fall gravity
>>> falls out of a unification in the usual models of physics what
>>> is very unifying in that being the usual sense of progress in
>>> physics.)
>>>
>>> Which makes sense for me and I keep.
>>>
>>> That more or less "frame contractions" make for space contraction
>>> as real there's really I think a way forward as what that's all
>>> fundamental with respect of course to all reality.
>>>
>>> Thanks this has helped form a very modern and historical
>>> view of the physics as theory, a mathematical physics.
>> "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today"
>>
>> "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today, the Lagrangian held up the derivative"
>>
>> -- "it is not a lemma"
>>
>>
>> Finding some new systems solving upwards in vector spaces,
>> looking into some new approaches for solving usual symmetrical
>> systems then besides, numerical forms.
>>
>> Fall gravity or potential well models of course, is for screen models,
>> the potential well and the potential screen about that the well,
>> is also in the well.
>>
>> The screen as the giant wall, is that in the middle is a rise,
>> and in it is a well.
>>
>> For a neatly graphical "and this is why mathematics about
>> it is total", helps explain why the integral in surface under
>> deformation, from, "fall gravity", is that the same part of
>> the solution of the multiples is also one.
>>
>> I think we can agree that it is as simple to have a well as
>> a sheet model, where the sheet model is everywhere deformable
>> or continuously deformable, that the objects on it are not,
>> while in the well model, that would be as a screen model.
>>
>> Then it's clear for example that a sheet model so made
>> non-deformable, the rolling coin's friction itself holds
>> its orbit according to the dimensions, then for at the
>> end that on the hard sheet model, in the world model
>> the result of arbitrary objects so placed is collision,
>> where in the demonstration up to decision the ball
>> or coin demonstration, is the same.
>>
>> According to that it happens as simply "start from
>> rest or start from current velocity across" as "start
>> from current velocity down", what are orbits.
>>
>> Then for whatever reason, is that I should be contrite,
>> nope, I have left enough room down here to not be
>> crushed by the machinery.
>>
>>
>> The difference between boat and river is acceleration.
>
>
> I suppose the problem is "sure, it's easy to model gravity as
> fall gravity, now build up all the support for all the classical,
> in that, instead of attractive or pull gravity, that results from
> it according to surfaces in effect in constants in gravity".
>
> I.e., here to also be atomic number, for its mass the element
> in neutrons, ..., just like gravity for example with respect to
> Earth, and for example Newton's laws, ..., defines the integral
> of elements with respect to time.
>
> That is to say, it's very easy to just say "there is a perfect theory,
> it's nowhere imperfect, that a theory with one force everywhere
> is the same force theory as a fall gravity", it's totally irrelevant where
> "all the forces here are effectively in result under conditions,
> where the expectations of the entirely free theory are irrelevant,
> all that is needed is terms for exactly two bodies", is for what
> results that "according to these constants, ..., and these measurements,
> ..., fall gravity in effect and mass not gravitating but resting and occluding
> the force of gravity which is really "a flow away", that mass falls together
> and rests together thus looks same as the attraction of gravity according
> to inverse-square the force over distance, in terms of the spatial and
> dimensionality constants, is pointing out it would also be furthest removed.
>
> Still, there's estimating what the constants would be, that result from
> "actually all this data is according to ..., the force computed the inverse
> square, the constant of which is in g the gravitational constant", is for
> making a refinement of the gravitational constant, then showing for
> example that according to visible and expected timing, it predicts
> better at small angles, angles of dispersion forces.
>
> I.e. "fall gravity can't be proven, it's too infinite" here is for actually
> working out for what are distance terms, for what are the products
> of masses in terms of their distance term, what is inverse-square,
> what any section of motions across orbits detail in differences,
> happen to print products for two objects at rest with respect
> to each other, and gravity, the gravitational constant, in
> that "in inverse square the gravitational constant is a dimensionless
> constant, besides inverse square", adding terms, order, ..., to
> the terms according to the differential, what defines units in g.
>

Theories of quantum gravity and supersymmetry
would by default have a sort of model of this,
in accords with complementary duals and of course
some most usual principles of least action, and,
inversion, and these usual sorts of things explaining
why theory, of physics, has these as what result
_explanatory_ and _causal_ factors the teleological,
helping inform the stochastic models and ensembles,
why this is simple and integrative,
about "theories of sum potentials", or "Sigma Dunamoi",
this kind of thing.

"Fall gravity" is a natural enough, "mechanism", for gravity, in a
theory of sum potentials.

Some theoreticians sort of arrive at it.