Archie Leach wrote:
Well, of course, (Nth
Complexity), this is just the sort of blinkered philistine pig
ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage:

Art Deco wrote:
Seconded. Note that the format definition of acceleration is the first
derivative of speed with respect to time:

Almost right! Hahahahahahahahahaha ....


That is the unversally established (at least for any respectable
working physicist, and for any respectable "alternative"
free-energy/Tesla junkie dissident physicist this side of Richard
Hoaxland) definition of acceleration.

As co-morons like to say:
Unsupported assertion!

You're the one claiming otherwise, so it would seem that the burden of
proof is on YOU to justify your own conception of acceleration.

Hi Archie. Here's a correct definition of acceleration:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acca.html

Thank you for seconding my nomination and defending Art Deco's error.
Keep up the good work, and Have A Nice Day.

-- Nth Complexity --





--
Sent by 3 from yahoo included in com
This is a spam protected message. Please answer with reference header.
Posted via http://www.usenet-replayer.com

Nth Complexity wrote:

Archie Leach wrote:
Well, of course, (Nth
Complexity), this is just the sort of blinkered philistine pig
ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage:

Art Deco wrote:
Seconded. Note that the format definition of acceleration is the first
derivative of speed with respect to time:

Almost right! Hahahahahahahahahaha ....


That is the unversally established (at least for any respectable
working physicist, and for any respectable "alternative"
free-energy/Tesla junkie dissident physicist this side of Richard
Hoaxland) definition of acceleration.

As co-morons like to say:
Unsupported assertion!

You're the one claiming otherwise, so it would seem that the burden of
proof is on YOU to justify your own conception of acceleration.

Hi Archie. Here's a correct definition of acceleration:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acca.html

Thank you for seconding my nomination and defending Art Deco's error.
Keep up the good work, and Have A Nice Day.

-- Nth Complexity --

What an idiot.

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler

"Don't be too envious. Yes, I have got it all. I am rich, I
have a good education, and I am rather good looking .. so
where does that leave you?
C."
-- Charles D. "Chuckweasel" Bohne polishes his ego a bit

"That's what you expect from people who think that the
cyberworld isn't "RL"."
-- Dr. David Tholen, Psychic Astrologer

"The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with
both male and female genitalia."
-- Alexa Cameron, Kook of the Year 2004

Well, of course, (Nth
Complexity), this is just the sort of blinkered philistine pig
ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage:

Archie Leach wrote:
Well, of course, (Nth
Complexity), this is just the sort of blinkered philistine pig
ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage:

Art Deco wrote:
Seconded. Note that the format definition of acceleration is the first
derivative of speed with respect to time:

Almost right! Hahahahahahahahahaha ....


That is the unversally established (at least for any respectable
working physicist, and for any respectable "alternative"
free-energy/Tesla junkie dissident physicist this side of Richard
Hoaxland) definition of acceleration.

As co-morons like to say:
Unsupported assertion!

You're the one claiming otherwise, so it would seem that the burden of
proof is on YOU to justify your own conception of acceleration.

Hi Archie. Here's a correct definition of acceleration:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acca.html

Ummm, nipplechips, that definition is essentially the one that
Kadaitcha Man gave, esp. regarding velocity being a vector quantity,
and the difference in velocity involving not simple scalar subtraction
but computing the difference in the vector quantities involving change
of speed and change of direction.


Thank you for seconding my nomination and defending Art Deco's error.
Keep up the good work, and Have A Nice Day.

-- Nth Complexity --

Your claim was that acceleration is a motion and that there is no
timeless acceleration:

(quoted text)
Mitchell there is no timeless acceleration!! Because acceleration is a
motion!!

I'll grant that there is no timeless acceleration (insofar as figuring
out acceleration requires at least an infinitesimal time interval to
determine the change in motion of an object from one instant to the
next), but I will contend that acceleration is not a motion in and of
itself but the instantaneous (and/or cumulative) change in an object's
motion.

If you accept that then I will rescind my seconding of your nomination
for the VVF (not that that really means all that much).



copyright ARCHIE LEACH

"On Wordscreens of the World"

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 05:36:36 GMT, tinmimus (mimus) scribbled:


When will people learn to value cheerleaders for their minds?