| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nick" |
| Date: |
23 Feb 2005 05:42:29 PM |
| Object: |
Acceleration and Nothing's Moving |
That's gravity. Weight is defined by mass and acceleration
of the Equivalence Principle.
But there is no motion; there is no change; therefor there
is no rate for the acceleration defined by the EP.
It is a timeless acceleration.
This generalized acceleration without any rate has
an upper limit to below the speed of light.
Go for it. Show me where I am wrong.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light falls --
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Acceleration and Nothing's Moving |
23 Feb 2005 06:18:04 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
That's gravity. Weight is defined by mass and acceleration
of the Equivalence Principle.
But there is no motion; there is no change; therefor there
is no rate for the acceleration defined by the EP.
[snip]
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Acceleration and Nothing's Moving |
23 Feb 2005 10:39:14 PM |
|
|
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer (Alan Schwartz),
the royal fuckwit, "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:421CA8D5.202258D0@hate.spam.net...
Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
What a right royal stooopid *****.
See the peeing puppy moortel, he'll not be glad to add
you to his list of truly IMMORTAL fumbles. I will, though.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Acceleration and Nothing's Moving |
24 Feb 2005 09:48:57 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HopeThatHelps.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrizeYours.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CoverUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GDefence.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html>
Androcyst is a spewing psychotic idiot troll.
Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
Let L = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary
frame.
Let L' = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the moving
frame.
Let v = speed of Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary frame
(with Joe in front of Sam).
Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_1' = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_1 = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_1' = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured
in the moving frame.
Let L_2 = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_2' = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_2 = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_2' = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured
in the moving frame.
What people are saying to you is that
1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
2) L_1/T_1 = c
3) L_1' = L'
4) L_1'/T_1' = c
5) L_2 = cL/(c+v)
6) L_2/T_2 = c
7) L_2' = L'
8) L_2'/T_2' = c
So
L_1 is *not* equal to L_2
L_1 is *not* equal to L
L_1 is *not* equal to L'
L_1 is *not* equal to L_1'
L_2 is *not* equal to L
L_2 is *not* equal to L'
L_2 is *not* equal to L_2'
T_1 is *not* equal to T_2
T_1 is *not* equal to L/c
T_1 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_1 is *not* equal to T_1'
T_2 is *not* equal to L/c
T_2 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_2 is *not* equal to T_2'
On the other hand,
L_1' is equal to L_2'
L_1' is equal to L'
L_2' is equal to L'
T_1' is equal to T_2'
T_1' is equal to L'/c
T_2' is equal to L'/c
Is there yet another way for you to misunderstand?
Einstein:
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Taking a = x, b = t + x'/(c-v), the functional equation above becomes:
tau(0,0,0,b-a/(c-v)) + tau(0,0,0,b+a/(c+v)) = 2 tau(a,0,0,b).
Defining the function F(k) = 2 tau(0,0,0,k), it then follows that
tau(a,0,0,b) = F(b-a/(c-v)) + F(b+a/(c+v)).
Conversely, taking a = 0 in the equation above, it follows that
tau(0,0,0,b) = F(b) + F(b) = 2F(b).
Therefore, the general solution to the functional equation above is:
tau(a,0,0,b) = F(b-a/(c-v)) + F(b+a/(c+v))
where F is otherwise arbitrary.
(Further restrictions cited in the paper then narrow down the function
F(x); this also shows that the assumption in the paper of
differentiability is entirely superfluous. The derivation above
proceeds without any assumption about tau being differentiable or even
continuous.)
Thus, going back to Einstein's notation with x' = x - vt, it follows
that
tau(x-vt,0,0,t) = F((ct-x)/(c-v)) + F((ct+x)/(c-v))
which shows that the natural coordinates that enter into play are ct-x
and ct+x.
In terms of these the Lorentz transformation simplifies substantially:
ct-x -> sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) (ct-x)
ct+x -> sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)) (ct+x)
involving, respectively, a blue shift and red shift factor and
directly representing the Relativistic Doppler effect.
If two Lorentz transformation are done along the x axis at velocities
v1 and v2 respectively, then the factors would multiple:
sqrt((c+v1)/(c-v1)) sqrt((c+v2)/(c-v2))
which reduces to a Lorentz transform with a velocity v given by:
sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) = sqrt((c+v1)/(c-v1)) sqrt((c+v2)/(c-v2))
Solving this for v, you get:
v = (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1 v2/c^2)
So the velocity addition rule becomes the addition rule for the
"rapidity":
u = c/2 ln((c+v)/(c-v))
with
u = u1 + u2.
Rapidity and velocity are virtually identical. For a vessel going at
v= 3km/second,
|v - u| ~~ 6 microns/second.
Therefore, velocities (redefined as rapidities) add as usual in
Relativity, as well as in Newtonian physics.
Hey idiot Androcles,
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly
publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in
disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an
intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf>
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
Androcyst and logs:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html
Androcyst and vectors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
Androcyst and limits:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeInfinity.html
Androcyst and equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
Androcyst and square roots:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
Androcyst and exclusive ors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
Androcyst and partial differential equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Acceleration and Nothing's Moving |
24 Feb 2005 10:11:53 AM |
|
|
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer (Alan Schwartz),
the royal fuckwit, "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:421CA8D5.202258D0@hate.spam.net...
Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
What a right royal stooopid *****.
See the peeing puppy moortel, he'll not be glad to add
you to his list of truly IMMORTAL fumbles. I will, though.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Acceleration and Nothing's Moving |
23 Feb 2005 06:08:16 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
That's gravity. Weight is defined by mass and acceleration
of the Equivalence Principle.
But there is no motion; there is no change; therefor there
is no rate for the acceleration defined by the EP.
Hi again stooopid troll....
Weight
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Weight.html
Acceleration
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Acceleration.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Acceleration and Nothing's Moving |
23 Feb 2005 08:13:54 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
That's gravity. Weight is defined by mass and acceleration
of the Equivalence Principle.
But there is no motion; there is no change; therefor there
is no rate for the acceleration defined by the EP.
It is a timeless acceleration.
This generalized acceleration without any rate has
an upper limit to below the speed of light.
Go for it. Show me where I am wrong.
a = d^2x/dt^2
Mitch Raemsch -- Light falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Acceleration and Nothing's Moving |
23 Feb 2005 10:03:51 PM |
|
|
a = d^2x/dt^2
You say that is the equivalence principle?
To be fair that applys to freefall or an object
that actually accelerates in space.
Weight in gravity is for things that don't move in the field.
So there is No Rate of any Change now is there?
Gravity's equivalent acceleration is without a rate variable
because there is no motion. Its timeless acceleration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Acceleration and Nothing's Moving |
23 Feb 2005 11:06:41 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
a = d^2x/dt^2
You say that is the equivalence principle?
No. I am saying that you have no fucking clue as to what acceleration
is. Your unfamiliarity with the definition of acceleration means that
you have not encountered calculus, which is both unforunate and
unsurprising.
The equivalence principle basically postulates that acceleration is
indistinguishable from acceleration due to gravity. Eg, if you are
within a box and feel no acceleration you are unable to tell if you are
in free-fall or moving with a constant velocity. Also, say you are
within a box and you are being accelerated against the floor [have
weight, F=ma], you cannot tell whether that is because of gravity or
because you are accelerating.
To be fair that applys to freefall or an object
that actually accelerates in space.
Weight in gravity is for things that don't move in the field.
So there is No Rate of any Change now is there?
No.
I am not moving, yet I have weight. You can be accelerated yet not
move. This is why you need to take a mechanics course.
Gravity's equivalent acceleration is without a rate variable
because there is no motion. Its timeless acceleration.
The equivlance principle, various flavors aside, postulates the
equivlance of regular acceleration and gravitational acceleration. I am
not going to teach you any of the fundamentals of modern physics if you
are incapable of doing a simple google search to see where and why your
opinion diverges from reality.
Get calculus, then get an introductory physics book. There are dozens
to choose from - try visiting a library.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Acceleration and Nothing's Moving |
23 Feb 2005 11:24:35 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Nick wrote:
a = d^2x/dt^2
You say that is the equivalence principle?
No. I am saying that you have no fucking clue as to what acceleration
is. Your unfamiliarity with the definition of acceleration means that
you have not encountered calculus, which is both unforunate and
unsurprising.
The equivalence principle basically postulates that acceleration is
indistinguishable from acceleration due to gravity. Eg, if you are
within a box and feel no acceleration you are unable to tell if you
are
in free-fall or moving with a constant velocity. Also, say you are
within a box and you are being accelerated against the floor [have
weight, F=ma], you cannot tell whether that is because of gravity or
because you are accelerating.
To be fair that applys to freefall or an object
that actually accelerates in space.
Weight in gravity is for things that don't move in the field.
So there is No Rate of any Change now is there?
No.
I am not moving, yet I have weight. You can be accelerated yet not
move.
Aint that my point?
What you are saying only makes my point eric.
Please explain to me how you can accelerate in space and not move -
through space.
Can you do it?
This is why you need to take a mechanics course.
Gravity's equivalent acceleration is without a rate variable
because there is no motion. Its timeless acceleration.
The equivlance principle, various flavors aside, postulates the
equivlance of regular acceleration and gravitational acceleration. I
am
not going to teach you any of the fundamentals of modern physics if
you
are incapable of doing a simple google search to see where and why
your
opinion diverges from reality.
Get calculus, then get an introductory physics book. There are dozens
to choose from - try visiting a library.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Acceleration and Nothing's Moving |
24 Feb 2005 01:31:23 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
a = d^2x/dt^2
You say that is the equivalence principle?
Nope.. looking again.. nope, no words "equivlence principle" up there from
eric. Maybe once you can even understand what he posted you'll know that
you don't know much of anything now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
