You don't seem to be working at it very hard. Is that why your reality is what it is? Lack of commitment? Made any progress on the beam?
Luminiferous Aether Exists!
- Thread starter Mazulu
- Start date
You don't seem to be working at it very hard. Is that why your reality is what it is? Lack of commitment? Made any progress on the beam?
I'm having a bit rate problem. For one, I haven't figured out how to go from 12 to 24Gbps using the equation editor. But the real problem seems to be keeping the amplitude constant for a linear frequency chirp. For a 1 to 2 GHz sweep, 12Gbps sampling isn't nearly enough. I need more like 12 trillion samples per second. I dunno. Any thoughts?
Ask the aliens?
Cheezle. All scientists agree inertial acceleration is absolute. Therefore accelerating movement is with respect to an absolute frame of reference that is beyond Relativity domain of applicability. That acceleration frame of reference absolute is space. There is no other frame of reference applicable except that which existed before any Relativity or other theory. So no definition required to communicate absolute acceleration concept which everyone can see and experience themselves through space without needing to know the technical definitions for space or time. In the case of absolute acceleration and its absolute space reference frame, your conclusions that we must define something before we can experience or understand and communicate it do not follow in the case of absolute acceleration and absolute space. Your position therefore has a limited domain of applicability, as do SR and GR and QM theories.
Who is talking about any "absolute frame"? Don't you know that relativity (SR) deals with acceleration just fine?
The above gibberish makes no sense.
More gibberish.
....and even more gibberish.
Tach. Inertial acceleration and Gravity acceleration are two acceleration processes. The first involves action-reaction of forces, the second involves null geodesic effect without any action-reaction involved.
And Inertial acceleration of a body is experienced with respect to absolute space and not as mere SR relativities between bodies, because there is no other absolute frame of reference for an absolute event as Inertial acceleration which is an absolute thing which everyone agrees.
You are silly, rude and write too much gibberish. No call for it. Stop it.
And Inertial acceleration of a body is experienced with respect to absolute space and not as mere SR relativities between bodies, because there is no other absolute frame of reference for an absolute event as Inertial acceleration which is an absolute thing which everyone agrees.
You are silly, rude and write too much gibberish. No call for it. Stop it.
The above is even more nonsense , you are comparing an (absolute} event with (inertial) acceleration.
BTW, what is an "absolute" event?
What are "SR relativities between bodies"? Did you make up this all by yourself?
Tach. You are obtuse or just a troll writing gibberish. Keep away.
I am just pointing out your nonsense that you try passing as science <shrug>
You don't understand the difference between inertial (action-reaction) acceleration process and gravitational (null geodesic with no action-reaction) acceleration process, so you are the one who is silly and writes gibberish and makes rude remarks to cover for your obtuseness or trolling. Please stop your stupidity and keep away from me.
The principle of equivalence says that there is no difference. But how about the other nonsense that I pointed out that you've been posting?
What about action-reaction in the one and no action-reaction in the other do you not understand. This makes them different cases. Equivalence is only in resultant speed from magnitude of net accelerations in both cases, not in the two different processes which may end in that resultant speed. It is very very clear you do not know anything about physics and acceleration processes at most basic level understanding. Please stay away and keep your basic ignorance to yourself.
Try again. In coherent English, please.
You sound suspiciously close to Reiku.
Definitely Reiku.
Tach. You don't know what action-reaction law is? Or null geodesics either? What are you doing on a physics site? How did you get past the moderators if you are so silly and ignorant? And what is "Reiku", your native tongue? You are a trolling and stupid kid. Stay away please.
Yes, Reiku.
You are a sock-puppet of the banned user called "Reiku". The style and the pretentious stupidities you post give you away.
If the generator is not working properly, then have it sent in for repair. Be sure about it though. Repair bills on those things has to be VERY expensive.
If you are having problems using the generator or software, then call the support help desk. They have people who answer questions just like yours. I would not mention the space aliens of gravity beam if I were you.
I am not sure what that has to do with my post. My post was more to do with the philosophical difference between truth and knowledge. Don't get yer panties in a twist. You seem to be trolling for a fight.
Tach. So you say "yes" when asked "You don't know what action-reaction law is? Or null geodesics either?" So you confirm you don't know. You're a troll. No mistaking it. So the only explanation for you being allowed to be that stupid and be on a physics site is that your daddy owns this site and lets you be stupid here instead of in his face. This is your occupational therapy and respite plan for your daddy. Got it.
Right then, anyone here want to reply according to what I said about SR only and no GR or "paths through spacetime" being involved?
Right then, anyone here want to reply according to what I said about SR only and no GR or "paths through spacetime" being involved?
Cheezle. Huh? I was responding to your generalization about nothing being absolute and so on. I made comment on the observed fact agreed to by all scientists that acceleration is absolute in itself and not relative either to nothingness or other bodies. Whether that acceleration is sensible or insensible is a matter of quantitative degree not qualitative fact of absolute acceleration process and effects as such. I have no comment to make on your philosophical view, only on that one generalization you made regarding no absolute concepts in physics (not philosophy).
What knickers in a knot? Who's trolling for a fight? How do you get that from what I posted which correctly stated that absoluteness of acceleration is an exception to your generalized personal and philosophical view I responded to?
If anyone has been trolling for a fight it is that apparently simple Tach kid (does his daddy own the site and let him troll here?) who doesn't know what action-reaction and null geodesics are and keeps repeating what I just told him back to me as if he was the one who said it. And what's with that "Reiku" mantra he keeps mumbling in his posts? My, it seems that people here at this site are all snarky and aquiver, seeing fights and knotted knickers all over the place. Interesting psychology. Worthy of a research project all its own. maybe I'll apply for a grant from my local university to start one. The results might prove to b a perfect candidate for the "Ignobel Prize" even! Thanks for the idea.
What knickers in a knot? Who's trolling for a fight? How do you get that from what I posted which correctly stated that absoluteness of acceleration is an exception to your generalized personal and philosophical view I responded to?
If anyone has been trolling for a fight it is that apparently simple Tach kid (does his daddy own the site and let him troll here?) who doesn't know what action-reaction and null geodesics are and keeps repeating what I just told him back to me as if he was the one who said it. And what's with that "Reiku" mantra he keeps mumbling in his posts? My, it seems that people here at this site are all snarky and aquiver, seeing fights and knotted knickers all over the place. Interesting psychology. Worthy of a research project all its own. maybe I'll apply for a grant from my local university to start one. The results might prove to b a perfect candidate for the "Ignobel Prize" even! Thanks for the idea.
I simply pointed out that you throw buzzwords around while you obviously do not know what you are talking about. That's all.