What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground?

[The Starmaker]

What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground?

Seems like a simple question.
Might even have a simple answer.

But I find it hard to believe
that in this newsgroup about GR
that anyone really knows the answer.

You might not even understand the question.

Okay, maybe the question is too long...

What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground?

How about

What is the force
that the Earth used
to keep us
on the ground?






--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[patdolan]

I understand the spirit of your question, Starmaker. I always ask the same question a different way--a way that you might find on a test:

Use GR to calculate the normal force produced on a tabletop by a one kilo brick.

I have never received and answer. My version is 64 characters in length.

[Richard Hertz]

Centripetal acceleration is defined as the property of the motion of an object, traversing a circular path. Any object that is moving in a circle and has an acceleration vector pointed towards the center of that circle is known as Centripetal acceleration.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 10:28:00 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:

> What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground?
>

There is downward weight...

[patdolan]

Mitch to the rescue again! GR only describes the kinematic characteristics of entities located in affine geometries. Or as Misner, Thorne and Wheeler put it "Two bodies, initially falling through spacetime on parallel, neighboring geodesics, get pushed toward each other or apart by tidal gravitational forces (spacetime curvature)". But that is where the characterization ends. There are no GR formulae that describe forces between entities because there are no forces in GR; only the interplay of geodesics about mass, stress, pressure and energy.

Weight, you say? There is no "weight" in GR? There is only the colocation of geodesics. Right Dono?

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 17.12.2022 20:20, skrev patdolan:
> There are no GR formulae that describe forces between entities because there are no forces in GR; only the interplay of geodesics about mass, stress, pressure and energy.
>
> Weight, you say? There is no "weight" in GR? There is only the colocation of geodesics. Right Dono?

Your weight is the force your chair is acting on your butt,
giving you a proper acceleration upwards.

Your bathroom scale measures your weight, not your mass.
You can find your mass with a scale and an accelerometer.

m = F/g

When your bathroom scale shows kilograms, it is because
it assumes that you are at the Earth with known g.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Richard Hertz]

Fucking Einstein's elevator! DOWNWARDS! If acceleration is upwards we all would be flying to outer space.

[patdolan]

All correct Paul. All very correct. But GR doesn't look at the universe that way. GR only tries to explain why there are gravitational actions at a distance and not the bone-on-bone actions of say, my foot on Dono's ass. There are no calculations in GR that represent a scalar quantity called weight that two objects sharing the same geodesic exert on each other.

Now that I think of it, weight is to GR what gravity is to SR. Neither SR nor GR is a full explanation of the world.

[patdolan]

Strangely, Richard, this is what Paul and the relativists would have us believe. Here, crazy talk explain with a felt tipped pen:
https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?t=452

The recondite hieroglyphs man's construct, higher mathematics, make everything believable to the unthinking. But never forget this

i^4 = i^8
sqrt( i^4 ) = sqrt( i^8 )
+/- [ i^2 ] = +/- [ i^4 ]
+/- [ -1 ] = +/- [ 1 ]
-/+ 1 = +/- 1

[Richard Hertz]

Pat, i just googled "why acceleration on earth is upward". I post now different answers. Relativists don't know, read the Einstein part.

"The relativistic point of view would be that the space around the Earth is compressing, but the atoms of the Earth resists this compression. This means that the surface of the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards."

"What did Einstein say about acceleration?
He envisioned a man in a box. Einstein realized that there was no way this man could tell whether he was sitting in a gravitational field or being accelerated. Because of this, these two situations were equal. By extension, Einstein concluded that gravity and acceleration are the same thing."




"Is acceleration upwards or downwards?
Image result for why acceleration on earth is upward
Acceleration from gravity is always constant and downward, but the direction and magnitude of velocity change."


"What does upward acceleration mean?
The elevator has an upward acceleration (accelerating upward, or decelerating while on the way down) the elevator has a downward acceleration (accelerating down, or decelerating while on the way up)"


"Does Earth accelerate downwards?
Indeed, every object at Earth's surface experiences an acceleration of 9.8 m/s², in whatever direction you commonly define as down: towards the Earth's center."


"Why do we accelerate towards the Earth?
When objects fall to the ground, gravity causes them to accelerate. Acceleration is a change in velocity, and velocity, in turn, is a measure of the speed and direction of motion. Gravity causes an object to fall toward the ground at a faster and faster velocity the longer the object falls."


"What is the direction of Earth's acceleration?
The acceleration due to gravity is always directed towards the center of the earth. In normal mechanics , we say that it is vertically downward."

[Dono.]

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 3:51:25 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

> All correct Paul. All very correct. But GR doesn't look at the universe that way. GR only tries to explain why there are gravitational actions at a distance and not the bone-on-bone actions of say, my foot in my mouth

Always there

[Dono.]

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 4:02:40 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> But never forget this cretinism

>
> i^4 = i^8
> sqrt( i^4 ) = sqrt( i^8 )
> +/- [ i^2 ] = +/- [ i^4 ]
> +/- [ -1 ] = +/- [ 1 ]
> -/+ 1 = +/- 1

We won't forget, Pattycakes, don't worry.

[Richard Hertz]

Actually, Pat said: "his foot deep into your ass".

[Dono.]

> Actually, Pat said: "his nose and my nose deep into your ass".

Yup, keep it there, Dick

[patdolan]

Apply whatever interpretations to the symbols you like. But know that I have used only well-formed strings and only those rules of inference which are permitted in imaginary arithmetic to generate the valid theorem strings "1 = -1" and "-1 = 1"

[Dono.]

You posted this imbecility many times before , Pattycakes. Like before, I suggest that you take it easier with the booze.

[patdolan]

Young Veritasium has the finest stable of relativists ever assembled at his disposal to advise on each of his videos. He is bigger that Bill Nye the Science Guy. He is even bigger than Dirk in terms of the number of minds he shapes by means of his videos. Just look at his views and how many videos he has produced. So Vertasium is not blowing his own smoke when he attempts to demonstrate that we all accelerated upwards just to stand still. That's Wheeler, Thorne, Misner & Co. talking.

So let's spend some time studying the Vertasium acceleration expression. First, we shall do a demential analysis of the expression. We know that the speed of light though spacetime is c, so its square is m^2/s^2. In order for Veritasium's equation to make sense the units on the Chritoffel symbol's determinate ( or component? ) must be 1/meters.

[Dono.]

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:51:15 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>First, we shall do a demential analysis of the expression.

Sic!

[patdolan]

Correction: Veritasium states that the second term is the velocity through *time* squared. Not spacetime squared.

Now we are left with the question of what could possibly be one's velocity (length/time) through time? ∆t/t?? More dimensional analysis: If dimensions for velocity through space is space/time, then by analogy velocity through time must be time/time. So the units on young Veritasium's second term are s^2/s^2. This means that the Christoffel units (det or component?) must now be m/s^2. Meters per second squared are the dimensions for acceleration and not the dimensions for curvature, which is length^-1. It appears as if young Veritasium has given us (and a Relativity-hungry world) a non-starter from the get go.

Furthermore, the concept of one's velocity through time mixes categories so as to be logically useless.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

There is weight from gravity and weightlessness. There is no zero gravity...
The space station is in orbit.

Mitchell Raemsch

[The Starmaker]

downward weight? you mean pushing from up to down?

"the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground"

so it would have to be a force in the earth pulling from inside the
groumd at your feet.

[The Starmaker]

which way is up?

[The Starmaker]

Downward again? Everybody keeps using the word..."downward"?


the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground is coming from
inside the earth and reaching out and pulling my feet.

not falling down...pulling.

What is this force pulling at me? Where in the ground inside earth is it
located? A magnet or something?

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 10:28:00 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground?
> > >
> >
> > There is downward weight...
>
> downward weight? you mean pushing from up to down?
>
> "the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground"
>
> so it would have to be a force in the earth pulling from inside the
> groumd at your feet.
>

In other words, there has to be little particles that are in the earth
that reach out
and grab my feet..and pull on it.

[Paul Alsing]

There is no such thing as gravity... the earth just sucks... that's all there is to it...

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Sic indeed. Usually you distort what the crackpots have written, but
this time that's exactly what he wrote!


--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 18 December 2022 at 09:45:45 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-12-18 01:53:21 +0000, Dono. said:
>
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:51:15 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > >First, we shall do a demential analysis of the expression.
> >
> > Sic!
> Sic indeed. Usually you distort what the crackpots have written, but
> this time that's exactly what he wrote!

Well, well, Dono is not always impudenyly lying,
who would think.

[Paul B. Andersen]

You are sitting in a chair in a rocket accelerating at 1g.
You have an accelerometer in your hand.
In which direction does the accelerometer show you are accelerating?

You are sitting in a chair on Earth.
You have an accelerometer in your hand.
In which direction does the accelerometer show you are accelerating?

Down is the direction a coin will fall if you hold it in your hand
and let it go.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 18.12.2022 00:51, skrev patdolan:
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:31:14 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 17.12.2022 20:20, skrev patdolan:
>>> There are no GR formulae that describe forces between entities because there are no forces in GR; only the interplay of geodesics about mass, stress, pressure and energy.
>>>
>>> Weight, you say? There is no "weight" in GR? There is only the colocation of geodesics. Right Dono?

>> Your weight is the force your chair is acting on your butt,
>> giving you a proper acceleration upwards.
>>
>> Your bathroom scale measures your weight, not your mass.
>> You can find your mass with a scale and an accelerometer.
>>
>> m = F/g
>>
>> When your bathroom scale shows kilograms, it is because
>> it assumes that you are at the Earth with known g.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/

> All correct Paul. All very correct.

Of course this is correct according to GR.

So you know you were wrong when you said:
" there are no forces in GR"

and

"There is no "weight" in GR"

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Vitaliy Bazzoli]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> Fucking Einstein's elevator! DOWNWARDS! If acceleration is upwards we
>> all would be flying to outer space.
>>
> You are sitting in a chair in a rocket accelerating at 1g.
> You have an accelerometer in your hand.
> In which direction does the accelerometer show you are accelerating?
> You are sitting in a chair on Earth.
> You have an accelerometer in your hand.
> In which direction does the accelerometer show you are accelerating?
> Down is the direction a coin will fall if you hold it in your hand and
> let it go.

absolutely, this is exactly my *_Divergent_Mater_of_the_Moving_Objects_*
model. Bigger than Einstine. Since he was not man enough moving to the
next level.

[patdolan]

I am not the one saying it. Young Veritasium, who is mentored by the finest physicists living today, has plainly stated that gravity is a pseudo-force. We are [ his words ] exactly like the dude in the accelerating spaceship. Because we are not really at rest when we are stationary on the surface of the earth. We are being accelerated away from the surface at a value of 9.8 m/s/s. This value comes from the product of the curvature of spacetime term [ that Christoffel thing-a-ma-jig ] and our velocity [sic] through time.

At least I now have an answer to my question "how does GR account for the normal force of a brick on a tabletop?" Weight-force is the product of spacetime curvature and the velocity through time. Let me grant you that spacetime curvature exists. Now we have to start delving into what "velocity through time" could possibly mean. The GR excrement just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

[patdolan]

Left out one term. Let me be more precise as a starting point for moving forward:

Weight at the surface of the earth = (mass) x (spacetime curvature) x (velocity through time)

This is the definition of bone-on-bone force in GR. Agreed?

[Dono.]

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:23:32 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

>The Pat Dolan piece of excrement just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Yup

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-12-18 18:23:30 +0000, patdolan said:

>
> [ … ]

> I am not the one saying it. Young Veritasium, who is mentored by the
> finest physicists living today,

What qualifications do you have to assess who are the finest physicists
living today?

> has plainly stated that gravity is a pseudo-force. We are [ his words
> ] exactly like the dude in the accelerating spaceship. Because we are
> not really at rest when we are stationary on the surface of the earth.
> We are being accelerated away from the surface at a value of 9.8 m/s/s.
> This value comes from the product of the curvature of spacetime term [
> that Christoffel thing-a-ma-jig ] and our velocity [sic] through time.
>
> At least I now have an answer to my question "how does GR account for
> the normal force of a brick on a tabletop?" Weight-force is the
> product of spacetime curvature and the velocity through time. Let me
> grant you that spacetime curvature exists. Now we have to start
> delving into what "velocity through time" could possibly mean. The GR
> excrement just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

[The Starmaker]

The coin will fall...but, but, Why will it fall? Certaintly it is not
the Earth force that makes the coin fall...

i mean, if Lucy pulls the Earth away from Peanuts's coin while it
falls...it will continue to fall.

[Paul B. Andersen]

> Young Veritasium, who is mentored by the finest physicists living today, has plainly stated that gravity is a pseudo-force.

The Newtonian gravitational force pushing you downwards is
a pseudo force.

The REAL force acting on you is pushing you upwards as explained above.

You can feel the force pushing your butt.
You can't feel the Newtonian gravitational force pushing you downwards
because there is no such force.

YOU stated "there are no forces in GR", which is an idiotic statement.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 10:23:14 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>

> The Newtonian gravitational force pushing you downwards is a pseudo force.
>
> The REAL force acting on you is pushing you upwards as explained above.

Newton is false after 300 years, going down. Einstein is right after 100 years, going up.
This is why relativists are THE PEST that fester physics, since they owned the mic and loudspeakers (around 1919).

> You can feel the force pushing your butt.
> You can't feel the Newtonian gravitational force pushing you downwards because there is no such force.

This is why relativists are gay. They have publicly been stating that they like the push on their buts (since 1919).

>
> YOU stated "there are no forces in GR", which is an idiotic statement.

There are no forces in GR, as you said it in your post. Only Newtonian pseudo forces, which are "not real".
"Real" einstenian forces are what put satellites in orbit, isn't it?
You are mentally sick, and live a delusional life of lies and falsities. Nice.

[Maciej Wozniak]

If a religious maniac is announcing and explaining - it
must be true.

[patdolan]

But we are agreed on YV's equation of upwards push force?

The upwards force that a tabletop produces on a brick at rest = mass x spacetime curvature x velocity through time

Correct?

[The Starmaker]

"upwards push force"???? Yous need to drop your math calculators. Less
math more physics.

It is mostly likely an 'upwards PULL force'. Pushing would require
'someone' under the table exerting force upwards. Like ghost or a bratty
sister.


So, an upwards push force is something above the table pulling what
seems to be upwards.

But no pushing.

Yous need to drop your math calculators. Less math more physics.

>
> The upwards force that a tabletop produces on a brick at rest = mass x spacetime curvature x velocity through time
>
> Correct?

[The Starmaker]

and if it continues to fall...

[patdolan]

Paul has a point, Starmaker. Picture yourself on ice skates on a lake near the shore. One end of a stiff spring is attached to a tree at the shore line and the other end is attached to your ass. rotchm pushes you towards the tree. As he does so you begin to feel a force on your ass. When he has compressed you and the spring almost to the tree, he lets you go. You continue to feel that force on your ass for as long as you accelerate out into the lake.

The same with the chair, according to Paul. You feel the force from the chair on your ass because you are accelerated up by the product of spacetime curvature and your velocity through time.

Got it?

[patdolan]

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:34:23 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-12-18 18:23:30 +0000, patdolan said:
>
> >
> > [ … ]
> > I am not the one saying it. Young Veritasium, who is mentored by the
> > finest physicists living today,
> What qualifications do you have to assess who are the finest physicists
> living today?

My reputation as the discoverer of the Lorentz contraction velocity formula, my discovery of the asymmetry between proper and coordinate relative velocity, my demonstration of the recursive and therefore vanishing nature of the spacetime interval, my demonstration of the inconsistency of imaginary arithmetic, and most importantly, my eponymous dilemma.

[Paul Alsing]

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:52:49 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

> My reputation as the discoverer of the Lorentz contraction velocity formula, my discovery of the asymmetry between proper and coordinate relative velocity, my demonstration of the recursive and therefore vanishing nature of the spacetime interval, my demonstration of the inconsistency of imaginary arithmetic, and most importantly, my eponymous dilemma....

Logic will get you from A to Z, imagination will get you everywhere.
~ Albert Einstein

[The Starmaker]

I'm from Brooklyn. I cannot picture myself on ice skates on a lake near
the shore...dats to gay. dats fag stuff. gay people are genetic defects.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Imagination can even fabricate time
dilation, black holes amd the rest of his
idiocies.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-12-19 19:52:47 +0000, patdolan said:

> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:34:23 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-12-18 18:23:30 +0000, patdolan said:>> >> > [ … ]
>>> I am not the one saying it. Young Veritasium, who is mentored by the> >
>>> finest physicists living today,
>> What qualifications do you have to assess who are the finest
>> physicists> living today?
>
> My reputation as the discoverer of the Lorentz contraction velocity
> formula, my discovery of the asymmetry between proper and coordinate
> relative velocity, my demonstration of the recursive and therefore
> vanishing nature of the spacetime interval, my demonstration of the
> inconsistency of imaginary arithmetic, and most importantly, my
> eponymous dilemma.

Do we suppose that you're one of the "finest physicists" who advises
Veritasium? If not, who are the ones who are finer than you?

[patdolan]

Athel Cornish Mainly in England,

The phinest physicists of our time are some of the phinest phools in the world. But only we normies appreciate this fact.

Now as regards YV and his advisors, do you have a disagreement with them concerning the YV version of the GR force equation? If so, please explain. Let me refresh your memory concerning that equation:

The normal force upon the bottom face of a brick produced by the tabletop upon which it is resting is equal to (mass) x (spacetime curvature) x (velocity through time)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-12-20 08:37:25 +0000, patdolan said:

>
> [ … ]

> The phinest physicists of our time are some of the phinest phools in
> the world. But only we normies appreciate this fact.
> Now as regards YV and his advisors, do you have a disagreement with
> them concerning the YV version of the GR force equation? If so,
> please explain. Let me refresh your memory concerning that equation:
>
> The normal force upon the bottom face of a brick produced by the
> tabletop upon which it is resting is equal to (mass) x (spacetime
> curvature) x (velocity through time)

Descending into complete gibberish, I see. Oh well.

[patdolan]

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 2:11:54 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-12-20 08:37:25 +0000, patdolan said:
>
> >
> > [ … ]
> > The phinest physicists of our time are some of the phinest phools in
> > the world. But only we normies appreciate this fact.
> > Now as regards YV and his advisors, do you have a disagreement with
> > them concerning the YV version of the GR force equation? If so,
> > please explain. Let me refresh your memory concerning that equation:
> >
> > The normal force upon the bottom face of a brick produced by the
> > tabletop upon which it is resting is equal to (mass) x (spacetime
> > curvature) x (velocity through time)
> Descending into complete gibberish, I see. Oh well.

Please go to the time stamped link I provided and watch YV and his felt tip pen teach the equation from GR that demonstrates why one needs to accelerate just to stand still on the surface of the earth. If this is gibberish to you, as it is to me, know that it is coming from your side. Not mine. If you choose to disavow YV and his stable of GR mentors, then do so, right here in this forum. It is time to stop asking questions and state your position clearly.

I am not entrapable by questions because I am critiquing and not professing. Strange you have not already learned this subtle point of argumentation. Thou shouldst not have been old before thou hadst been wise, Athel Cornish Mainly in England.

[The Starmaker]

You need to understand the textbook defintion of the
word..."accelerate". Coming to a stop is...accelerating.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

No. That is slowing down. There is both acceleration and deceleration.
And there is still forward motion...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 19.12.2022 14:54, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 10:23:14 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> The Newtonian gravitational force pushing you downwards is a pseudo force.
>>
>> The REAL force acting on you is pushing you upwards as explained above.

>
> Newton is false after 300 years, going down. Einstein is right after 100 years, going up.
> This is why relativists are THE PEST that fester physics, since they owned the mic and loudspeakers (around 1919).
>

>> You can feel the force pushing your butt.
>> You can't feel the Newtonian gravitational force pushing you downwards because there is no such force.

>
> This is why relativists are gay. They have publicly been stating that they like the push on their buts (since 1919).

And since you are not gay, you are never sitting down because
you can't stand the feeling of the chair pushing your butt?

Your homophobia has strange consequences!

>
>>
>> YOU stated "there are no forces in GR", which is an idiotic statement.

>
> There are no forces in GR, as you said it in your post. Only Newtonian pseudo forces, which are "not real".
> "Real" einstenian forces are what put satellites in orbit, isn't it?
> You are mentally sick, and live a delusional life of lies and falsities. Nice.

Relax, sit down, and the _upwards_ force on your butt is very real.

Don't worry, it won't make you homosexual!

BTW, Richard.
Your or mine or anybody's opinion of GR is irrelevant,
because GR's validity doesn't depend on opinion,
it depends on experimental evidence.

Which is very clear:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

To keep claiming what is proven wrong is irrational behaviour.

To believe that the experimental evidence will go
away if you ignore it, is also irrational behaviour.

Do you ignore the experimental evidence, Richard?

--
Paul, loving to rub it in

https://paulba.no/

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 20 December 2022 at 20:20:23 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> To believe that the experimental evidence will go
> away if you ignore it, is also irrational behaviour.

Sure, forbidden by your bunch of idiots GPS
and TAI will keep measuring t'=t, ignoring them
won't help The Shit.

[whodat]

On 12/20/2022 12:43 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 2:11:54 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-20 08:37:25 +0000, patdolan said:
>>>
>>>>

>>>> [ … ]

>>>> The phinest physicists of our time are some of the phinest phools in
>>>> the world. But only we normies appreciate this fact.
>>>> Now as regards YV and his advisors, do you have a disagreement with
>>>> them concerning the YV version of the GR force equation? If so,
>>>> please explain. Let me refresh your memory concerning that equation:
>>>>
>>>> The normal force upon the bottom face of a brick produced by the
>>>> tabletop upon which it is resting is equal to (mass) x (spacetime
>>>> curvature) x (velocity through time)
>>> Descending into complete gibberish, I see. Oh well.
>>
>> Please go to the time stamped link I provided and watch YV and his felt tip pen teach the equation from GR that demonstrates why one needs to accelerate just to stand still on the surface of the earth. If this is gibberish to you, as it is to me, know that it is coming from your side. Not mine. If you choose to disavow YV and his stable of GR mentors, then do so, right here in this forum. It is time to stop asking questions and state your position clearly.
>>
>> I am not entrapable by questions because I am critiquing and not professing. Strange you have not already learned this subtle point of argumentation. Thou shouldst not have been old before thou hadst been wise, Athel Cornish Mainly in England.
>>> --
>>> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly
>>> in England until 1987.
>
> You need to understand the textbook defintion of the
> word..."accelerate". Coming to a stop is...accelerating.

As is standing still on the surface of the earth.

[Volney]

Roy, he said the textbook definition of accelerate. Roy, deceleration is
nothing more than a negative acceleration. See, Roy? That's another use
for negative numbers, which you don't understand!

[whodat]

I hate to have to point this out, but since acceleration is any change
in speed or direction there is no such a thing has "negative
acceleration." That expression is an impossibility as a science
based word. The concept of slowing down exists of course, but the
nomenclature is limited by the broad definition of the word accelerate.

What frosts me even more is that I have to acknowledge that our resident
troll is correct.

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 2:09:30 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:

<snip>

> Roy, he said the textbook definition of accelerate. Roy, deceleration is
> nothing more than a negative acceleration. See, Roy? That's another use
> for negative numbers, which you don't understand!

Fucking drooling imbecile. That's why you are a relativist: you lie, you deceive, you are an ignorant asshole, you are gay, etc.

(Definition of deceleration from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)

deceleration
noun [ C or U ]

Reduction in the speed at which something is moving, or an example of this: Calculate the deceleration of the truck.

More examples

When hitting a fence, it is the sudden deceleration that matters.
Concussion can be caused by acceleration or deceleration forces, or by a direct blow.
Data last week showed a deceleration in the pace of growth.
My view on earnings is that we are going to see a deceleration.

Deceleration is the DECREASE in the rate of change of VELOCITY OF EVENTS, applied to any context.

Acceleration is the INCREASE in the rate of change of VELOCITY OF EVENTS, applied to any context.

For instance, Volney: Your heart rate ACCELERATES when you are entering into the gay bar, due to your excitement hoping being lucky.
After a while, and being rejected by everyone, your heart rate DECELERATES because of your depression, fucking retarded.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

They are opposites. Slow down or speed ups...
There is absolute zero math win instead of negatives.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Michelle Africano]

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:09:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> Roy, he said the textbook definition of accelerate. Roy, deceleration

>> is nothing more than a negative acceleration. S̶e̶e̶, R̶o̶y̶? T̶h̶a̶t̶'s̶ a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶
>> u̶s̶e̶ f̶o̶r̶ n̶e̶g̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ n̶u̶m̶b̶e̶r̶s̶, which you don't understand!

>
> They are opposites. Slow down or speed ups...
> There is absolute zero math win instead of negatives.

tell the moron, *_the_deceleration_* is positive. Which is *_lowering_*
the acceleration. Sitting on a chair *_is_1g_constant_acceleration_*.
Lowering it, is /_deceleration_/, which is still a
*/_p̳o̳s̳i̳t̳i̳v̳e̳_a̳c̳c̳e̳l̳e̳r̳a̳t̳i̳o̳n̳_/*.

[Volney]

In ordinary mechanics (physics) there is no deceleration, acceleration
is a vector which can add to or subtract from the velocity vector [over
time] or act at an angle such as an orbiting planet. Its components can
be positive or negative. In one dimension it can be represented as a
positive or negative number along the x axis.

An exception is friction, which always opposes the velocity relative to
whatever it has frictional contact with. This opposition to the motion
is seen as deceleration. Slide an object across the floor and it slows
and stops on the floor or "decelerates". When it stops there is no
longer any deceleration (or acceleration for that matter), the
acceleration is 0.

[Michelle Africano]

Volney wrote:

> In ordinary mechanics (physics) there is no deceleration, acceleration
> is a vector which can add to or subtract from the velocity vector [over
> time] or act at an angle such as an orbiting planet.

idiot, */_that's_NOT_deceleration_/*. A deceleration is *_a_lowering_*
acceleration, hence _still_an_acceleration_. Amazing with you
*_electronic_engineers_*.

[Volney]

On 12/21/2022 8:18 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 2:09:30 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Roy, he said the textbook definition of accelerate. Roy, deceleration is
>> nothing more than a negative acceleration. See, Roy? That's another use
>> for negative numbers, which you don't understand!
>
> Fucking drooling imbecile.

Why yes, that describes you perfectly.

> That's why you are a relativist:

Crackpot word alert!

> For instance, Volney: Your heart rate ACCELERATES when you are entering into the gay bar, due to your excitement hoping being lucky.
> After a while, and being rejected by everyone, your heart rate DECELERATES because of your depression, fucking retarded.

You shouldn't project your own feelings or heart rate onto myself or
anyone else.

One thing you forgot to mention when describing your heart rate is, as a
gay-hating gay, your heart rate accelerates when entering the gay bar
because you fear being caught there. If it becomes publicly known that
you hang around in gay bars, you'll be so embarrassed...

[J. J. Lodder]

For a spinning object, such as a billiard ball,
frictional forces can be forward, or sideways,

Jan

[whodat]

The interesting thing about living languages is that users are
permitted, perhaps even encouraged, to innovate usage of words including
the invention of new words. From that standpoint I have no personal
objection to the use of "deceleration" in common speech. In settings
such as this one, a semi-formal science discussion group, it is a
necessity that scientifically accepted verbiage be used.

One can make an argument for deceleration as you have done, and make a
compelling case where narrowing the definition seems appropriate. I have
no nit to pick with you about "decelerate." As a matter of general usage
in a science setting it doesn't have credence. You've made a narrow case
that doesn't appear to have any avenue for valid dissent. Of course the
acceptance of the definition of words in the science community is
similar to that in definitions and acceptability of words in the general
usage community albeit it is a smaller subset where the science
community is concerned.

Interestingly enough my mother and her generation used the expression
"slow up!" I always thought that an oxymoron but in the generation
before me that was well accepted in general usage, so who was I to
object. So I never objected although I found it grating. Now, before
someone accuses me of babbling, I retire from this discussion.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> friction [...] always opposes the velocity relative to whatever it
>> has frictional contact with.

> For a spinning object, such as a billiard ball, frictional forces
> can be forward, or sideways,

Hmmm. At each point of the ball that is in contact with the table, the
frictional force on that point of the ball is opposite to the velocity
of that point relative to the table. While the ball is hard, the table
is not; at any instant there are multiple points of the ball in contact
with the table. The spin of the ball can make those points' velocity
vectors not be parallel to the velocity vector of the ball's
center-of-mass. The ball is quite rigid, and one must sum the forces on
all those points to get the net force on the ball.

Tom Roberts

[Michelle Africano]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> friction [...] always opposes the velocity relative to whatever it has
>>> frictional contact with.
>> For a spinning object, such as a billiard ball, frictional forces can
>> be forward, or sideways,
>
> Hmmm. At each point of the ball that is in contact with the table, the

> frictional force on that point of the ball _is_opposite_to_the_velocity_

> of that point relative to the table. While the ball is hard, the table
> is not; at any instant there are multiple points of the ball in contact
> with the table. The spin of the ball can make those points' velocity

> vectors *_not_be_parallel_to_the_velocity_vector_* of the ball's
> center-of-mass. The ball is quite rigid, and one *_must_sum_the_forces_*

> on all those points to get the net force on the ball.

absolutely. It can also become *towards_the_same_direction*, if the ball
spins forward.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote:
> [...]

In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and
"deceleration" means a decrease in speed.

In physics, "deceleration" is not used, and "acceleration" is ambiguous,
as it could mean "3-acceleration", "proper acceleration",
"4-acceleration", or "coordinate acceleration". In context here it means
3-acceleration, a 3-vector that is the time derivative of an object's
3-velocity. Note that the acceleration 3-vector can be opposite in
direction from an object's 3-velocity, in which case it is a reduction
in the velocity.

Tom Roberts

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 8:03:21 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

<snip>

Please, take note about how relativity ruined your connection with reality.

You can't write a post without using: 3-vector, 4-vector, "proper" whatever, manifolds, Lorentz
boost (rotation-free transform), and similar GR jargon.

You are so detached from reality, that you can't communicate with other people no more.

Furthermore, you don't have "common speech", nor you have "erudite speech". Yours is incomprehensible unless
you talk with another relativist.

UNLESS you are showing off here, like a peacock. Maybe this is the real cause.

Like an anglophile born in Brooklyn, pretending to be British by speaking like upper class there.

Hubble was one of them. There are millions of pretenders about so many things. SAD.

There are 35 synonyms, antonyms, idiomatic expressions, and related words for pretender. You won't like any of them.

BE SIMPLER, NORMAL.

[Michelle Africano]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote:
>> [...]
>
> In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and
> "deceleration" means a decrease in speed.

decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So
*decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed
*is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite
direction.

[Richard Hertz]

1-vector, 2-vector, n-vector....... fuck it.

Given a(t) for an object moving along x-axis, then

IF da/dt = 0, the acceleration peaked or is constant.

IF da/dt > 0, the acceleration is increasing, so the object is gaining velocity (speed). It's ACCELERATING.

IF da/dt < 0, the acceleration is decreasing, so the object is losing velocity (speed). It's DECELERATING, like in
the re-entry of a spacecraft.

[The Starmaker]

NOT losing velocity....it's called a 'change' in velosity.


Any change in velosity increasing or decreasing is
called...acceleration.

[whodat]

When you do not have a command of basic linguistic skills you should
probably avoid expressing your opinions about more advanced concepts.

Best of luck though.

[whodat]

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > 1-vector, 2-vector, n-vector....... fuck it.
> >
> > Given a(t) for an object moving along x-axis, then
> >
> > IF da/dt = 0, the acceleration peaked or is constant.
> >
> > IF da/dt > 0, the acceleration is increasing, so the object is gaining velocity (speed). It's ACCELERATING.
> >
> > IF da/dt < 0, the acceleration is decreasing, so the object is losing velocity (speed). It's DECELERATING, like in
> > the re-entry of a spacecraft.
>
> NOT losing velocity....it's called a 'change' in velosity.
>
> Any change in velosity increasing or decreasing is
> called...acceleration.
>

So there is an acceleration when velocity changes either in magnitude (an increase or decrease in speed) or in direction, or both.
https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/2-4-acceleration#:~:text=So%20there%20is%20an%20acceleration%20when%20velocity%20changes%20either%20in%20magnitude%20(an%20increase%20or%20decrease%20in%20speed)%20or%20in%20direction%2C%20or%20both.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 11:53:21 AM UTC-8, Michelle Africano wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:09:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> Roy, he said the textbook definition of accelerate. Roy, deceleration
> >> is nothing more than a negative acceleration. S̶e̶e̶, R̶o̶y̶? T̶h̶a̶t̶'s̶ a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶
> >> u̶s̶e̶ f̶o̶r̶ n̶e̶g̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ n̶u̶m̶b̶e̶r̶s̶, which you don't understand!
> >
> > They are opposites. Slow down or speed ups...
> > There is absolute zero math win instead of negatives.
> tell the moron, *_the_deceleration_* is positive. Which is *_lowering_*
> the acceleration. Sitting on a chair *_is_1g_constant_acceleration_*.

How do you go somewhere sitting on a chair?
acceleration ought to take you someplace.

> Lowering it, is /_deceleration_/, which is still a
> */_p̳o̳s̳i̳t̳i̳v̳e̳_a̳c̳c̳e̳l̳e̳r̳a̳t̳i̳o̳n̳_/*.

That is in the negative.

[patdolan]

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 8:14:20 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 11:53:21 AM UTC-8, Michelle Africano wrote:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:09:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> > >> Roy, he said the textbook definition of accelerate. Roy, deceleration
> > >> is nothing more than a negative acceleration. S̶e̶e̶, R̶o̶y̶? T̶h̶a̶t̶'s̶ a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶
> > >> u̶s̶e̶ f̶o̶r̶ n̶e̶g̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ n̶u̶m̶b̶e̶r̶s̶, which you don't understand!
> > >
> > > They are opposites. Slow down or speed ups...
> > > There is absolute zero math win instead of negatives.
> > tell the moron, *_the_deceleration_* is positive. Which is *_lowering_*
> > the acceleration. Sitting on a chair *_is_1g_constant_acceleration_*.
> How do you go somewhere sitting on a chair?
> acceleration ought to take you someplace.

Excellent point, Mitchell my man. Young Veritasium has answered this question. YV states in his video that the d^2r/dt^2 = 9.8 m/s/s that a person sitting in his seat at rest on the surface of the earth, is exactly counteracted by a quantity known to physicist as the curvature of spacetime multiplied by the square of another quantity known to physicists as the velocity through time.

Is this clear Mitch? If not, why not?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-12-21 20:22:01 +0000, Volney said:

> On 12/21/2022 12:32 AM, whodat wrote:
>> On 12/20/2022 11:09 PM, Volney wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2022 2:01 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:43:38 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You need to understand the textbook defintion of the
>>>>> word..."accelerate". Coming to a stop is...accelerating.
>>>>
>>>> No. That is slowing down. There is both acceleration and deceleration.
>>>> And there is still forward motion...
>>>
>>> Roy, he said the textbook definition of accelerate. Roy, deceleration
>>> is nothing more than a negative acceleration.

My impression is that "deceleration" is a layman's word, useful enough
to describe the effect of braking on the movement of a car, but not
much in serious writing about physics or mechanics. Acceleration is a
vector, and doesn't just apply to forward motion, or even to forward
and backward motion, but to acceleration to the left or right, or up or
down, or any combination of these.

> See, Roy? That's another use for negative numbers, which you don't understand!
>>
>> I hate to have to point this out, but since acceleration is any change
>> in speed or direction there is no such a thing has "negative
>> acceleration." That expression is an impossibility as a science
>> based word. The concept of slowing down exists of course, but the
>> nomenclature is limited by the broad definition of the word accelerate.
>>
>> What frosts me even more is that I have to acknowledge that our resident
>> troll is correct.
>>
>
> In ordinary mechanics (physics) there is no deceleration, acceleration
> is a vector which can add to or subtract from the velocity vector [over
> time] or act at an angle such as an orbiting planet. Its components can
> be positive or negative. In one dimension it can be represented as a
> positive or negative number along the x axis.
>
> An exception is friction, which always opposes the velocity relative to
> whatever it has frictional contact with. This opposition to the motion
> is seen as deceleration. Slide an object across the floor and it slows
> and stops on the floor or "decelerates". When it stops there is no
> longer any deceleration (or acceleration for that matter), the
> acceleration is 0.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 22 December 2022 at 09:44:20 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-12-21 20:22:01 +0000, Volney said:
>
> > On 12/21/2022 12:32 AM, whodat wrote:
> >> On 12/20/2022 11:09 PM, Volney wrote:
> >>> On 12/20/2022 2:01 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:43:38 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> You need to understand the textbook defintion of the
> >>>>> word..."accelerate". Coming to a stop is...accelerating.
> >>>>
> >>>> No. That is slowing down. There is both acceleration and deceleration.
> >>>> And there is still forward motion...
> >>>
> >>> Roy, he said the textbook definition of accelerate. Roy, deceleration
> >>> is nothing more than a negative acceleration.
> My impression is that "deceleration" is a layman's word, useful enough
> to describe

a motion as it is in the reality, instead as it should be in a
perfect world gedanken by a religious maniac.

[J. J. Lodder]

This is just plain wrong.
A *decrease_in_acceleration* is NOT a deceleration
A change in the acceleration is called a 'jerk' or a 'jolt'.
(whatever the sign)
The SI unit for it is the m/s^3, not m/s^2.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)>

This is in accordance with everyday language.
A clumsy driver for example may cause a jerky ride,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Hmmm. What do you think that this 'Antiproton Decelerator' thing
that they have at CERN is supposed to be doing? (aka the AD)
<https://home.cern/science/accelerators/antiproton-decelerator>

Or perhaps they are not physicists over there?
You should try to be a little bit less dogmatic,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> friction [...] always opposes the velocity relative to whatever it
> >> has frictional contact with.
> > For a spinning object, such as a billiard ball, frictional forces
> > can be forward, or sideways,
>
> Hmmm. At each point of the ball that is in contact with the table, the
> frictional force on that point of the ball is opposite to the velocity
> of that point relative to the table.

It must be nice to be this clairvoyant about what actually happens
at this tiny indented interface.
I wouldn't be so sure.
FYI, conditions at the interface can be quite extreme,
with enough slippage to cause burn marks.

> While the ball is hard, the table
> is not; at any instant there are multiple points of the ball in contact
> with the table. The spin of the ball can make those points' velocity
> vectors not be parallel to the velocity vector of the ball's
> center-of-mass. The ball is quite rigid, and one must sum the forces on
> all those points to get the net force on the ball.

Certainly, and there is no ground for believing
that the instantaneous friction force must be locally opposite
to the local velocity. (apart from theoretical prejudice)
Remember hat the table is compacted felt:
it has long range order compared to the size of the contact point.
(hairs)

And yes, it is quite remarkable what the masters are capable of,
(see under trick shots)

Jan

[Rico Amato]

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Michelle Africano <nc...@amenica.he> wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>
>> > On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote: [...]
>> > In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and
>> > "deceleration" means a decrease in speed.
>>
>> decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So
>> *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed
>> *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite
>> direction.
>
> This is just plain wrong.
> A *decrease_in_acceleration* is NOT a deceleration A change in the
> acceleration is called a 'jerk' or a 'jolt'.
> (whatever the sign) The SI unit for it is the m/s^3, not m/s^2.

it's *NOT* wrong. Yes it can be considered *_a_3rd_order_motion_*, a
change in acceleration (up or down), which is a *_jerk_*, but the
definition of deceleration, also said above, is */_common_speech_/*.

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)>

no need for that, I am an expert.

> This is in accordance with */_everyday_language_/*.

now you come home, and learned something.
It is exactly how *_Dr._Michelle_Africano_* <nc...@amenica.he> said. Go
reread and learn.

[Rico Amato]

you can't even write English, */_you_stupid_sack_of_testicles_/*. Is been
said to you, by the others, to *keep_your_idiotic_mouth_shut*, especially
when proven an *imbecile*, in a way or another. *_Dr._Michelle_Africano_*
is a doctor, making money out of physics. *You* are fucking
*toilet_cleaner* janitor.

[whodat]

Oh sure, like you know how to tie your shoes...

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > 1-vector, 2-vector, n-vector....... fuck it.
> > >
> > > Given a(t) for an object moving along x-axis, then
> > >
> > > IF da/dt = 0, the acceleration peaked or is constant.
> > >
> > > IF da/dt > 0, the acceleration is increasing, so the object is gaining velocity (speed). It's ACCELERATING.
> > >
> > > IF da/dt < 0, the acceleration is decreasing, so the object is losing velocity (speed). It's DECELERATING, like in
> > > the re-entry of a spacecraft.
> >
> > NOT losing velocity....it's called a 'change' in velosity.
> >
> > Any change in velosity increasing or decreasing is
> > called...acceleration.
> >
>
> So there is an acceleration when velocity changes either in magnitude (an increase or decrease in speed) or in direction, or both.
> https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/2-4-acceleration#:~:text=So%20there%20is%20an%20acceleration%20when%20velocity%20changes%20either%20in%20magnitude%20(an%20increase%20or%20decrease%20in%20speed

Keep in mind that these are just 'textbooks' definitions, and are corrupted information...so they need to be taken with a grain of salt.

All 'textbooks' information are monopoly controlled and the truth and facts are whatever they say it is the truth and facts. Has nothing to do with the truth or the facts.

Mush.


For example...I'm sure everyone here notices Google search engine is being censored, so you might have trouble finding information
'that used to be there and no longer is'. And they shorten the search results for certain topics. So you have to use Tor to see more unfiltered results.

Is there Life on Mars? Or....water? What does the 'textbooks' say?


Ask any 10 year old the question "Is Pluto a planet?" You might be surprised by their answers...



it all depends what garbage they are reading.


Garbage in...

[Volney]

On 12/22/2022 10:57 AM, Rico Amato wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> Michelle Africano <nc...@amenica.he> wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote: [...]
>>>> In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and
>>>> "deceleration" means a decrease in speed.
>>>
>>> decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So
>>> *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed
>>> *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite
>>> direction.
>>
>> This is just plain wrong.
>> A *decrease_in_acceleration* is NOT a deceleration A change in the
>> acceleration is called a 'jerk' or a 'jolt'.
>> (whatever the sign) The SI unit for it is the m/s^3, not m/s^2.
>
> it's *NOT* wrong. Yes it can be considered *_a_3rd_order_motion_*, a
> change in acceleration (up or down), which is a *_jerk_*, but the
> definition of deceleration, also said above, is */_common_speech_/*.

No, nymshifter, the "jerk" is a change in acceleration, while
deceleration is an acceleration which is negative relative to the
velocity (in one dimension) meaning the velocity decreases in absolute
value. This is common everyday usage.

In mechanics both velocity and acceleration are vectors, "deceleration"
isn't really used, it doesn't really have a formal definition.

>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)>
>
> no need for that, I am an expert.

Nymshifter, the only things you are "expert" at is nymshifting and
spouting the stupidest 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐 propaganda.

> It is exactly how *_Dr._Michelle_Africano_* <nc...@amenica.he> said.

Nymshifter, your previous nym is no doctor and you were incorrect then
as well.

[Volney]

On 12/21/2022 7:51 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 1-vector, 2-vector, n-vector....... fuck it.

One dimensional case is strictly along a single axis. Speeds,
accelerations can be positive or negative.

Two dimensional or more: You have to deal with vectors pointing in
directions other than strictly forward and backward. Orbits, curves and
so forth.

>
> Given a(t) for an object moving along x-axis, then

What is a? Acceleration? Position?

>
> IF da/dt = 0, the acceleration peaked or is constant.

If so, a(t) is acceleration, da/dt=0 is a zero "jerk", the third
derivative of displacement.

>
> IF da/dt > 0, the acceleration is increasing, so the object is gaining velocity (speed). It's ACCELERATING.

If the acceleration (one dimensional physics definition) is already or
has become positive, and the speed is also positive. Your "ACCELERATING"
is the common usage of the word in this case.

>
> IF da/dt < 0, the acceleration is decreasing, so the object is losing velocity (speed).

No, it loses velocity only if the acceleration is negative. The
acceleration could switch from positive to negative if da/dt < 0, or it
could still be positive after factoring in da/dt < 0 (for positive
speed). Think of a car accelerating hard from a start (you floor it)
but shortly you let off on the gas just a little, so it's still going
faster and faster, just not as much.

> It's DECELERATING, like in
> the re-entry of a spacecraft.

That's the common usage of the word, where the speed's absolute value
decreases. Usually thought of as a positive speed and a negative value
of acceleration.

What of a car going in reverse and then the brakes are applied? Is the
car accelerating, decelerating or something else?
>
>

[Rico Amato]

Volney wrote:

> On 12/22/2022 10:57 AM, Rico Amato wrote:

>>> Michelle Africano <nc...@amenica.he> wrote:
>> it's *NOT* wrong. Yes it can be considered *_a_3rd_order_motion_*, a
>> change in acceleration (up or down), which is a *_jerk_*, but the
>> definition of deceleration, also said above, is */_common_speech_/*.
>

> N̶o̶, n̶y̶m̶s̶h̶i̶f̶t̶e̶r̶, t̶h̶e̶ "j̶e̶r̶k̶" i̶s̶ a̶ c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ i̶n̶ a̶c̶c̶e̶l̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶, w̶h̶i̶l̶e̶
> d̶e̶c̶e̶l̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ i̶s̶ a̶n̶ a̶c̶c̶e̶l̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ i̶s̶ negative relative to t̶h̶e̶
> v̶e̶l̶o̶c̶i̶t̶y̶ (i̶n̶ o̶n̶e̶ d̶i̶m̶e̶n̶s̶i̶o̶n̶) m̶e̶a̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ t̶h̶e̶ v̶e̶l̶o̶c̶i̶t̶y̶ d̶e̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶s̶ i̶n̶ a̶b̶s̶o̶l̶u̶t̶e̶
> v̶a̶l̶u̶e̶. T̶h̶i̶s̶ i̶s̶ c̶o̶m̶m̶o̶n̶ e̶v̶e̶r̶y̶d̶a̶y̶ u̶s̶a̶g̶e̶.

yet another proof you are an *_inbreed,_braindead_imbecile_*. Gedanken you
are in a train, no windows, constant speed. You can't sense the speed.
Then feel a push, constant acceleration opposite direction. The speed is
*_still_positive_*. And the "jerk" is *_info_* usually LOST dealing with
acceleration equations, considering the acceleration constant.

and since YOU *_inbreed_moron_* (based on national inheritance) talks
about vectors, those are *_ALWAYS_positive_*, including along the opposite
direction. You also compare acceleration to speeds, which are different
order domain, you uneducated electronic engineer.

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 4:52:00 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> IF da/dt < 0, the acceleration is decreasing, so the object is losing velocity (speed).

Bzzt, fail.

[whodat]

I'm glad you changed the trajectory of your attempts to insult others.

The problem remains that your grasp of physics is at best marginal, at
times nonexistent. But since your discussions are presently within the
realm of science, I will defer from further comment and depart in peace.

Your discussions are certainly quite a few levels better than some of
the others posting here. Have fun!

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How does solar gravity influence something at the Earth's surface? They do meet direct.
There is a dynamic rate through an interval. It is the speed or flow of time interval.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

We live in a time speed that is close to the speed of light.
High gravity and motion slows that down. The time rate
field can be far below light speed... or not.

[Ken Seto]

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:28:00 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground?
>
> Seems like a simple question.
> Might even have a simple answer.
>
> But I find it hard to believe
> that in this newsgroup about GR
> that anyone really knows the answer.
>
> You might not even understand the question.
>
> Okay, maybe the question is too long...
>
> What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground?
>
> How about
>
> What is the force
> that the Earth used
> to keep us
> on the ground?

The earth force and you are expanding in the same direction in an ether called the E-Matrix. This causes an attractive force between you and the earth and that's the reason why you are
attracted to the ground(the earth.
Read my book:
Model Mechanics: The Final Theory
in Amazon's Link:
Amazon_BookOnline.pdf

>
>
>
>
> to the to the

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-03-10 14:27:43 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said:

> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:28:00 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>> What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground?>> Seems
>> like a simple question.> Might even have a simple answer.>> But I find
>> it hard to believe> that in this newsgroup about GR> that anyone really
>> knows the answer.>> You might not even understand the question.>> Okay,
>> maybe the question is too long...>> What is the force that the Earth
>> used to keep us on the ground?>> How about>> What is the force> that
>> the Earth used> to keep us> on the ground?
> The earth force and you are expanding in the same direction in an
> ether called the E-Matrix. This causes an attractive force between you

> and the earth and that's the reason why you areattracted to the

> ground(the earth.
> Read my book:
> Model Mechanics: The Final Theory
> in Amazon's Link:
> Amazon_BookOnline.pdf

How many times do you need to be told that that's *not a link*? It's a
file name.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> to the to the>> --> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable,
>> ask the unaskable,> to think the unthinkable, mention the
>> unmentionable, say the unsayable,> and challenge> the unchallengeable.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[The Starmaker]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> On 2023-03-10 14:27:43 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said:
>
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:28:00 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground?>> Seems
> >> like a simple question.> Might even have a simple answer.>> But I find
> >> it hard to believe> that in this newsgroup about GR> that anyone really
> >> knows the answer.>> You might not even understand the question.>> Okay,
> >> maybe the question is too long...>> What is the force that the Earth
> >> used to keep us on the ground?>> How about>> What is the force> that
> >> the Earth used> to keep us> on the ground?
> > The earth force and you are expanding in the same direction in an
> > ether called the E-Matrix. This causes an attractive force between you
> > and the earth and that's the reason why you areattracted to the
> > ground(the earth.
> > Read my book:
> > Model Mechanics: The Final Theory
> > in Amazon's Link:
> > Amazon_BookOnline.pdf
>
> How many times do you need to be told that that's *not a link*? It's a
> file name.

Come on already, don't you get it? Nature is playing a joke on you. dis
in the nature of all scientists on earth.
look around you, wat do you see? freaks of nature.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Atoms have weight.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Gravity is the force that keeps us on the ground by giving us weight....
weight resistance keeps us in the Earth's gravity well.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

If you jump you will be pushed back to the ground
where you will have to deal with weight again.
Those are two sides of gravity that hold us to
the ground.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ken Seto]

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:04:04 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-03-10 14:27:43 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said:
>
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:28:00 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground?>> Seems
> >> like a simple question.> Might even have a simple answer.>> But I find
> >> it hard to believe> that in this newsgroup about GR> that anyone really
> >> knows the answer.>> You might not even understand the question.>> Okay,
> >> maybe the question is too long...>> What is the force that the Earth
> >> used to keep us on the ground?>> How about>> What is the force> that
> >> the Earth used> to keep us> on the ground?
> > The earth force and you are expanding in the same direction in an
> > ether called the E-Matrix. This causes an attractive force between you
> > and the earth and that's the reason why you areattracted to the
> > ground(the earth.
> > Read my book:
> > Model Mechanics: The Final Theory
> > in Amazon's Link:
> > Amazon_BookOnline.pdf
> How many times do you need to be told that that's *not a link*? It's a
> file name.

You have to go to the Amazon site to find: Amazon_BookOnline.pdf