Bill Vajk wrote:

Greg Neill wrote:

All of these measurements can be done in a sealed lab without
reference to the outside world, hence acceleration is an
abolute measure, not relative.

wrong.

Drop a turd. That is your absolute measurement and proof of an
accelerated frame of reference, you spewing jackass. If mass has
weight then your reference frame is accelerated. It is an absolute
measurement made in a hermetically sealed and isolated environment
without reference to the fixed stars.

Hey schmuck, do you float up into the air at night when your locked
bedroom is all dark and scary?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"Old Man" wrote in message ...
Undeniable wrote in message
m...
"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
"Undeniable" wrote in message
...
Uncle Al wrote in message
...


No it does not. Stuff with zero orbital velocity falls straight
down
vs. the fixed stars from any arbitrary height (ignoring wind) If
you
look locally you subtract out ground motion and allow for ~1 cm/sec
horizontal Coriolus acceleration varying with latitude.

That's correct and I guess unless one is specific and uses the right
terms, like Uncle AL does, misunderstandings can arise.

The key word here is "fixed stars". If the answer is posed in this
context it's correct. However, in my answer I assumed an instantenuous
relative fix of earth's velocity with respect to a moving sun. This
case is a bit more complicated. Actually, everything is in a constant
relative motion and fixing anything could be hard.

Nah. Velocity may be relative but acceleration is absolute.
One need only adjust the circular velocity to result in a zero
centrifugal acceleration component. This is identical to
making the angular momentum zero and the degenerate straight-
line orbit then necessarily obtains.

Wait a second. Where did you find out that all acceleration is
absolute? In my view this is only due to an idealized situation where
in a local experiment the effect of other matter accelerating in the
universe is null and there is no difference in accelerating a particel
with +a or -a. This problem is still unsolved I think. Newtonian
mechanics and Newton himself adhere to absolute rotation and
acceleretion. But if you ever heard of Mach's principle, there are
other opinions that only relative acceleration is only significant.
This is also the perspective Einstein took.

Undeniable's opinion doesn't have a single empirical leg to stand-on.
Mach's "principle" is not empirically falsifiable. It doesn't even rate
as a theory. Rotation rate is self-referential and absolute; Foucault
pendulum; laser ring gyroscope. Reference to the "fixed stars" is not
necessary. Such references involve non-local measurements whereof
the laws of physics are not guaranteed to be invariant. According to
Einstein and GTR, measurement of deviation of an observer's reference
frame from a gravitational geodesic (free-fall) is self-referential and
absolute. The statement that acceleration is absolute is empirically
falsifiable and is consistent with all observations. [Old Man]

That should tell YOU something.

Old Man empirical measurements do not PROVE anything but in the best
case CORROBORATE. Any empirical measurement interpretation may involve
the use of implicit auxiliary hypotheses.

Any use of the term "absolute" must be scrutinized carefully. Unless
it has to do with liquer.

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:jvO8b.437817$o%2.198075@sccrnsc02...
Greg Neill wrote:

All of these measurements can be done in a sealed lab without
reference to the outside world, hence acceleration is an
abolute measure, not relative.


wrong.

As much as it amuses me to see you make a complete fool
of yourself, I must respectfully say that you are full
of big steaming ones.

Acceleration is an absolute measure requiring no reference
to outside bodies for measuring it. If you strongly feel
that it is otherwise, pray describe a situation where a
body under acceleration would not be able to determine the
magnitude and direction of said acceleration without
referencing something external. Otherwise, pipe down.

Littlemanwearingbigboypants whines:

Bill Vajk wrote:

Littlemanwearingbigboypants announces:

Both linear and angular accelerations are absolute measurements.

Have you been drinking or what? That's nonsense. Dead on arrival.

Absolute means having no comparative characteristics.

You must have been a real laugh in bonehead English. How is it going
this time around, Vajk?

They won't tell me what grade you're getting, but from what you've
been writing here and on your web page you'll surely have to take
the course again.

Mass has weight in a non-inertial frame of reference. Stuff falls.
that is an absolute measurement. You don't need fixed stars,
you don't need calibration. You only need eyes.

Play it out, old fool, precisely what does one see? One might
legitimately say that the fact of motion is absolute, but motion
itself, and its measure is relative. One might say that the fact
of acceleration is absolute, but the measure of acceleration is relative.

You do very badly need to repeat bonehead English.

Acceleration is a change. That's a comparison to what was direction
or velocity, or both, a moment before. Direction and velocity are
themselves relative. You're spinning your wheels on this one.

Have you been frenching ****Head?

I only kiss women and anyway I wouldn't dream of cutting in
on your time.

The term measure itself implicates a comparison to a standard.

[snip]

Stooopid beyond words. Temperature is also an absolute measuremnt.
So are mass and charge.

Measure means compare, and is always thereby relative. Temperature
has scale. Mass and charge are measured relative to a standard
unit. There's nothing "absolute" about any of it.

Fact of mass, absolute and binary; measure of mass, relative

Fact of temperature correlates to matter existing while the
measure of temperature is relative

fact of charge is absolute and binary; the measure is relative.

Perhaps you should retake high school general science and
elementary logic.

Undeniable wrote in message
m...
"Old Man" wrote in message
...
Undeniable wrote in message
m...
"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
"Undeniable" wrote in message
...
Uncle Al wrote in message
...


No it does not. Stuff with zero orbital velocity falls straight
down
vs. the fixed stars from any arbitrary height (ignoring wind)
If
you
look locally you subtract out ground motion and allow for ~1
cm/sec
horizontal Coriolus acceleration varying with latitude.

That's correct and I guess unless one is specific and uses the
right
terms, like Uncle AL does, misunderstandings can arise.

The key word here is "fixed stars". If the answer is posed in this
context it's correct. However, in my answer I assumed an
instantenuous
relative fix of earth's velocity with respect to a moving sun.
This
case is a bit more complicated. Actually, everything is in a
constant
relative motion and fixing anything could be hard.

Nah. Velocity may be relative but acceleration is absolute.
One need only adjust the circular velocity to result in a zero
centrifugal acceleration component. This is identical to
making the angular momentum zero and the degenerate straight-
line orbit then necessarily obtains.

Wait a second. Where did you find out that all acceleration is
absolute? In my view this is only due to an idealized situation where
in a local experiment the effect of other matter accelerating in the
universe is null and there is no difference in accelerating a particel
with +a or -a. This problem is still unsolved I think. Newtonian
mechanics and Newton himself adhere to absolute rotation and
acceleretion. But if you ever heard of Mach's principle, there are
other opinions that only relative acceleration is only significant.
This is also the perspective Einstein took.

Undeniable's opinion doesn't have a single empirical leg to stand-on.
Mach's "principle" is not empirically falsifiable. It doesn't even rate
as a theory. Rotation rate is self-referential and absolute; Foucault
pendulum; laser ring gyroscope. Reference to the "fixed stars" is not
necessary. Such references involve non-local measurements whereof
the laws of physics are not guaranteed to be invariant. According to
Einstein and GTR, measurement of deviation of an observer's reference
frame from a gravitational geodesic (free-fall) is self-referential and
absolute. The statement that acceleration is absolute is empirically
falsifiable and is consistent with all observations. [Old Man]

How do we measure acceleration? By measuring a small relative position
change in a relative time change and dividing that again by relative
time change. This is how your empirical observation is made in
principle (In actuallity accelerometers are a bit more complicated but
the principle is the same). Now listen to this: You divide two
relative quantities and you claim the result is an absolute quantity.


Undeniable ought to take his physics labs more seriously. There is
no physics without measurement, and the measurement of acceleration
does not involve the measurement of ones reference frame position. A
simple lab balance with calibrated weights suffices. The measurement
is completely local and self-referential. Within the limitations of the
instrument, the value of acceleration is instantaneous and does not depend
upon local time intervals nor upon non-local position measurements.

Obviously, your cheap syllogism incorporates a high degree of
circularity. Now listen to this one also: A: Laws of motion apply only
in inertial reference frames. B: Inertial reference frames is where
the first law of motion is true. Therefore, Laws of motion apply where
laws of motion apply.

Talk about circular reasoning; Undeniable takes the prize here. The
local laws of physics are invariant, accelerated reference frame or not.
The observer can not help but be aware of local acceleration and can
easily measure it without non-local references. In the case of geodesic
motion in a gravitational field, the observer can measure the local
gravitational gradient, as described by Uncle Al (playing with marbles).
Strictly speaking, this is not a local measurement, but there are no
significant problems with this in the Sun's gravitational field.

You must be kidding Old Man. I don't care about any of your emprirical
observations and all your cut and paste power, when they implicitely
define the conclusion one gets.

There are no laws of nature without empirical determination. The
scientific method is a necessary ingredient of physics. Without it,
metaphysical tenants like Mach's "principle" would be sacrosanct.

What's the "cut and past" crap about? is Undeniable accusing Old
Man of plagiarism? Clearly, nothing Old Man has said here is original,
but Old Man's words are his own.

And by the way, one of Einstein's self admitted failures was the weak
link to Mach's principle in GTR.

Einstein had a big ego, and enjoyed playing metaphysical games. By
judging and complimenting Descartes, Einstein hoped to assume a
preeminent role in the history of philosophy. Big deal; even Einstein
was human. There is no logical or empirical connection between
Einstein's metaphysical musings and GTR. [Old Man]

Uncle Al wrote:

Bill Vajk wrote:

Greg Neill wrote:

All of these measurements can be done in a sealed lab without
reference to the outside world, hence acceleration is an
abolute measure, not relative.

wrong.

Drop a turd. That is your absolute measurement and proof of an
accelerated frame of reference, you spewing jackass. If mass has
weight then your reference frame is accelerated. It is an absolute
measurement made in a hermetically sealed and isolated environment
without reference to the fixed stars.

I'll explain this once more slowly and using small words.

The fact of acceleration is an absolute and can be determined
without comparison. The measurement of acceleration requires
reference and is relative.

A simple definition of acceleration is the rate of change of
velocity with respect to time; broadly : change of velocity.
(gratis m-w.com)

Change? Oh gee whiz, compared to what? Absolute? Heck no.

Hey schmuck, do you float up into the air at night when your locked
bedroom is all dark and scary?

You should drop science altogether as insults are your only forte.

Greg Neill wrote:

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:jvO8b.437817$o%2.198075@sccrnsc02...

Greg Neill wrote:

All of these measurements can be done in a sealed lab without
reference to the outside world, hence acceleration is an
abolute measure, not relative.

wrong.

As much as it amuses me to see you make a complete fool
of yourself, I must respectfully say that you are full
of big steaming ones.

Acceleration is an absolute measure requiring no reference
to outside bodies for measuring it. If you strongly feel
that it is otherwise, pray describe a situation where a
body under acceleration would not be able to determine the
magnitude and direction of said acceleration without
referencing something external. Otherwise, pipe down.

Read the definition, understand it, then weep.

Old Man wrote:

Undeniable ought to take his physics labs more seriously. There is
no physics without measurement, and the measurement of acceleration
does not involve the measurement of ones reference frame position. A
simple lab balance with calibrated weights suffices. The measurement
is completely local and self-referential. Within the limitations of the
instrument, the value of acceleration is instantaneous and does not depend
upon local time intervals nor upon non-local position measurements.


Please define acceleration.

Undeniable wrote in message
m...
"Old Man" wrote in message
...
Undeniable wrote in message
m...
"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
"Undeniable" wrote in message
...
Uncle Al wrote in message
...


No it does not. Stuff with zero orbital velocity falls straight
down
vs. the fixed stars from any arbitrary height (ignoring wind)
If
you
look locally you subtract out ground motion and allow for ~1
cm/sec
horizontal Coriolus acceleration varying with latitude.

That's correct and I guess unless one is specific and uses the
right
terms, like Uncle AL does, misunderstandings can arise.

The key word here is "fixed stars". If the answer is posed in this
context it's correct. However, in my answer I assumed an
instantenuous
relative fix of earth's velocity with respect to a moving sun.
This
case is a bit more complicated. Actually, everything is in a
constant
relative motion and fixing anything could be hard.

Nah. Velocity may be relative but acceleration is absolute.
One need only adjust the circular velocity to result in a zero
centrifugal acceleration component. This is identical to
making the angular momentum zero and the degenerate straight-
line orbit then necessarily obtains.

Wait a second. Where did you find out that all acceleration is
absolute? In my view this is only due to an idealized situation where
in a local experiment the effect of other matter accelerating in the
universe is null and there is no difference in accelerating a particel
with +a or -a. This problem is still unsolved I think. Newtonian
mechanics and Newton himself adhere to absolute rotation and
acceleretion. But if you ever heard of Mach's principle, there are
other opinions that only relative acceleration is only significant.
This is also the perspective Einstein took.

Undeniable's opinion doesn't have a single empirical leg to stand-on.
Mach's "principle" is not empirically falsifiable. It doesn't even rate
as a theory. Rotation rate is self-referential and absolute; Foucault
pendulum; laser ring gyroscope. Reference to the "fixed stars" is not
necessary. Such references involve non-local measurements whereof
the laws of physics are not guaranteed to be invariant. According to
Einstein and GTR, measurement of deviation of an observer's reference
frame from a gravitational geodesic (free-fall) is self-referential and
absolute. The statement that acceleration is absolute is empirically
falsifiable and is consistent with all observations. [Old Man]

That should tell YOU something.

Old Man empirical measurements do not PROVE anything but in the best
case CORROBORATE. Any empirical measurement interpretation may
involve the use of implicit auxiliary hypotheses.

Proof? Who's speaking of proof? Maybe it's Undeniable's straw
man, but not Old Man. Old Man is completely aware of, and perfectly
content with, the scientific method. It pins things down to a manageable
level and eliminates the likes of free spirits from contention. Undeniable
could do with a few lessons.

Any use of the term "absolute" must be scrutinized carefully. Unless
it has to do with liquer.

Liquor has a way of freeing one from absolutes (like correct spelling).
[Old Man]

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:taQ8b.438557$o%2.198727@sccrnsc02...
Greg Neill wrote:

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:jvO8b.437817$o%2.198075@sccrnsc02...

Greg Neill wrote:

All of these measurements can be done in a sealed lab without
reference to the outside world, hence acceleration is an
abolute measure, not relative.

wrong.

As much as it amuses me to see you make a complete fool
of yourself, I must respectfully say that you are full
of big steaming ones.

Acceleration is an absolute measure requiring no reference
to outside bodies for measuring it. If you strongly feel
that it is otherwise, pray describe a situation where a
body under acceleration would not be able to determine the
magnitude and direction of said acceleration without
referencing something external. Otherwise, pipe down.

Read the definition, understand it, then weep.

We note the lack of response to the trivial challenge
and conclude that Bill Vajk is a blowhard without
substance.