Old Man wrote:

Bill Vajk

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]

OK, you're stuck in "engineering caliber physics" forever then.

Best to you.

Bill Vajk wrote:

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.

Even your butt buddy Nil Dilated is keeping put of this one. You are
slowly twisting in the wind, idiot.

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

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

Even your butt buddy Nil Dilated is keeping put of this one. You are
slowly twisting in the wind, idiot.

Once again you prove that what I wrote about you is true.

Next we'll be reading that Littlemanwearingbigboypants is such
an absolutist that he's turned determinist as well. Join Relf
in the realm of creative writer with *some* smatterings of
science in the hash as that's where you belong. LOL

P.S. You seem to be having memory problems. Anything to do
with late stage syphillis? I am not homosexual. That being
said, if I were I wouldn't be ashamed of it, so your pathetic
attempts at insult by such aspersions falls flat in every way.

P.P.S. I don't need anyone's support or approval when I call
you out for being wrong as you were this time, AGAIN! I can
successfully do it with half my brain tied behind my back.

Grok wrote in message . ..
Some of us computer scientists were sitting around, bored, and decided
to nudge the Earth towards the Sun. It'd be convenient if it would
hit within our lifetime, so we could finish at least one project on
time and under budget in our lifetimes!

I'm not a physicist, nor did I take enough math or physics to figure
this out, so would like your help.

My guessing says we have to slow the Earth's rotation so that its
gravitational acceleration to the Sun overtakes it's angular momentum,
allowing us to smack into the big one.

How much force is required to slow us down enough so that the big
splashdown is within 50 years?

Thanks much

Absolute acceleration. Hahahahahahahaahaha

I was laughing all night last night. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Ok, let's concede that all acceleration is absolute otherwise we may
end up with objects in a free fall experiencing an acceleration
depended on their mass. Hahahahahahahahaha

Anybody knows if "jerk", da/dt, is absolute too? hahahahahahahahahah

I have a suspicion that we must invent the term "absolute
integration". Hahahahahahahahahaha

Hey Jimbo, I have absolute on the rocks.

(Undeniable) wrote in message om...
Grok wrote in message . ..
Some of us computer scientists were sitting around, bored, and decided
to nudge the Earth towards the Sun. It'd be convenient if it would
hit within our lifetime, so we could finish at least one project on
time and under budget in our lifetimes!

I'm not a physicist, nor did I take enough math or physics to figure
this out, so would like your help.

My guessing says we have to slow the Earth's rotation so that its
gravitational acceleration to the Sun overtakes it's angular momentum,
allowing us to smack into the big one.

How much force is required to slow us down enough so that the big
splashdown is within 50 years?

Thanks much

Absolute acceleration. Hahahahahahahaahaha

I was laughing all night last night. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Ok, let's concede that all acceleration is absolute otherwise we may
end up with objects in a free fall experiencing an acceleration
depended on their mass. Hahahahahahahahaha

Anybody knows if "jerk", da/dt, is absolute too? hahahahahahahahahah

I have a suspicion that we must invent the term "absolute
integration". Hahahahahahahahahaha

Hey Jimbo, I have absolute on the rocks.


I thought that was Absolut Vodka.

Double-A

I knew it was you.
Your that dumbass that was on the whats his name show.
doninghue .....ya ...the end of oil age clown trying to use my ****.
**** off and die ....

Bill Vajk wrote in message news:jDT8b.336153$cF.100662@rwcrnsc53...
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.

Your rabid anti-Al-ism has led you to make some rather
large gaffes in this thread. None of this has anything
to do with what "relative" and "absolute" mean as they
are used in physics. What you are talking about is the
completely separate issue of defining units of measure.

If I say an object is moving, relative to me, at 4 m/sec,
I mean that I have calibrated my equipment against agreed
standards for the meter and the second, and in terms of
those standards, the object's position is changing at a
rate of 4 meters every second, within measurement accuracy.
That is the object's velocity relative to me.

I do not do some sort of ratio of the object's motion to
my motion since, from my point of view, I have no motion.
"Relative velocity" means the derivative of position
with respect to an origin. It is relative to that
origin.

You may look at the same object and conclude that the
motion is 10 m/sec, again within measurement accuracy.
The fact that we disagree is not due to problems with
the standard or problems with somebody's equipment.
It's due to the fact that our origins are in relative
motion, again as calibrated against those standards.

The statement "velocity is relative" is a shorthand for
the concept that neither of us can say that one is right
and the other is wrong, that neither origin is necessarily
preferable, PROVIDED both our coordinate systems are
inertial (and that has a separate technical meaning).
A state of constant relative velocity can be defined
without reference to units. Units are only necessary to
assign a number. The fact that we disagree is independent
of our units, and in fact the disagreement, the way to
transform from my measurement to yours, can be
expressed in a unit-independent way.

The statement "acceleration is absolute" is again a shorthand
for the fact that, once we all agree on units, we also
agree on the state of acceleration (again provided we
are in inertial frames). Furthermore, you can look at
your own frame without regard to anything else in the
universe and say "I am accelerating". You can't do that
with velocity. The statement "I have velocity" has meaning
only in reference to a chosen coordinate system.

- Randy