Re: Acceleration.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 18:25:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

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.

It was an old elevator pulling you up.
New ones travel much faster but do not crush you as they should if they
pulled you up.
New elevators have linear electric motors that use internal force
following Arindam's physics. So you travel fast and not get crushed.
Ditto for the very fast Maglev trains.
Out Einstein Up Arindam!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor

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.

What

>
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?
>

--