From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Sonntag000001, 01.02.2026 um 19:35 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:   
   > On 2/1/2026 7:23 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >> On 02/01/2026 09:38 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:   
   >>> On 2/1/2026 6:13 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>> On 02/01/2026 07:56 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2/1/2026 2:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> No answer, Maciej?   
   >>>>>> If you hold a ball in your hand, the speed of the ball   
   >>>>>> is zero both in its rest frame and in your rest frame.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That means that it is impossible for you to throw   
   >>>>>> the ball because "velocity 'in own rest frame' is   
   >>>>>> always 0, no acceleration. Sorry, trash."   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, sorry trash, that doesn't mean. Just   
   >>>>> another delusion of yours.   
   >>>>> So, what is your v(t), poor trash? Is   
   >>>>> that some velocity or speed?   
   >>>>> No answer? Of course.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Maciej's law:   
   >>>>>> "It is impossible to make a stationary object move."   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Paul's law:   
   >>>>> "I can write any slander I want to against   
   >>>>> whoever I want to, because I'm a knight of   
   >>>>> The Shit of Einstein".   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> You sit in your car with an accelerometer in your hand.   
   >>>>>>>> The accelerometer shows that your acceleration is a = 2 m/s².   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> No I don't.   
   >>>>>>> Delusions, poor trash. Like always.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And, no, your "accelerometer" doesn't measure   
   >>>>>>> any accelerations.  You're a true idiot buying   
   >>>>>>> this crap.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So I am an idiot because I believe that an "accelerometer"   
   >>>>>> is an instrument which measures acceleration!  :-D   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Right, poor trash. As well as for many other   
   >>>>> reasons.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> It is remarkable that a person who is posting in a sci.physics   
   >>>>>> Usenet group is ignorant of the existence of accelerometers.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Inertial Navigation Systems (INS), also called   
   >>>>>> Inertial Reference Systems (IRS), are used in aircrafts,   
   >>>>>> ships, submarines, missiles, spacecrafts, robots, drones,   
   >>>>>> you name it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Probably - they're just different   
   >>>>> devices than the one from those gedanken   
   >>>>> delusions of yours and they don't measure   
   >>>>> your "proper acceleration" which has nothing   
   >>>>> in common with any acceleration and thus   
   >>>>> is completely insigniificant for any sane   
   >>>>> person.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ring laser gyro or atomic clock lattice array?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Inertial Navigation Systems (INS).   
   >>>   
   >>> Since your idiot guru has announced   
   >>> that you shouldn't distinguish acceleration   
   >>> from gravity by some Laws of Nature he   
   >>> invented, and having windows you can -   
   >>> you're trying to eliminate windows, or,   
   >>> at least imagine a perfect world where   
   >>> no evil windows are disturbing  your   
   >>> sweet harmony with The Laws of Nature   
   >>> [invented by your idiot guru]. In   
   >>> the reality, however, windows exist   
   >>> and are widely used.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Employing Sagnac effect or space-contraction?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Otherwise with regards to gyroscopic effect.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Which classical mechanics leaves out, ....   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The usual notions of observability in relativity theory   
   >> particular about the visibly observable are largely as   
   >> for the stereoscopic and about 'parallax'.   
   >   
   > Whatever, and still in the real world   
   > windows exist and are widely used.   
      
      
      
   Relative  motion is the topic of relativity theory and relative motion   
   causes such effects.   
      
   Because light has finite speed, relative motion of c in respect to some   
   emitter will cause a frequency shift to zero Hz, what would make any   
   signal invisible.   
      
   Accelerate further and we would encounter negative frequency, what   
   should be invisible, too.   
      
   Actually 'visibility' is limited to a very small range of frequencies,   
   which the human eyes is able to detect.   
      
   But relative motion would allow a much larger range of velocities and   
   would allow objects to drop out of the narrow window of visibility for   
   relative small relative velocities.   
      
   SRT is mainly about this effect, but erronously ascribed the effect to   
   the observed object, while it is actually caused by the relative motion   
   of the observer.   
      
   Similar to frequency we have also an effect of relative velocity upon   
   the percieved form of an object, which flies by at high speed.   
      
   That is called 'length contraction' by relativity, which is meant as   
   real shrinking of the observed object, while in fact the picture of the   
   object received by the observer gets deformed by relative motion.   
      
   The same error resurfaced as 'time dilation', too. Actually SRT does not   
   deal properly with the delay cause by the finite speed of light and   
   ascribed the delay of the signal to the source, while it actually would   
   belong to the transit.   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)