No no no. I am not a mod in disguise! Fr from it. I just feel that there has been enough "past baggage and hard feelings" already. Life is too short for too much of that. I just ask you as a friend to please forgive and forget, and to harbor no more hard feelings towards him or anyone, that's all. I too have been framed and banned in the past. I harbor no hard feelings. I just make my case and move on as indicated for the greater good. Try it. If those who have done you ill in the past cannot move on, then that's their problem, not yours. Set an example for the greater good, that is all we can do! Please edit your hard words to Markus Hanke, as a favor to me personally? Then we can both remove this exchange if you want? Thanks!
At Rest with our Hubble view
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
No no no. I am not a mod in disguise! Fr from it. I just feel that there has been enough "past baggage and hard feelings" already. Life is too short for too much of that. I just ask you as a friend to please forgive and forget, and to harbor no more hard feelings towards him or anyone, that's all. I too have been framed and banned in the past. I harbor no hard feelings. I just make my case and move on as indicated for the greater good. Try it. If those who have done you ill in the past cannot move on, then that's their problem, not yours. Set an example for the greater good, that is all we can do! Please edit your hard words to Markus Hanke, as a favor to me personally? Then we can both remove this exchange if you want? Thanks!
I believe the location at infinity is related to the way the integral is taken.
As opposed to you, I can. This is why I pointed out the fact that you were unable to understand my post. To wit, you are unable to answer the two basic questions I asked you on the subject.
No one "framed" you. You were permabanned (under the name RealityCheck) for trolling and posting unscientific stuff. You are back doing the same exact thing.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I won't! Tach I may argue with, but I still love him. Farsight I love. James R I love the most. I even love Pete, AN, and rpenner, all I've had conflicts with. Conflicts are conflicts, I can shrug them off and love again, but to ban me as a means of censorship? NO! That's where I draw the line! Markus is not just a conflict, he's a self righteous asshole which I have ZERO RESPECT for, regardless of how intelligent he is!
Is this because he permabanned you for doing what you are doing here, in this forum, freely: trolling and posting anti-scientific crap? Then he did the respective forum a service, clean up!
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Trolling? I posted valid equations in the other thread and you started your nonsense! What did I do for you to post garbage about me? I posted a list of valid equations pertaining to the thread, and you started your crap!
...and then you don't even have the common decency to post that you were mistaken and apologize,after rpenner posted the thread in which I DID derive them! So you talk sh!t, then when proven wrong you have nothing to say!
Last edited:
That is a way of describing a "process" of quantifying/defining an "equivalent measure" of the actual gravitational energy component effect involved which resists that "moving to infinity" process. You state the one side of the situation, but the other side is already understood, just as I pointed out.
Yes! You got it. It is the "equivalency" of "energy" in whatever form it takes at any one stage of the process/situation. In the case of a mass affected by gravitational energy density (the potential "value" of which differs with altitude) in whatever space region it is moving through at the time. The gravitational field energy gradient is what produces the actual different values at particular altitudes, not some abstract "infinite distance" altitude.
And remember, the "accelerative effect" (on the test mass) of the parent body's gravitational energy in any particular altitude of gravitationally affected/conditioned space region is an "always on" accelerative effect, irrespective of whether or not there is something else that prevents displacement (such as sitting on the surface of the Earth). A clock's energy/mass content/body is still under the downwards "motive influence" (some call it a "force", others call it "geometry", whatever) of the accelerative effect of the gravitational energy density/potential at that (on the ground) altitude in the gravity well energy gradient.
Trolling and posting anti-mainstream, crackpot stuff. Markus did the forum a service by banning you. Too bad he can't ban you from this forum.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
What is anti-mainstream crackpot about the following? Tell me specifically in detail!
Hi Motor Daddy. Ignore him. He was banned here for his now well known baiting and disruptive games by strawmanning, followed by irrelevant diversions and tests and "links to nowhere relevant" in order to clutter up and ruin a discussion because he wants to cover the fact he was shown to be in error with all his usual "subtlety". The management advises he be ignored so that you don't get sucked into his games and get banned along with him. Not worth it. Ignore him.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Again you failed to address my question directly, and even edited the quote to delete "about the following." You started your crap in the other thread when I did nothing wrong. I'll ask you again.
What is "anti-mainstream, crackpot" about the following? Tell me specifically in detail!
What is "anti-mainstream, crackpot" about the following? Tell me specifically in detail!
Last edited:
What does the first equation mean to you? Why did you write it in the first place?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
It means the average velocity of an object, times the time of travel, is equal to the distance the object traveled. The equations are a complete set of equations so that you can "plug and play" three factors to find the other two factors.
What does it mean to you?
That assumes constant acceleration and only considers the distance traveled in that particular interval. What does it pertain to?
It means you are trying to say something, but it's not clear why you started with this opening. Only you would know that.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Yes it's constant acceleration. For example, a car has an initial velocity of 23 m/s and a final velocity of 82.7 m/s. It was under constant acceleration for 3 seconds. What distance did the car travel? What was the acceleration rate?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Before you ask someone to turn their attention to a scenario in which you've left it an open assumption that da/dt = 0 and t[sub]u[/sub] ≤ t ≤ t[sub]v[/sub], you would have to say more before assuming your readers find a motive for turning their attention to kinematics. Presumably this is also a non-relativistic scenario, but it's not clear why or what it pertains to. Why is the acceleration constant, and what's special about this time interval? These are the kinds of questions your first eqn. brings to mind. Usually a presenter will state in text some motivation for picking a particular equation as an opening. You haven't done that so I'm still looking for background information to set up the scenario you are presenting.
What do the next two equations mean to you, and why do they follow the first one? What is the motive for writing them?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Forget it! I'm wasting my time with you. This is a physics and math section on a science forum. The equations of motion are HS stuff, are they not? AN learned this stuff when he was 2 years old! You don't address my responses, you simply make up more stuff to try and complicate things further, to the point that everything is lost in the words. If you don't understand what the equations of motion are used for, and don't recognize them when you see them, I suggest you learn them before you start touting Relativity.