The core of relativity

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

For 100 years your moronic cult is trying to persuade
unusable clocks as perfect ones. Just because an
insane guru imagined that being unsynchronized is the
right way of clocks.
That's the naked truth hidden behind your insane screams
about your imagined incredible wisdom.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 4:20:04 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl lied and blathered:

>
> For 100 years your moronic cult

YOU are the fool that is a member of a lying cult.

> is trying to persuade unusable clocks as perfect ones.

Dishonest attempt to twist the truth, typical of your lying cult.

Besides:

“If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.” -- Naval Ops Manual

> Just because an insane guru

You must be referring to another member of your dishonest cult. Numbnuts,
perhaps?

> imagined that being unsynchronized is the right way of clocks.

Saint Albert imagined what would happen if the speed of light were invariant.
MEASUREMENT confirms that he was right and you are wrong, but you keep
fantisizing that you are right.

That's the naked truth hidden behind your insane screams about your imagined
incredible wisdom.

In actual fact, you are a deranged nobody.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Rave, moron, and spit. You're too stupid for
anything else, after all.

[Gary Harnagel]

Hey, I just copied what you posted, dishonest degenerate nobody.

> You're too stupid for anything else, after all.

I'm not the one posting lies and nonsense, bumble-brain, so apply your
lies to yourself and they'll become truth.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Yes, you are, poor halfbrain.

[Keith Stein]

Please correct me if i am wrong, Mr.Wozniak, but what i think
you are saying is that when it is exactly 4.00 p.m GMT in Greenwich
it is exactly 4.00 p.m GMT everywhere eh!
If if indeed that is what you are suggesting then
i do do indeed agree.

keith stein

[Gary Harnagel]

More lies from the dishonest, despicable Weasel Wozniak. He has converted
no one with his obvious lies and defamatory yammerings.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Everything can have its own motion.
Look. You can...
Begin to move and there is an opposite
appearance around you that shrinks in
the distance. Imagine getting on the
freeway... for that is what you always see...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:12:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:\

>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 10:07:27 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, you are, poor halfbrain.
> >
> > More lies from the dishonest, despicable Weasel Wozniak. He has converted
> > no one with his obvious lies and defamatory yammerings.
>
> Everything can have its own motion.
> Look. You can...
> Begin to move and there is an opposite
> appearance around you that shrinks in
> the distance.

Try telling that to dishonest Wozzie-boy :-|

> Imagine getting on the freeway... for that
> is what you always see...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

What all this means is that motion is purely
relative: there is no absolute motion.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

What about a pendulum?
Having its own motion is in dimension absolutely.
Einstein said there is the unmarkable...
but the invisible can be calculated.
GR equation gives gravity curve calculation.
We don't observe that. We observe the motion
curve gravity gives to light and atom instead.

Riemannian geometry... for distance


Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

I'm saying that a cult of fanatic morons is trying
to sell us unusable clocks as perfect ones, because
their insane guru said imagined that clocks should
be desynchronizing.
What you're saying is also true.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:56:55 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:

> when it is exactly 4.00 p.m GMT in Greenwich it is exactly 4.00 p.m
> GMT everywhere

Again, SR does not deal with time synchronization but comparison of time tick rates. Time tick rate is the derivative of time. <shrug>

The GPS must have the time synchronized, and you don’t need the nonsense of SR and GR to do so. It is a simple software solution implementing a form of something like IEEE-1588. <shrug>

By the way, what has happened to this newsgroup. In the past, signs of gross abuse in defecation by the Einstein dingleberries are all over the place. Now, the place is squeaky clean. <shrug>

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Friday, 22 June 2018 19:03:25 UTC+2, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:56:55 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> > when it is exactly 4.00 p.m GMT in Greenwich it is exactly 4.00 p.m
> > GMT everywhere
>
> Again, SR does not deal with time synchronization but comparison of time tick rates. Time tick rate is the derivative of time. <shrug>

Sorry, but you obviously didn't read this shit.
Great Guru specifies very clearly: time is what
clocks INDICATE.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 10:10:43 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 8:26:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:12:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:\
> > >
> > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 10:07:27 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, you are, poor halfbrain.
> > > >
> > > > More lies from the dishonest, despicable Weasel Wozniak. He has
> > > > converted no one with his obvious lies and defamatory yammerings.
> > >
> > > Everything can have its own motion.
> > > Look. You can...
> > > Begin to move and there is an opposite
> > > appearance around you that shrinks in
> > > the distance.
> >
> > Try telling that to dishonest Wozzie-boy :-|
> >
> > > Imagine getting on the freeway... for that
> > > is what you always see...
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > What all this means is that motion is purely
> > relative: there is no absolute motion.
>
> What about a pendulum?
> Having its own motion is in dimension absolutely.

It's motion is first one way and then the opposite way, so it makes no
sense to say it "has its own motion."

> Einstein said there is the unmarkable...
> but the invisible can be calculated.

Baloney. Introduce some test masses and watch where they go.

> GR equation gives gravity curve calculation.
> We don't observe that. We observe the motion
> curve gravity gives to light and atom instead.
>
> Riemannian geometry... for distance
>
>
> Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity

We don't "observe" an electric or magnetic field either. We have INSTRUMENTS
to detect them. As for gravity, ever heard of the Forward mass detector?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 2:15:22 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 10:10:43 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 8:26:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:12:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:\
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 10:07:27 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, you are, poor halfbrain.
> > > > >
> > > > > More lies from the dishonest, despicable Weasel Wozniak. He has
> > > > > converted no one with his obvious lies and defamatory yammerings.
> > > >
> > > > Everything can have its own motion.
> > > > Look. You can...
> > > > Begin to move and there is an opposite
> > > > appearance around you that shrinks in
> > > > the distance.
> > >
> > > Try telling that to dishonest Wozzie-boy :-|
> > >
> > > > Imagine getting on the freeway... for that
> > > > is what you always see...
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > > What all this means is that motion is purely
> > > relative: there is no absolute motion.
> >
> > What about a pendulum?
> > Having its own motion is in dimension absolutely.
>
> It's motion is first one way and then the opposite way, so it makes no
> sense to say it "has its own motion."

Does it have a speed? That it changes doesn't
detract from the point...
And can you begin to move?
Or do you blame that on the Earth
beneath you instead?

>
> > Einstein said there is the unmarkable...
> > but the invisible can be calculated.
>
> Baloney. Introduce some test masses and watch where they go.

There are two curves. One of space and one of matter's motion's
in response to that space curve. There is double level curvature.
That space curvature is where the motion of those objects
get their own movement curvature. The Gravity Well gives a wrong
impression. There is not a single curve science.

>
> > GR equation gives gravity curve calculation.
> > We don't observe that. We observe the motion
> > curve gravity gives to light and atom instead.
> >
> > Riemannian geometry... for distance
> >
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity
>
> We don't "observe" an electric or magnetic field either. We have INSTRUMENTS
> to detect them. As for gravity, ever heard of the Forward mass detector?

Slowing down is still moving forward...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 7:52:05 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 2:15:22 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 10:10:43 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > What about a pendulum?
> > > Having its own motion is in dimension absolutely.
> >
> > It's motion is first one way and then the opposite way, so it makes no
> > sense to say it "has its own motion."
>
> Does it have a speed?

Not a constant one.

> That it changes doesn't
> detract from the point...

Yes, it does.

> And can you begin to move?

I'm always moving with respect to something.
And I'm always stationary with respect ot myself.

> Or do you blame that on the Earth
> beneath you instead?

I don't place blame.

> > > Einstein said there is the unmarkable...
> > > but the invisible can be calculated.
> >
> > Baloney. Introduce some test masses and watch where they go.
>
> There are two curves. One of space and one of matter's motion's
> in response to that space curve. There is double level curvature.
> That space curvature is where the motion of those objects
> get their own movement curvature. The Gravity Well gives a wrong
> impression. There is not a single curve science.

"What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was
nonsense or not." – Wolfgang Pauli

> > > GR equation gives gravity curve calculation.
> > > We don't observe that. We observe the motion
> > > curve gravity gives to light and atom instead.
> > >
> > > Riemannian geometry... for distance
> > >
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity
> >
> > We don't "observe" an electric or magnetic field either. We have
> > INSTRUMENTS to detect them. As for gravity, ever heard of the
> > Forward mass detector?
>
> Slowing down is still moving forward...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Non sequitur.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:41:43 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 7:52:05 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 2:15:22 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 10:10:43 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What about a pendulum?
> > > > Having its own motion is in dimension absolutely.
> > >
> > > It's motion is first one way and then the opposite way, so it makes no
> > > sense to say it "has its own motion."
> >
> > Does it have a speed?
>
> Not a constant one.
>
> > That it changes doesn't
> > detract from the point...
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> > And can you begin to move?
>
> I'm always moving with respect to something.

Do you move yourself? Did the Earth move you
instead?

> And I'm always stationary with respect ot myself.

No. You might want to say that but
Your inner body and outer body both move...

>
> > Or do you blame that on the Earth
> > beneath you instead?
>
> I don't place blame.

You can blame yourself really...

>
> > > > Einstein said there is the unmarkable...
> > > > but the invisible can be calculated.
> > >
> > > Baloney. Introduce some test masses and watch where they go.
> >
> > There are two curves. One of space and one of matter's motion's
> > in response to that space curve. There is double level curvature.
> > That space curvature is where the motion of those objects
> > get their own movement curvature. The Gravity Well gives a wrong
> > impression. There is not a single curve science.
>
> "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was
> nonsense or not." – Wolfgang Pauli
>
> > > > GR equation gives gravity curve calculation.
> > > > We don't observe that. We observe the motion
> > > > curve gravity gives to light and atom instead.
> > > >
> > > > Riemannian geometry... for distance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity
> > >
> > > We don't "observe" an electric or magnetic field either. We have
> > > INSTRUMENTS to detect them. As for gravity, ever heard of the
> > > Forward mass detector?
> >
> > Slowing down is still moving forward...
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Non sequitur.

Coming to a stop is still moving forward.
Changing direction is still moving forward...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 2:49:51 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:41:43 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 7:52:05 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Does it have a speed?
> >
> > Not a constant one.
> >
> > > That it changes doesn't
> > > detract from the point...
> >
> > Yes, it does.
> >
> > > And can you begin to move?
> >
> > I'm always moving with respect to something.
>
> Do you move yourself? Did the Earth move you
> instead?

It doesn't matter.

> > And I'm always stationary with respect ot myself.
>
> No. You might want to say that but
> Your inner body and outer body both move...

Irrelevant rant.

> > > Or do you blame that on the Earth
> > > beneath you instead?
> >
> > I don't place blame.
>
> You can blame yourself really...

You're the only one trying to blame something or someone.

> > > > > Einstein said there is the unmarkable...
> > > > > but the invisible can be calculated.
> > > >
> > > > Baloney. Introduce some test masses and watch where they go.
> > >
> > > There are two curves. One of space and one of matter's motion's
> > > in response to that space curve. There is double level curvature.
> > > That space curvature is where the motion of those objects
> > > get their own movement curvature. The Gravity Well gives a wrong
> > > impression. There is not a single curve science.
> >
> > "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was
> > nonsense or not." – Wolfgang Pauli
> >
> > > > > GR equation gives gravity curve calculation.
> > > > > We don't observe that. We observe the motion
> > > > > curve gravity gives to light and atom instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Riemannian geometry... for distance
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity
> > > >
> > > > We don't "observe" an electric or magnetic field either. We have
> > > > INSTRUMENTS to detect them. As for gravity, ever heard of the
> > > > Forward mass detector?
> > >
> > > Slowing down is still moving forward...
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Coming to a stop is still moving forward.
> Changing direction is still moving forward...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Even when I'm moving forward relative to something I'm moving backward
relative to something else. Get it? Motion is purely RELATIVE. I guess
you don't get it ... and you never will with a mind so full of itself.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 2:49:51 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:41:43 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 7:52:05 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Does it have a speed?
> > >
> > > Not a constant one.
> > >
> > > > That it changes doesn't
> > > > detract from the point...
> > >
> > > Yes, it does.
> > >
> > > > And can you begin to move?
> > >
> > > I'm always moving with respect to something.
> >
> > Do you move yourself? Did the Earth move you
> > instead?
>
> It doesn't matter.

No. It does. When you begin to move yourself there
is a weight and an opposite appearance. Real beginning
motion has a weight. What appears to move backward
does not.

>
> > > And I'm always stationary with respect ot myself.
> >
> > No. You might want to say that but
> > Your inner body and outer body both move...
>
> Irrelevant rant.

Then show why you can't move yourself...

>
> > > > Or do you blame that on the Earth
> > > > beneath you instead?
> > >
> > > I don't place blame.
> >
> > You can blame yourself really...
>
> You're the only one trying to blame something or someone.

Who did I blame? I didn't. It is real motion that is to blame...
when it begins it creates an opposite appearance.
The Sun crosses the sky backward to rotation orientation.

Everything can have its own motion.

The Earth's orbit is not a relative.
A day is also an absolute.

Mitchell Raemsch

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Pressure & Density sets the Quantization Of Space Time

SR is the result of the Photon eV & (Quantization Volume Of Space Time)

(1 joule) / (1 (m^3)) = 1 pascal

(Red or blue shift of Photon eV) is due to (skewed Quantization Volume) relative to (velocity relative to wave Speed of medium) the actually skewing of Quantization Volume, altering (Photon pascals)

GR is the change in (Quantization Volume) resulting in a skewed wave Speed of the medium

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:14:16 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 2:49:51 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you move yourself? Did the Earth move you
> > > instead?
> >
> > It doesn't matter.
>
> No. It does. When you begin to move yourself there
> is a weight and an opposite appearance. Real beginning
> motion has a weight. What appears to move backward
> does not.

You are conflating motion with acceleration.

> > > > And I'm always stationary with respect ot myself.
> > >
> > > No. You might want to say that but
> > > Your inner body and outer body both move...
> >
> > Irrelevant rant.
>
> Then show why you can't move yourself...

Because wherever I go, there I am.

> > > > > Or do you blame that on the Earth
> > > > > beneath you instead?
> > > >
> > > > I don't place blame.
> > >
> > > You can blame yourself really...
> >
> > You're the only one trying to blame something or someone.
>
> Who did I blame? I didn't. It is real motion that is to blame...
> when it begins it creates an opposite appearance.
> The Sun crosses the sky backward to rotation orientation.

See? You're BLAMING something, and you're pretending that rotation and
linear acceleration are the same as linear uniform motion. They're not.

> > > Coming to a stop is still moving forward.
> > > Changing direction is still moving forward...
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > Even when I'm moving forward relative to something I'm moving backward
> > relative to something else. Get it? Motion is purely RELATIVE. I guess
> > you don't get it ... and you never will with a mind so full of itself.
>
> Everything can have its own motion.

Repeating bull plop doesn't make it smell better.

> The Earth's orbit is not a relative.

All my relatives are on earth.

> A day is also an absolute.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Not on Mars, and not to someone moving fast with respect to the earth.
You're not thinking clearly.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:45:38 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:14:16 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 2:49:51 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you move yourself? Did the Earth move you
> > > > instead?
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter.
> >
> > No. It does. When you begin to move yourself there
> > is a weight and an opposite appearance. Real beginning
> > motion has a weight. What appears to move backward
> > does not.
>
> You are conflating motion with acceleration.

You are stupid really. Acceleration is defined as an
increasing in speed. When motion itself changes...

>
> > > > > And I'm always stationary with respect ot myself.
> > > >
> > > > No. You might want to say that but
> > > > Your inner body and outer body both move...
> > >
> > > Irrelevant rant.
> >
> > Then show why you can't move yourself...
>
> Because wherever I go, there I am.
>
> > > > > > Or do you blame that on the Earth
> > > > > > beneath you instead?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't place blame.
> > > >
> > > > You can blame yourself really...
> > >
> > > You're the only one trying to blame something or someone.
> >
> > Who did I blame? I didn't. It is real motion that is to blame...
> > when it begins it creates an opposite appearance.
> > The Sun crosses the sky backward to rotation orientation.
>
> See? You're BLAMING something, and you're pretending that rotation and
> linear acceleration are the same as linear uniform motion. They're not.

Can you accept that round motion has a speed that has
a beginning?

And show what makes that round motion a relative
if you can...

>
> > > > Coming to a stop is still moving forward.
> > > > Changing direction is still moving forward...
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > > Even when I'm moving forward relative to something I'm moving backward
> > > relative to something else. Get it? Motion is purely RELATIVE. I guess
> > > you don't get it ... and you never will with a mind so full of itself.
> >
> > Everything can have its own motion.
>
> Repeating bull plop doesn't make it smell better.
>
> > The Earth's orbit is not a relative.
>
> All my relatives are on earth.
>
> > A day is also an absolute.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Not on Mars, and not to someone moving fast with respect to the earth.
> You're not thinking clearly.

Mars has its motions like everything else can...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Germaine Bucklew]

mitchrae3323 wrote:

>> You are conflating motion with acceleration.
>
> You are stupid really. Acceleration is defined as an increasing in
> speed.

We agree. I would rather call it a difference in speed, give rise to 1D
acceleration. It has to accelerate, from a starting speed to a target
speed. However, the majority of the wannabe physicists around here usually
are using a wrong equation expressing it, which stands for LINEAR
acceleration. Which in reality never is.

[Germaine Bucklew]

I should rather say CONSTANT, but LINEAR is not wrong.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

You can't manifest a steady acceleration.
Sitting still in gravity is closest to that.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 2:21:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:45:38 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:14:16 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > No. It does. When you begin to move yourself there
> > > is a weight and an opposite appearance. Real beginning
> > > motion has a weight. What appears to move backward
> > > does not.
> >
> > You are conflating motion with acceleration.
>
> You are stupid really.

That's not very nice of you. Are you a bads man?

> Acceleration is defined as an increasing in speed. When motion itself
> changes...

So you admit that motion typically means to UNIFORM motion.

> > > Who did I blame? I didn't. It is real motion that is to blame...
> > > when it begins it creates an opposite appearance.
> > > The Sun crosses the sky backward to rotation orientation.
> >
> > See? You're BLAMING something, and you're pretending that rotation and
> > linear acceleration are the same as linear uniform motion. They're not.
>
> Can you accept that round motion has a speed that has
> a beginning?

"Round" motion? That's a clumsy way to speak of rotation.

> And show what makes that round motion a relative if you can...

We were discussing UNIFORM motion. Can't you stay on topic?

> > > The Earth's orbit is not a relative.
> >
> > All my relatives are on earth.
> >
> > > A day is also an absolute.
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > Not on Mars, and not to someone moving fast with respect to the earth.
> > You're not thinking clearly.
>
> Mars has its motions like everything else can...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

You're still not thinking cogently. The rotation period of Mars is NOT a
constant. One in high uniform motion would measure its period to be a
different value from one standing on Mars. Thus it is IOTTMCO that NOTHING
has "its own motion."

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:22:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 2:21:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:45:38 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:14:16 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No. It does. When you begin to move yourself there
> > > > is a weight and an opposite appearance. Real beginning
> > > > motion has a weight. What appears to move backward
> > > > does not.
> > >
> > > You are conflating motion with acceleration.
> >
> > You are stupid really.
>
> That's not very nice of you. Are you a bads man?

I Call it like it is... I know I am not nice...

>
> > Acceleration is defined as an increasing in speed. When motion itself
> > changes...
>
> So you admit that motion typically means to UNIFORM motion.

Where is there uniform motion then?

Most examples are not in uniform motion.
Rotation resembles Einstein's Inertial frame.
Linear motion responds everywhere to gravity...

Out in space gravity still gives new motion.

Where are the steady motions for your proof Gary?
Can a car or rocket have perfectly uniform motion?

>
> > > > Who did I blame? I didn't. It is real motion that is to blame...
> > > > when it begins it creates an opposite appearance.
> > > > The Sun crosses the sky backward to rotation orientation.
> > >
> > > See? You're BLAMING something, and you're pretending that rotation and
> > > linear acceleration are the same as linear uniform motion. They're not.
> >
> > Can you accept that round motion has a speed that has
> > a beginning?
>
> "Round" motion? That's a clumsy way to speak of rotation.

Round turn is even better...

>
> > And show what makes that round motion a relative if you can...
>
> We were discussing UNIFORM motion. Can't you stay on topic?
>
> > > > The Earth's orbit is not a relative.
> > >
> > > All my relatives are on earth.
> > >
> > > > A day is also an absolute.
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > > Not on Mars, and not to someone moving fast with respect to the earth.
> > > You're not thinking clearly.
> >
> > Mars has its motions like everything else can...
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> You're still not thinking cogently. The rotation period of Mars is NOT a
> constant.

To itself it is. Real Motion slows rate... that creates an
appearance alone of a difference.

> One in high uniform motion would measure its period to be a
> different value from one standing on Mars.

Who's in high uniform motion? Is he still in gravity?

If not there are no inertial frames...

Thus it is IOTTMCO that NOTHING
> has "its own motion."

Everything has its own rate. That creates a difference in
the appearances alone...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 4:45:50 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:22:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 2:21:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > You are stupid really.
> >
> > That's not very nice of you. Are you a bads man?

>
> I Call it like it is

No, you don't. You call it like you WISH it were. The fact is that you
behave stupidly.

“‎When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of
judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point
out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously
point three fingers back at ourselves.” – Christopher Pike

> ... I know I am not nice...

You said it, bud.

> > > Acceleration is defined as an increasing in speed. When motion itself
> > > changes...
> >
> > So you admit that motion typically means to UNIFORM motion.
>
> Where is there uniform motion then?

Ther are good APPROXIMATIONS to uniform motion. It all depends upon the
specific case under discussion. Claiming that it doesn't exist clouds
the issue, which is likely what you consistently try to do.

> Most examples are not in uniform motion.

It's close enough for anyone except autistic people.

> Rotation resembles Einstein's Inertial frame.

No, it does not.

> Linear motion responds everywhere to gravity...

Since it takes over 200000000 years for the galaxy to make one rotation,
while you'll only live less than 100 years, your assertion is a straw man.

> Out in space gravity still gives new motion.

Irrelevant in terms of seconds and minutes for most purposes.

> Where are the steady motions for your proof Gary?

You DO like to split hairs, mon ami.

> Can a car or rocket have perfectly uniform motion?

A car follows the road, so that's a specious argument. A rocket between
the planets is in uniform motion for days and months.

> > > Can you accept that round motion has a speed that has
> > > a beginning?
> >
> > "Round" motion? That's a clumsy way to speak of rotation.
>
> Round turn is even better...

No, that's still super awkward. I used the CORRECT term.

> > > Mars has its motions like everything else can...
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > You're still not thinking cogently. The rotation period of Mars is NOT
> a constant.
>
>
> To itself it is.

To myself, I am. So what? Complete obfuscation on your part.

> Real Motion slows rate...

No, it doesn't. Don't try to redefine words that already have specific
meanings.

> that creates an appearance alone of a difference.

Yammering nonsense.

> > One in high uniform motion would measure its period to be a
> > different value from one standing on Mars.
>
>
> Who's in high uniform motion? Is he still in gravity?

Irrelevant. You don't even know what "in gravity" means, and no one
else does either.

> If not there are no inertial frames...

Stop repeating bull plop. It still smells bad.

> > Thus it is IOTTMCO that NOTHING has "its own motion."
>
> Everything has its own rate.

Nope. I explained that you are dead wrong about that.

> That creates a difference in the appearances alone...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

But if I am moving wrt the "thing" it's impossible to tell WHO is doing
the "moving." Newton understood this 400 years ago. Why are you dissing
him?

"Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge?" --Job 42:3

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 5:03:16 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 4:45:50 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:22:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 2:21:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You are stupid really.
> > >
> > > That's not very nice of you. Are you a bads man?
>
> >
> > I Call it like it is
>
> No, you don't. You call it like you WISH it were. The fact is that you
> behave stupidly.
>
> “‎When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of
> judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point
> out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously
> point three fingers back at ourselves.” – Christopher Pike
>
> > ... I know I am not nice...
>
> You said it, bud.
>
> > > > Acceleration is defined as an increasing in speed. When motion itself
> > > > changes...
> > >
> > > So you admit that motion typically means to UNIFORM motion.
> >
> > Where is there uniform motion then?
>
> Ther are good APPROXIMATIONS to uniform motion.

Then there is nothing exact for uniform speeds...

> It all depends upon the
> specific case under discussion. Claiming that it doesn't exist clouds
> the issue, which is likely what you consistently try to do.

What about cars and rockets speeds. Where are their steady motions?

THey always have slight changes. These are your approximations.

YOu could calculate inertial frames only in abstract math.

Propulsion speeds are always changing. They are not steady speeds.

>
> > Most examples are not in uniform motion.
>
> It's close enough for anyone except autistic people.

Close enough is not steady inertial frames.

Einstein's gravity shows they don't exist
through change.

>
> > Rotation resembles Einstein's Inertial frame.
>
> No, it does not.
>
> > Linear motion responds everywhere to gravity...
>
> Since it takes over 200000000 years for the galaxy to make one rotation,

The galaxy has no rotation. The arms collective stars are all in orbit.
Rotation requires a solid radius...

> while you'll only live less than 100 years, your assertion is a straw man.
>
> > Out in space gravity still gives new motion.
>
> Irrelevant in terms of seconds and minutes for most purposes.

Changing speed is the norm not the exception.

>
> > Where are the steady motions for your proof Gary?
>
> You DO like to split hairs, mon ami.

I like to ask questions that people need to avoid.

>
> > Can a car or rocket have perfectly uniform motion?
>
> A car follows the road, so that's a specious argument. A rocket between
> the planets is in uniform motion for days and months.
>
> > > > Can you accept that round motion has a speed that has
> > > > a beginning?
> > >
> > > "Round" motion? That's a clumsy way to speak of rotation.
> >
> > Round turn is even better...
>
> No, that's still super awkward. I used the CORRECT term.
>
> > > > Mars has its motions like everything else can...
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > > You're still not thinking cogently. The rotation period of Mars is NOT
> > a constant.
> >
> >
> > To itself it is.
>
> To myself, I am. So what? Complete obfuscation on your part.

Do you feel the opposite weight when accelerating.

The best example is getting on the freeway...


Why is there that weight for you but not

for the opposite motion appearance of things

you see as moving around you?


Don't split hairs yourself and answer a question...

>
> > Real Motion slows rate...
>
> No, it doesn't. Don't try to redefine words that already have specific
> meanings.

Yes it does. How atoms move determine their own rates.

>
> > that creates an appearance alone of a difference.
>
> Yammering nonsense.

Why when you move is their an opposite appearance around you?
There is weight when that happens.

>
> > > One in high uniform motion would measure its period to be a
> > > different value from one standing on Mars.
> >
> >
> > Who's in high uniform motion? Is he still in gravity?
>
> Irrelevant. You don't even know what "in gravity" means, and no one
> else does either.

Answers aren't irrelevant. They are required.

You don't like to answer me do you?

>
> > If not there are no inertial frames...
>
> Stop repeating bull plop. It still smells bad.
>
> > > Thus it is IOTTMCO that NOTHING has "its own motion."

No. It means by nature everything is changing speed.
Gravity does it. And cars and rockets also do.
They are not steady in speed over even absolute
smallest intervals.

> >
> > Everything has its own rate.
>
> Nope. I explained that you are dead wrong about that.
>
> > That creates a difference in the appearances alone...
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> But if I am moving wrt the "thing" it's impossible to tell WHO is doing
> the "moving."

Einstein said that space is unmarked.
Rate and speed are in absolute dimension.
Their relationship to that becomes an
appearance relationship to themselves...

Newton understood this 400 years ago. Why are you dissing
> him?
>
> "Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge?" --Job 42:3

The book of Job didn't belong in the bible.

God gave nothing to Satan to do evil against good people.

God doesn't empower evil...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 6:25:09 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 5:03:16 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 4:45:50 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Where is there uniform motion then?
> >
> > Ther are good APPROXIMATIONS to uniform motion.
>
> Then there is nothing exact for uniform speeds...

There is NOTHING in the universe that is "exact." SO don't pretend that
your assertion has any validity whatever.

> > It all depends upon the
> > specific case under discussion. Claiming that it doesn't exist clouds
> > the issue, which is likely what you consistently try to do.
>
> What about cars and rockets speeds. Where are their steady motions?
>
> THey always have slight changes. These are your approximations.
>
> YOu could calculate inertial frames only in abstract math.
>
> Propulsion speeds are always changing. They are not steady speeds.
>
> >
> > > Most examples are not in uniform motion.
> >
> > It's close enough for anyone except autistic people.
>
> Close enough is not steady inertial frames.

Everyone except you and autistic people understand limitations.
EVERYTHING has limits.

> Einstein's gravity shows they don't exist through change.

You can talk about gravity and Einstein when you can explain the solutions
of his field equations. Until then, you are an arrogant ignoramus.

> > > Linear motion responds everywhere to gravity...
> >
> > Since it takes over 200000000 years for the galaxy to make one rotation,
>
> The galaxy has no rotation.

So you PROVE yourself to be an ignoramus and in denial of reality.

> The arms collective stars are all in orbit.
> Rotation requires a solid radius...

Stop trying to redefine words that have specific meanings.

https://www.universetoday.com/23870/the-milky-ways-rotation/

> > while you'll only live less than 100 years, your assertion is a straw man.
> >
> > > Out in space gravity still gives new motion.
> >
> > Irrelevant in terms of seconds and minutes for most purposes.
>
> Changing speed is the norm not the exception.

Irrelevant and fundamentally misguided.

> > > Where are the steady motions for your proof Gary?
> >
> > You DO like to split hairs, mon ami.
>
> I like to ask questions that people need to avoid.

No, you don't. You like to wallow in stupidity and arrogance.

> > > Can a car or rocket have perfectly uniform motion?
> >
> > A car follows the road, so that's a specious argument. A rocket between
> > the planets is in uniform motion for days and months.

So you now agree with me. Good, maybe there's a glimmering of hope for you.

> > > > You're still not thinking cogently. The rotation period of Mars is
> > > > NOT a constant.
> > >
> > >
> > > To itself it is.
> >
> > To myself, I am. So what? Complete obfuscation on your part.
>
> Do you feel the opposite weight when accelerating.
>
> The best example is getting on the freeway...
>
> Why is there that weight for you but not
>
> for the opposite motion appearance of things
> you see as moving around you?
>
> Don't split hairs yourself and answer a question...

So you don't understand the difference between uniform motion and CHANGE
in motion? Did you flunk calculus?

> > > Real Motion slows rate...
> >
> > No, it doesn't. Don't try to redefine words that already have specific
> > meanings.
>
> Yes it does. How atoms move determine their own rates.

So what happens when an atom is struck by a photon? And cesium-137 decays
into barium-137. Some of the barium atoms are in the ground state but most
of them are in an excited state and emit a gamma photon in a few minutes.
So your claim is doubly false.

> > > that creates an appearance alone of a difference.
> >
> > Yammering nonsense.
>
> Why when you move is their an opposite appearance around you?
> There is weight when that happens.

When I'm sitting in an airplane at the gate and it begins to back out, it
appears that the gate is moving and I'm stationary.

> > > > One in high uniform motion would measure its period to be a
> > > > different value from one standing on Mars.
> > >
> > > Who's in high uniform motion? Is he still in gravity?
> >
> > Irrelevant. You don't even know what "in gravity" means, and no one
> > else does either.
>
> Answers aren't irrelevant.

But they may be unknown.

> They are required.

Oh, really? WHO "requires" them? You? That's just another example of
your arrogance.

> You don't like to answer me do you?

I've been answering you all though this thread. Are you dense as well as
ignorant?

> > > If not there are no inertial frames...
> >
> > Stop repeating bull plop. It still smells bad.
> >
> > > > Thus it is IOTTMCO that NOTHING has "its own motion."
>
> No. It means by nature everything is changing speed.
> Gravity does it. And cars and rockets also do.
> They are not steady in speed over even absolute
> smallest intervals.

Have you measured them? I didn't think so. All of your assertions are
coming from your ignorance and arrogance, a deadly combination.

> > > Everything has its own rate.
> >
> > Nope. I explained that you are dead wrong about that.
> >
> > > That creates a difference in the appearances alone...
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > But if I am moving wrt the "thing" it's impossible to tell WHO is doing
> > the "moving."
>
> Einstein said that space is unmarked.
> Rate and speed are in absolute dimension.

He didn't say that, lying weasel.

> Their relationship to that becomes an
> appearance relationship to themselves...
>
> > Newton understood this 400 years ago. Why are you dissing
> > him?
> >
> > "Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge?" --Job 42:3
>
> The book of Job didn't belong in the bible.

So your arrogant in that field, too? Are you a Bible "scholar"? Are you
smarter than those who translated it? Your performance in this group
argues against that.

> God gave nothing to Satan to do evil against good people.
>
> God doesn't empower evil...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

God gives Satan power to tempt EVERYONE. If He didn't, Satan would have NO power. Your lack of understanding in this area is just as bad as your
understanding of physics.

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool ... shun him."
-- Persian Proverb

You are now shunned.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 6:02:29 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 6:25:09 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 5:03:16 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 4:45:50 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Where is there uniform motion then?
> > >
> > > Ther are good APPROXIMATIONS to uniform motion.
> >
> > Then there is nothing exact for uniform speeds...
>
> There is NOTHING in the universe that is "exact." SO don't pretend that
> your assertion has any validity whatever.

What about Calculus?

>
> > > It all depends upon the
> > > specific case under discussion. Claiming that it doesn't exist clouds
> > > the issue, which is likely what you consistently try to do.
> >
> > What about cars and rockets speeds. Where are their steady motions?
> >
> > THey always have slight changes. These are your approximations.
> >
> > YOu could calculate inertial frames only in abstract math.
> >
> > Propulsion speeds are always changing. They are not steady speeds.
> >
> > >
> > > > Most examples are not in uniform motion.
> > >
> > > It's close enough for anyone except autistic people.
> >
> > Close enough is not steady inertial frames.
>
> Everyone except you and autistic people understand limitations.
> EVERYTHING has limits.

Then curve linear speeds limitations make them non constants...

>
> > Einstein's gravity shows they don't exist through change.
>
> You can talk about gravity and Einstein when you can explain the solutions
> of his field equations. Until then, you are an arrogant ignoramus.
>
> > > > Linear motion responds everywhere to gravity...
> > >
> > > Since it takes over 200000000 years for the galaxy to make one rotation,

How do we know? How long have we watched?
We need more time to be accurate in all
factors. And that is orbital instead...

> > The galaxy has no rotation.

Only the center does...

>
> So you PROVE yourself to be an ignoramus and in denial of reality.

It is by gravitational orbits that stars are moving around the
Milky Way Neutronium gravity center...

>
> > The arms collective stars are all in orbit.
> > Rotation requires a solid radius...
>
> Stop trying to redefine words that have specific meanings.

What do you mean?

>
> https://www.universetoday.com/23870/the-milky-ways-rotation/
>
> > > while you'll only live less than 100 years, your assertion is a straw man.
> > >
> > > > Out in space gravity still gives new motion.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant in terms of seconds and minutes for most purposes.
> >
> > Changing speed is the norm not the exception.
>
> Irrelevant and fundamentally misguided.

There is fundamental difference between steady motion
and constant speed. Constant speed is for light.

>
> > > > Where are the steady motions for your proof Gary?
> > >
> > > You DO like to split hairs, mon ami.
> >
> > I like to ask questions that people need to avoid.
>
> No, you don't. You like to wallow in stupidity and arrogance.
>
> > > > Can a car or rocket have perfectly uniform motion?
> > >
> > > A car follows the road, so that's a specious argument. A rocket between
> > > the planets is in uniform motion for days and months.

The rocket is in Sun's gravity leaving is slowing down by a small amount.
But that can't be ignored as being zero as it is not.

>
> So you now agree with me. Good, maybe there's a glimmering of hope for you.
>
> > > > > You're still not thinking cogently. The rotation period of Mars is
> > > > > NOT a constant.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To itself it is.
> > >
> > > To myself, I am. So what? Complete obfuscation on your part.
> >
> > Do you feel the opposite weight when accelerating.
> >
> > The best example is getting on the freeway...
> >
> > Why is there that weight for you but not
> >
> > for the opposite motion appearance of things
> > you see as moving around you?
> >
> > Don't split hairs yourself and answer a question...
>
> So you don't understand the difference between uniform motion and CHANGE
> in motion? Did you flunk calculus?

Steady linear motion is what doesn't occur.

>
> > > > Real Motion slows rate...
> > >
> > > No, it doesn't. Don't try to redefine words that already have specific
> > > meanings.

Since when?

> >
> > Yes it does. How atoms move determine their own rates.
>
> So what happens when an atom is struck by a photon? And cesium-137 decays
> into barium-137. Some of the barium atoms are in the ground state but most
> of them are in an excited state and emit a gamma photon in a few minutes.
> So your claim is doubly false.

Nothing happens. That is not what is happening...

>
> > > > that creates an appearance alone of a difference.
> > >
> > > Yammering nonsense.
> >
> > Why when you move is their an opposite appearance around you?
> > There is weight when that happens.
>
> When I'm sitting in an airplane at the gate and it begins to back out, it
> appears that the gate is moving and I'm stationary.

What about in a car getting on the freeway?
You start your own motion...
the evidence is in the opposite weight you
do feel...

>
> > > > > One in high uniform motion would measure its period to be a
> > > > > different value from one standing on Mars.
> > > >
> > > > Who's in high uniform motion? Is he still in gravity?
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. You don't even know what "in gravity" means, and no one
> > > else does either.

Gravity is everywhere.

> >
> > Answers aren't irrelevant.
>
> But they may be unknown.
>
> > They are required.
>
> Oh, really? WHO "requires" them? You? That's just another example of
> your arrogance.

Anyone who reasons.

>
> > You don't like to answer me do you?
>
> I've been answering you all though this thread. Are you dense as well as
> ignorant?
>
> > > > If not there are no inertial frames...
> > >
> > > Stop repeating bull plop. It still smells bad.
> > >
> > > > > Thus it is IOTTMCO that NOTHING has "its own motion."
> >
> > No. It means by nature everything is changing speed.
> > Gravity does it. And cars and rockets also do.
> > They are not steady in speed over even absolute
> > smallest intervals.
>
> Have you measured them? I didn't think so. All of your assertions are
> coming from your ignorance and arrogance, a deadly combination.

We know leaving gravity slows down speed unless accelerationg.
Have you measured your results then?

> > > > Everything has its own rate.
> > >
> > > Nope. I explained that you are dead wrong about that.
> > >
> > > > That creates a difference in the appearances alone...
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > > But if I am moving wrt the "thing" it's impossible to tell WHO is doing
> > > the "moving."
> >
> > Einstein said that space is unmarked.
> > Rate and speed are in absolute dimension.
>
> He didn't say that, lying weasel.

What are we moving in?
Is that visible?
No. Einstein called that the unmarked.

>
> > Their relationship to that becomes an
> > appearance relationship to themselves...
> >
> > > Newton understood this 400 years ago. Why are you dissing
> > > him?
> > >
> > > "Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge?" --Job 42:3
> >
> > The book of Job didn't belong in the bible.
>
> So your arrogant in that field, too? Are you a Bible "scholar"? Are you
> smarter than those who translated it? Your performance in this group
> argues against that.
>
> > God gave nothing to Satan to do evil against good people.
> >
> > God doesn't empower evil...
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> God gives Satan power to tempt EVERYONE. If He didn't, Satan would have NO power. Your lack of understanding in this area is just as bad as your
> understanding of physics.
>
> "He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool ... shun him."
> -- Persian Proverb
>
> You are now shunned.

You are a Nut created evil. They do their own tempting...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 7:20:27 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 6:02:29 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 6:25:09 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 5:03:16 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 4:45:50 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Where is there uniform motion then?
> > > >
> > > > Ther are good APPROXIMATIONS to uniform motion.
> > >
> > > Then there is nothing exact for uniform speeds...
> >
> > There is NOTHING in the universe that is "exact." SO don't pretend that
> > your assertion has any validity whatever.
>
> What about Calculus?

Do you know it?

> > > > It all depends upon the
> > > > specific case under discussion. Claiming that it doesn't exist clouds
> > > > the issue, which is likely what you consistently try to do.
> > >
> > > What about cars and rockets speeds. Where are their steady motions?
> > >
> > > THey always have slight changes. These are your approximations.
> > >
> > > YOu could calculate inertial frames only in abstract math.
> > >
> > > Propulsion speeds are always changing. They are not steady speeds.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Most examples are not in uniform motion.
> > > >
> > > > It's close enough for anyone except autistic people.
> > >
> > > Close enough is not steady inertial frames.
> >
> > Everyone except you and autistic people understand limitations.
> > EVERYTHING has limits.
>
>
> Then curve linear speeds limitations make them non constants...
> >
> > > Einstein's gravity shows they don't exist through change.
> >
> > You can talk about gravity and Einstein when you can explain the solutions
> > of his field equations. Until then, you are an arrogant ignoramus.
> >
> > > > > Linear motion responds everywhere to gravity...
> > > >
> > > > Since it takes over 200000000 years for the galaxy to make one
> > > > rotation,
>
> How do we know?

You are indeed a complete ignoramus!

http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/milky-way-rotation

> How long have we watched?
> We need more time to be accurate in all
> factors. And that is orbital instead...

No, we don't need to "watch" longer nor do we need absolte accuracy. You
keep making that same stupid mistake.

> > > The galaxy has no rotation.
>
> Only the center does...

Liar or ignoramus. You choose, but your making incorrect assertions
prove that you are an arrogant fool.

> > So you PROVE yourself to be an ignoramus and in denial of reality.
>
> It is by gravitational orbits that stars are moving around the
> Milky Way Neutronium gravity center...

Repeating bull plop is disgusting!

> > > The arms collective stars are all in orbit.
> > > Rotation requires a solid radius...
> >
> > Stop trying to redefine words that have specific meanings.
>
> What do you mean?

You made another unfounded idiotic assertion.

> > https://www.universetoday.com/23870/the-milky-ways-rotation/

> > > Changing speed is the norm not the exception.
> >
> > Irrelevant and fundamentally misguided.
>
> There is fundamental difference between steady motion
> and constant speed. Constant speed is for light.

So you admit that light has a constant speed, a speed common to EVERY local
frame, but you're too clueless to understand what that means.

> > > > > Where are the steady motions for your proof Gary?
> > > >
> > > > You DO like to split hairs, mon ami.
> > >
> > > I like to ask questions that people need to avoid.
> >
> > No, you don't. You like to wallow in stupidity and arrogance.
> >

> The rocket is in Sun's gravity leaving is slowing down by a small amount.
> But that can't be ignored as being zero as it is not.

It CAN be ignored shor term, so you are yammering bull plop again.

> > > Don't split hairs yourself and answer a question...
> >
> > So you don't understand the difference between uniform motion and CHANGE
> > in motion? Did you flunk calculus?
>
>
> Steady linear motion is what doesn't occur.

It occurs EVERYWHERE that local conditions apply. Do you stupidly
believe that billiard players take the gravity of the sun and planets into
account when making their shots? You are stupid beyond belief!

The rest of your unmitigated stupidity deleted. You are shunned.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 7:08:33 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 7:20:27 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 6:02:29 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 6:25:09 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 5:03:16 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 4:45:50 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where is there uniform motion then?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ther are good APPROXIMATIONS to uniform motion.
> > > >
> > > > Then there is nothing exact for uniform speeds...
> > >
> > > There is NOTHING in the universe that is "exact." SO don't pretend that
> > > your assertion has any validity whatever.
> >
> > What about Calculus?
>
> Do you know it?

Real world curves cannot be calculated to exactitude.
You can't reach an infinite calculations.
Abstract calculus gives you an exactitude
calculus for the real world doesn't have.

>
> > > > > It all depends upon the
> > > > > specific case under discussion. Claiming that it doesn't exist clouds
> > > > > the issue, which is likely what you consistently try to do.
> > > >
> > > > What about cars and rockets speeds. Where are their steady motions?
> > > >
> > > > THey always have slight changes. These are your approximations.
> > > >
> > > > YOu could calculate inertial frames only in abstract math.
> > > >
> > > > Propulsion speeds are always changing. They are not steady speeds.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Most examples are not in uniform motion.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's close enough for anyone except autistic people.
> > > >
> > > > Close enough is not steady inertial frames.
> > >
> > > Everyone except you and autistic people understand limitations.
> > > EVERYTHING has limits.

You are in a category yourself. The resentful one...

> >
> >
> > Then curve linear speeds limitations make them non constants...
> > >
> > > > Einstein's gravity shows they don't exist through change.
> > >
> > > You can talk about gravity and Einstein when you can explain the solutions
> > > of his field equations. Until then, you are an arrogant ignoramus.
> > >
> > > > > > Linear motion responds everywhere to gravity...
> > > > >
> > > > > Since it takes over 200000000 years for the galaxy to make one
> > > > > rotation,
> >
> > How do we know?
>
> You are indeed a complete ignoramus!
>
> http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/milky-way-rotation
>
> > How long have we watched?
> > We need more time to be accurate in all
> > factors. And that is orbital instead...
>
> No, we don't need to "watch" longer nor do we need absolte accuracy. You
> keep making that same stupid mistake.

How do we know the speed?

>
> > > > The galaxy has no rotation.
> >
> > Only the center does...
>
> Liar or ignoramus. You choose, but your making incorrect assertions
> prove that you are an arrogant fool.
>
> > > So you PROVE yourself to be an ignoramus and in denial of reality.
> >
> > It is by gravitational orbits that stars are moving around the
> > Milky Way Neutronium gravity center...
>
> Repeating bull plop is disgusting!
>
> > > > The arms collective stars are all in orbit.
> > > > Rotation requires a solid radius...
> > >
> > > Stop trying to redefine words that have specific meanings.
> >
> > What do you mean?
>
> You made another unfounded idiotic assertion.
>
> > > https://www.universetoday.com/23870/the-milky-ways-rotation/
>
> > > > Changing speed is the norm not the exception.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant and fundamentally misguided.
> >
> > There is fundamental difference between steady motion
> > and constant speed. Constant speed is for light.
>
> So you admit that light has a constant speed, a speed common to EVERY local
> frame, but you're too clueless to understand what that means.

The atom appears to always be changing speed.
There is no steady linear motion for it.

>
> > > > > > Where are the steady motions for your proof Gary?
> > > > >
> > > > > You DO like to split hairs, mon ami.
> > > >
> > > > I like to ask questions that people need to avoid.
> > >
> > > No, you don't. You like to wallow in stupidity and arrogance.
> > >
> > The rocket is in Sun's gravity leaving is slowing down by a small amount.
> > But that can't be ignored as being zero as it is not.
>
> It CAN be ignored shor term, so you are yammering bull plop again.
>
> > > > Don't split hairs yourself and answer a question...
> > >
> > > So you don't understand the difference between uniform motion and CHANGE
> > > in motion? Did you flunk calculus?
> >
> >
> > Steady linear motion is what doesn't occur.
>
> It occurs EVERYWHERE that local conditions apply.

If a gravity field is around that is not the truth.

> Do you stupidly
> believe that billiard players take the gravity of the sun and planets into
> account when making their shots? You are stupid beyond belief!
>
> The rest of your unmitigated stupidity deleted. You are shunned.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 8:19:50 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [More stupid bull plop]

You are shunned.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

It is double principle: No steady acceleration
and No steady speeds No absolute inertial frames...
because of the gravity and the friction...


Mitchell Raemsch