Timeless Physics

Enkidu wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote in
:

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.
It's still dv/dt. The units of acceleration are m/s^2. I know it's
tough to try to discuss deep topics when you're to lazy to learn a
little math and physics, but that's life.
NO. Instantaneous acceleration involves no time elapse.

Did you take a physics class? Assuming you did, have you taken a caluclus
class? Assuming you did, let me remind you that acceleration (in one
dimension) is defined as (delta v)/(delta t). If v is a function of t,
then v varies with time. To find the velocity at any time t, you take the
limit as t approches zero. That's dv/dt. t does not equal 0, it's a
limit. The acceleration has units. Those units are m/s^2, or meters per
second per second. You cannot separate acceleration from time.
Instantaneous acceleration is still m/s^2.

It sounds like the poster has only done baby algebra problems that
were limited to an equal sign. It sounds like the high school
algebra class skipped all the inequality chapters.

/BAH

On Jul 7, 7:15*am, Sanforized wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

Well, it's even worse than that. Since we only even created
robotics, optical computers, PV Cells,
and GPS because of wanks that actually think Prinecton is a place a
higher education.
And we only built blue lasers because of stooges that actually
believe that anything
ever happens in offices.
And we only created AI++ because of IBM bozos that actually deep
thought
that fiber optics is a language.






- Show quoted text -

wrote in message
...
On Jul 5, 4:25 am, "Ben Bean" wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 1:44 pm, "Ben Bean" wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message
...
How does weightless downward acceleration of gravity freefall work
together with gravity weight which does not move in the gravitational
field at the surface of the Earth?

Mitch Raemach

What's at the surface doesn't move, despite gravity, because all the countless
molecular bonding forces in the
Earth's mostly-solid interior are strong enough to resist the weight above.
Watch
out
for quicksand though.

According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle gravity and accleration
are equivalent. I believe it is true that there is an unmoving
acceleration in the gravity field. You are not moving at the surface
of the Earth yet you are experiencing a kind of acceleration that has
no rate and no motion. Einstein called it steady state acceleration ...

I seriously DOUBT THAT! A downward force is effectively countered by upward
forces.
There's no acceleration, but gravity is present and so remote clocks/rulers are
slightly skewed (for lack of a better phrasing), as you say, per the Equivalence
Principle.

You doubt the equivalence principle? Gravity and acceleration are
equivalent. I say change of motion is gravity without the field of
curvature. That is change of motion gravity. It can apply to magnetic
weight also; a magnetic acceleration.

Mitch Raemsch

No! I don't doubt the Equiv Principle -- I doubt that Einstein ever coined a term,
"steady state acceleration". But if he did, it obviously went unappreciated for the
most part, most likely because it would tend to confuse.

On Jul 15, 1:54*pm, "Ben Bean" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jul 5, 4:25 am, "Ben Bean" wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message
....
On Jul 4, 1:44 pm, "Ben Bean" wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message
...
How does weightless downward acceleration of gravity freefall work
together with gravity weight which does not move in the gravitational
field at the surface of the Earth?

Mitch Raemach

What's at the surface doesn't move, despite gravity, because all the countless
molecular bonding forces in the
Earth's mostly-solid interior are strong enough to resist the weight above.
Watch
out
for quicksand though.

According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle gravity and accleration
are equivalent. I believe it is true that there is an unmoving
acceleration in the gravity field. You are not moving at the surface
of the Earth yet you are experiencing a kind of acceleration that has
no rate and no motion. Einstein called it steady state acceleration ...

I seriously DOUBT THAT! A downward force is effectively countered by upward
forces.
There's no acceleration, but gravity is present and so remote clocks/rulers are
slightly skewed (for lack of a better phrasing), as you say, per the Equivalence
Principle.

You doubt the equivalence principle? Gravity and acceleration are
equivalent. I say change of motion is gravity without the field of
curvature. That is change of motion gravity. It can apply to magnetic
weight also; a magnetic acceleration.

Mitch Raemsch

No! I don't doubt the Equiv Principle -- I doubt that Einstein ever coined a term,
"steady state acceleration". But if he did, it obviously went unappreciated for the
most part, most likely because it would tend to confuse.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

F=MA Newton
Acceleration is equivalent to gravity Einstein