Bill Vajk wrote in message
news:XhO8b.438372$Ho3.71233@sccrnsc03...

Littlemanwearingbigboypants announces:

Both linear and angular accelerations are absolute measurements.

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

Vajk seems not to have arrived.

Absolute means having no comparative characteristics.

Absolute means no necessity for non-local references. A calibrated set
weights and a lab balance are sufficient for self referential (or absolute)
determinations of one's local acceleration. The positions of the "fixed
stars" are relative and such determination is non-local. Self-referential
means local and absolute.

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.

Spinning wheels can put you in the ditch before you're aware of it.
Gripping wheels or the end of the ditch can break your neck absolutely.

The term measure itself implicates a comparison to a standard.

Right: a set of standard weights!

When one begins to consider the mechanisms available to measure
acceleration the relative aspects become even more apparent.

Local instruments: Foucault pendulum; laser-ring gyroscope, weight on
a spring. No big deal if cloud cover hides the non-local "fixed stars".

Now go ask someone who really understands such matters what
happens when you write an equation like:

{absolute} = {something other than itself}

Vajk is absolutely wrong about absolute relativity.
He's a non-local yokel.
[Old Man]

Bill Vajk wrote in message
news:dVP8b.439060$Ho3.71328@sccrnsc03...
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.

Vajk is absolutely wrong about absolute relativity. He is a non-local
yokel. Local determination is absolutely self-referential. Cut-it off,
and use the weight of hVajk's head as a standard reference. Relatively
speaking, that would be putting Vajk's brain to the best possible use.
[Old Man]

Greg Neill wrote:
"Bill Vajk"

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.

Your failure to understand it make us a Littlemanwearingbigboypants
sock puppet.

Old Man wrote:


Vajk is absolutely wrong about absolute relativity.

Oh I do love this.....

He is a non-local
yokel. Local determination is absolutely self-referential. Cut-it off,
and use the weight of hVajk's head as a standard reference. Relatively
speaking, that would be putting Vajk's brain to the best possible use.
[Old Man]

You are now twice joined to the Idiots Parade Ole Man.

Local determination of the binary state IS as I
agreed, absolute.

Measurement is NOT.

State the definition of acceleration in absolute terms if you
think you can. I double dawg dareya.

Bill Vajk wrote in message
news:GbQ8b.439262$Ho3.71395@sccrnsc03...


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.

Whilst the relative position of the non-local stars are hidden by overcast
sky, can you feel it? That feeling is local and absolutely
self-referential.
[Old Man]

Old Man wrote:

The term measure itself implicates a comparison to a standard.

Right: a set of standard weights!

Comparison to "standard weights" means referential to an
external system and is, drum roll please relative. It is
no different from referring to "fixed stars" or any other
similar external standard.

We come full circle to the challenge Littlemanwearingbigboypants
completely avoided (and snipped from his response):

Now go ask someone who really understands such matters what
happens when you write an equation like:

{absolute} = {something other than itself}

Then get over it.

I don't dispute that a state of acceleration can be discovered
and as a binary attribute that can be absolute. The moment one
gets past binary answers one is instantly in the realm of relative
values including an external baseline (value system.)

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:OOR8b.437353$YN5.294699@sccrnsc01...
Old Man wrote:

The term measure itself implicates a comparison to a standard.

Right: a set of standard weights!

Comparison to "standard weights" means referential to an
external system and is, drum roll please relative. It is
no different from referring to "fixed stars" or any other
similar external standard.

We come full circle to the challenge Littlemanwearingbigboypants
completely avoided (and snipped from his response):

Now go ask someone who really understands such matters what
happens when you write an equation like:

{absolute} = {something other than itself}

Then get over it.

I don't dispute that a state of acceleration can be discovered
and as a binary attribute that can be absolute. The moment one
gets past binary answers one is instantly in the realm of relative
values including an external baseline (value system.)

Vajk is truly an idiot, relative or absolute, and by
any conceivable scale.

Bill Vajk wrote in message
news:IAR8b.439241$o%2.198896@sccrnsc02...
Old Man wrote:


Vajk is absolutely wrong about absolute relativity.

Oh I do love this.....

He is a non-local
yokel. Local determination is absolutely self-referential. Cut-it off,
and use the weight of hVajk's head as a standard reference. Relatively
speaking, that would be putting Vajk's brain to the best possible use.
[Old Man]

You are now twice joined to the Idiots Parade Ole Man.

Local determination of the binary state IS as I
agreed, absolute.

Measurement is NOT.

State the definition of acceleration in absolute terms if you
think you can. I double dawg dareya.

This isn't physics. Vajk has reduced this thread to a play on
words. The local speed of light is absolute. The local rest mass
and charge of an electron are absolutes. The local Compton
wavelength of an electron is absolute. The local value of big-G
is absolute. None of that maters. The key is "local" without
reference to anything that's non-local. End of word game.
[Old Man]

Bill Vajk wrote in message
news:OOR8b.437353$YN5.294699@sccrnsc01...
Old Man wrote:

The term measure itself implicates a comparison to a standard.

Right: a set of standard weights!

Comparison to "standard weights" means referential to an
external system and is, drum roll please relative. It is
no different from referring to "fixed stars" or any other
similar external standard.

We come full circle to the challenge Littlemanwearingbigboypants
completely avoided (and snipped from his response):

Now go ask someone who really understands such matters what
happens when you write an equation like:

{absolute} = {something other than itself}

Then get over it.

I don't dispute that a state of acceleration can be discovered
and as a binary attribute that can be absolute. The moment one
gets past binary answers one is instantly in the realm of relative
values including an external baseline (value system.)

End of trivial word games. Old Man has mottling new to say. Vajk
is stuck with his whimsical and silly definitions of "absolute" and
"relative". There is no physics in this. [Old Man]

Old Man wrote:

This isn't physics. Vajk has reduced this thread to a play on
words. The local speed of light is absolute.

That's not completely true either.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712076. Speaking of equivalence
principle challenges....

Beyond that, define "speed" in absolute terms. You cannot.

snip

The key is "local" without
reference to anything that's non-local. End of word game.
[Old Man]

You're playing a word game to the hilt, Ole Man. Every unit of
measure depends on a comparison to a standard and is relative
to that standard. The units you use to describe "speed" etc.
are all external and non-local. You can't get around it no
matter how much you pout, they're relative.

Even if you can measure something "locally" you had to import
all the tools and the standards. Your measurements are a
straight up comparison to something external.

Now here comes the hard part.

Even more germane to the discussion; just because such values
are (for the most part) statistically consistent doesn't mean
they're absolute let alone absolutely consistent--but then
that's whole 'nother discussion and you're having enough
trouble trying to understand this one. You'll have to go
outside of the realm of run of the mill "engineering caliber
physics" we're used to seeing in this newsgroup and find
yourself an astute mathematical physicist to feed you the
inside scoop on this. First find a suitable mentor, then
we'll see if you are capable of grasping the material.