Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Acceleration.
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 11:25:35 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <tpqfdl-9p49.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
References: <OZCcnS6-kccGX2P6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>   <jc0ddl-3a95.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> <1837ee70ad600bdf$1670295$1481196$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <qpdfdl-kua8.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> <18380f7316a5a0a7$1250355$1488192$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <jhgfdl-49g8.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> <183812b8a95cda95$1782158$1481196$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <dtjfdl-gvl8.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> <183817ab4fb09508$606018$1498207$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 20:31:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8f03ec40681f14fd2f6fc75065b228ff";
	logging-data="399567"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18TzgKdzTQRB31BSQertHkw"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.2-20220130 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.0-138-lowlatency (x86_64))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+PsFcEF+NKL98vbEgYS3/p5QrsE=
Bytes: 5016

Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> On 4/20/2025 6:27 PM, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> On 4/20/2025 5:30 PM, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>> Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2025 4:43 PM, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, a simple (maybe even simple enough for
>>>>>>> you) question.
>>>>>>> An observer (Alice) is observing an object O
>>>>>>> in the position of x. The velocity of the object
>>>>>>> is 0, space is inflating. Does the position
>>>>>>> change?
>>>>>>> Yes or no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gibberish.
>>>>>
>>>>> A dodge.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Positions have 3 coordinates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't say... Really? So treat x as a vector
>>>>> of 3 numbers. Whatever.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Velocity with respect to what?
>>>>>
>>>>> To the observer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Define "space is inflating".
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't your fellow idiots care?
>>>>
>>>> Still rambling gibberish.
>>>
>>> Still easier to wave arms and scream
>>> "GIBBERISH!!!!" than to answer questions.
>>
>> When you actually come up with cogent question...
> When I do - a relativistic idiot can only
> rave, spit and slander; no surprise.

I highly doubt you have the slightest clue what "relativistic" means or
that there is general and special relativity which deal with two
separate concepts.


> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And none of this has anything to do with Einstein's elevator.
>>>
>>> But it has something to do with your
>>> other assertion. Sorry, trash,"velocity
>>> is the first derivative of position with
>>> respect to time"  no longer holds in
>>> that moronic mumble your moronic religion
>>> is generating.
>>
>> It appears you have no understanding of calculus or simple motion.
> It may appear, who cares about "appearance".
> 
> That
>> velocity is the first derivative of position with respect to time is a
>> rather trivial observable.
> Still it no longer  holds in that moronic mumble
> your moronic religion is generating.
> Come on, poor idiot - both position and time are
> coordinates, have you ever observed a coordinate?
> Have you ever observed a derivative?
> Pre-relativistic physics has trained/programmed/
> taught you to treat v as dx/dt, current physics is
> training you in [occasional] violating that.
> That's all.

average velocity = the change in postion divided by the time

Blazingly obvious to everone.

instantaneous velocity = the first derivative of position with respect
to time.

Blazingly obvious to anyone that understands calculus.

Nothing in physics has changed any of that.

Most of what you wrote here is babbling gibberish.

> 
> 
> 
>> Further, Einstein's elevator has nothing to do with velocity.
>>
>> Einstein's elevator illustrates the principle of equivalence, showing
>> that the effects of gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable.
> Asserting, not showing. And, as said, you've
> never got the simplest consequences of that.

Actually experiments that show such to be true started about 500 CE and
have continued into the modern era, the most recent of which I can find
is the MICROSCOPE experiment which published results on 4 December 2017.
The equivalence principle was measured to hold true within a precision of
10^−15, improving prior measurements in 2008 by Schlamminger, et al. by
two orders of magnitude.

The earliest documented experiment I can find with a measured precision
was by Simon Stevin in 1585 with a precision of 5X10^-2.

What experiments can you cite that show any of your gibberish has any
meaning?


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com