Nick wrote:

Jesse Mazer wrote:


wrote:



One of them accelerated or space-time expanded inbetween both.
Follow?





Who cares if one or both accelerated in the past, as long as they are





*currently* travelling at constant velocity relative to one another?



I care. You can't understand it otherwise.
Though you may claim to.
Which one is moving through space toward or away from the other?
Only one is. The other only has a relative motion.
Like a ship from mars traveling to earth. The earth isn't
traveling through space toward the ship.

Einstein was wrong. He took relativity to far.
Moving through space is absolute. And if its not it is
because space can expand inbetween objects. That is
how the universe was created. Matter was flung out by
space motion.
Got it?
Mitch Raemsch




Why did you ignore the second part of my post?

In any case, are you really arguing that the one that accelerated in
the past is automatically the one that is "really" moving? Suppose two
ships are travelling at constant velocity relative to absolute space,
and then one ship accelerates until it is at absolute rest (in
physics, 'acceleration' means any change in velocity, so it can mean
decreasing velocity as well as increasing velocity). In this case, it
is the one that accelerated that is "really" at rest relative to
absolute space, and the one that did not accelerate is "really" moving.


Do you agree that in this scenario, it's the ship that accelerated that
is at rest and the one that remained at constant velocity that's moving?

Jesse

Androcles:
Below is Randy Poe's attempt to handle a coordinate system
which the imbecile Dirk Van de moortel says I do not understand.

How does dirk being right make him an imbecile, unless your
definition of ``imbecile'' is opposite everyone else's?

"Bilge" wrote in message ...
Androcles:
Below is Randy Poe's attempt to handle a coordinate system
which the imbecile Dirk Van de moortel says I do not understand.

How does dirk being right make him an imbecile, unless your
definition of ``imbecile'' is opposite everyone else's?

One explanation could be that: my imbecility is independent
of my being right ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Nick wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
wrote:

One of them accelerated or space-time expanded inbetween both.
Follow?



Who cares if one or both accelerated in the past, as long as they
are

*currently* travelling at constant velocity relative to one
another?

I care. You can't understand it otherwise.
Though you may claim to.
Which one is moving through space toward or away from the other?
Only one is. The other only has a relative motion.
Like a ship from mars traveling to earth. The earth isn't
traveling through space toward the ship.

You don't think the earth is moving? Did they
ever teach you in school what makes a year the
length it is? Planetary orbits and all that?

- Randy

"Androcles" wrote in message
k...

[snip]

Poe snips any questions I have and imagines he can teach
that way. He knows nothing about frames and is making a
complete fool of himself.

Not so. The general perceptionis that he is making a valiant, but
doomed, effort to conduct a discourse with a monkey.

Franz

"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote in message ...

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Androcles:
Below is Randy Poe's attempt to handle a coordinate system
which the imbecile Dirk Van de moortel says I do not understand.

How does dirk being right make him an imbecile, unless your
definition of ``imbecile'' is opposite everyone else's?

One explanation could be that: my imbecility is independent
of my being right ;-)

Perhaps he thinks you are an idiot-savant.

Franz

Dirk Vdm

Randy Poe wrote:
Nick wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
wrote:

One of them accelerated or space-time expanded inbetween both.
Follow?



Who cares if one or both accelerated in the past, as long as they
are

*currently* travelling at constant velocity relative to one
another?

I care. You can't understand it otherwise.
Though you may claim to.
Which one is moving through space toward or away from the other?
Only one is. The other only has a relative motion.
Like a ship from mars traveling to earth. The earth isn't
traveling through space toward the ship.

You don't think the earth is moving?
Not toward the spaceship Randy!!!
Get it straight Ninkumpoop.

No. The spaceship is not at rest if it is moving through space
to werever its going Jesse.

Nick wrote:

No. The spaceship is not at rest if it is moving through space
to werever its going Jesse.



But my scenario was that it's *not* moving, that it started off moving
but then decelerated until it was at rest relative to absolute space.
Isn't anything that's at rest relative to absolute space "not moving",
by definition?

Jesse

Jesse Mazer wrote:
Nick wrote:

No. The spaceship is not at rest if it is moving through space
to werever its going Jesse.



But my scenario was that it's *not* moving, that it started off
moving
but then decelerated until it was at rest relative to absolute
space.
Isn't anything that's at rest relative to absolute space "not
moving",
by definition?

Jesse

The problem is everything has aquired motion through space at
creation. That is what forces are about.

Call it original motion or the starting gate so to speak.

Look at gravity; it is everywhere and it moves objects through
space-time; and there's space's motion of expansion which is like
anti-gravity.