Timeless Physics

On Jul 6, 4:34*pm, Sanforized wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 6, 3:47 pm, Enkidu wrote:
I am saying what Einstein said. Gravity is equivalent to
acceleration. Except that I add unmoving timeless acceleration.

"Timeless" is a meaningless word until you rigorously define it.
Acceleration is defined as a chenge in velocity per unit time. You
cannot have acceleration without time any more than you can have a
five sided quadrilateral.

Instantaneous acceleration doesn't require time.

Instant acceleration, if there is such a thing, requires
that the thing being accelerated have no mass.

We create such things as waves/photons with no mass and
release them at lightspeed velocity on a regular basis,
but as far as accelerating it goes you're merely screwing
around with definitions as has been discussed all day.

Boring!

Drop something and it instantaneously starts at a speed above zero. It
is about 15 feet in a second. Inclined planes have given physics the
wrong idea.

Mitch Raemsch

Mitch Raemsch wrote in news:ecff8d42-
:

On Jul 6, 4:34*pm, Sanforized wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 6, 3:47 pm, Enkidu wrote:
I am saying what Einstein said. Gravity is equivalent to
acceleration. Except that I add unmoving timeless acceleration.

"Timeless" is a meaningless word until you rigorously define it.
Acceleration is defined as a chenge in velocity per unit time. You
cannot have acceleration without time any more than you can have a
five sided quadrilateral.

Instantaneous acceleration doesn't require time.

Instant acceleration, if there is such a thing, requires
that the thing being accelerated have no mass.

We create such things as waves/photons with no mass and
release them at lightspeed velocity on a regular basis,
but as far as accelerating it goes you're merely screwing
around with definitions as has been discussed all day.

Boring!

Drop something and it instantaneously starts at a speed above zero. It
is about 15 feet in a second. Inclined planes have given physics the
wrong idea.

Ever hear of Zeno?

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA




"'Just say no' has done as much for drugs and sex as 'have a nice day'
has for depression."
-Dr. E. Tyson

On Jul 6, 5:01*pm, Enkidu wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote in news:ecff8d42-
:





On Jul 6, 4:34*pm, Sanforized wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 6, 3:47 pm, Enkidu wrote:
I am saying what Einstein said. Gravity is equivalent to
acceleration. Except that I add unmoving timeless acceleration.

"Timeless" is a meaningless word until you rigorously define it.
Acceleration is defined as a chenge in velocity per unit time. You
cannot have acceleration without time any more than you can have a
five sided quadrilateral.

Instantaneous acceleration doesn't require time.

Instant acceleration, if there is such a thing, requires
that the thing being accelerated have no mass.

We create such things as waves/photons with no mass and
release them at lightspeed velocity on a regular basis,
but as far as accelerating it goes you're merely screwing
around with definitions as has been discussed all day.

Boring!

Drop something and it instantaneously starts at a speed above zero. It
is about 15 feet in a second. Inclined planes have given physics the
wrong idea.

Ever hear of Zeno?

--
Enkidu AA#2165 *
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA

"'Just say no' has done as much for drugs and sex as 'have a nice day'
has for depression."
* * *-Dr. E. Tyson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just drop something. Instantaneous acceleration for mass.

Mitch Raemsch wrote:


Drop something and it instantaneously starts at a speed above zero.

No it doesn't.

It is about 15 feet in a second.

What is the velocity at the beginning and
what is the velocity at the end of 1 second?

If you understand simple arithmetic you'll understand
averaging (based on a prior discussion about precisely
this issue, you do not understand averaging and appear
to be incapable of understanding simple arithmetical
concepts.) Averaging requires velocity = 0 f/s at
the beginning.

Inclined planes have given physics the
wrong idea.

No they haven't.

If you were somewhat more clever than you have
demonstrated I'd say that you were caught up in
Zeno's "paradoxes".

http://mathforum.org/isaac/problems/zeno1.html

On Jul 6, 5:09*pm, Sanforized wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
Drop something and it instantaneously starts at a speed above zero.

No it doesn't.

Try dropping something. Instantaneous speed.



It is about 15 feet in a second.

What is the velocity at the beginning and
what is the velocity at the end of 1 second?

If you understand simple arithmetic you'll understand
averaging (based on a prior discussion about precisely
this issue, you do not understand averaging and appear
to be incapable of understanding simple arithmetical
concepts.) Averaging requires velocity = 0 f/s at
the beginning.

Inclined planes have given physics the
wrong idea.

No they haven't.

If you were somewhat more clever than you have
demonstrated I'd say that you were caught up in
Zeno's "paradoxes".

http://mathforum.org/isaac/problems/zeno1.html

On Jul 7, 2:50 pm, Mitch Raemsch
wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:19 pm, Sanforized wrote:

Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:10 pm, Sanforized wrote:

Mitch Raemsch wrote:

Try dropping something. Instantaneous speed.

How long is an instant?

Infinitesimal.

It is finite.

It is Infinitely small.

The the acceleration postulated is infinitely big.
How are you intending to achieve this infinite acceleration?

Al

Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:19 pm, Sanforized wrote:

Mitch Raemsch wrote:

On Jul 6, 8:10 pm, Sanforized wrote:

Mitch Raemsch wrote:

Try dropping something. Instantaneous speed.

How long is an instant?

Infinitesimal.

It is finite.


It is Infinitely small.

It is not zero, it is not "timeless."

Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) wrote:

On Jul 7, 2:50 pm, Mitch Raemsch
wrote:

On Jul 6, 8:19 pm, Sanforized wrote:


Mitch Raemsch wrote:

On Jul 6, 8:10 pm, Sanforized wrote:

Mitch Raemsch wrote:

Try dropping something. Instantaneous speed.

How long is an instant?

Infinitesimal.

It is finite.

It is Infinitely small.


The the acceleration postulated is infinitely big.
How are you intending to achieve this infinite acceleration?

Lunatics have no difficulty about declaring
themselves a genius and creating a whole
new "science" that simply doesn't actually
work. This is a lot like Nash scribbling
meaningless gibberish all over the walls of
his Princeton office.

Sanforized wrote:
jmfbahciv wrote:

Mike Painter wrote:

BURT wrote:

I am looking at the physics of timeless acceleration of mass and its
corresponding weight in gravity.


Acceleration is *defined* as a change in velocity over time.


And velocity itself is defined as:

# Vector measuring the time rate of change of displacement. It is
specified by magnitude (the speed) and direction. In general, the
velocity is a function of time:
www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Book-GlossaryV.html

Time appears twice in acceleration, and those appearances do not
cancel.

I've noticed over the years that people tend to not know
what "defined" means. For some strange reason, which I have
not figured out, this is a difficult concept for people like
the above to grasp.

snip

/BAH


define:define

# specify: determine the essential quality of
# give a definition for the meaning of a word; "Define `sadness'"
# determine the nature of; "What defines a good wine?"
# show the form or outline of; "The tree was clearly defined by the
light"; "The camera could define the smallest object"
# specify: decide upon or fix definitely; "fix the variables"; "specify
the parameters"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I doubt there have been many threads that have been much
crazier than this one, and the loons are just now getting
wound up. Good grief this is junior high stuff.

Not really; it's pre-kindergarten stuff. It appears that
a majority of kids were encouraged to be stupid.

/BAH

Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 6, 7:37 am, Enkidu wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote :





On Jul 5, 8:04 pm, Enkidu wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote in
news:7c3d3ceb-
:
I am not sure why I crossed posted there. I suppose Timeless
physics is suggestive of a timeless God.
Both ill-defined.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"That was amazing! Did you have to swear a circus oath to never
reveal th
e
source of your clown powers?"
-The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius
Acceleration without a rate is timeless physics.
Acceleration is (delta V)/(delta t). You can't have acceleration withour
time unless you rediefine the word.

Timeless God. God exists without time.
Words without meaning. You have no idead what "exists without time" could
mean, or if it can mean anything. You're doing the same thing the new-age
health quacks do - throwing out words you don't understand to impress the
masses. Claims like "realigns your personal magnetic monopoles" make as
much sense as you do.

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA

"'Just say no' has done as much for drugs and sex as 'have a nice day'
has for depression."
-Dr. E. Tyson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am saying what Einstein said. Gravity is equivalent to acceleration.
Except that I add unmoving timeless acceleration.

How do you measure it?

/BAH