Aurino,

***Speaking of open-mindedness, are you open-minded enough to admit the possibility that you, lacking the proper education, do not understand physics? Your last post makes no sense at all, it betrays a complete lack of understanding of the subject.***

Maybe I misunderstood your question. Acceleration of motion is gauged based on a frame of reference. See, for example, this well described webpage by Rice University:

http://dacnet.rice.edu/users/ghorbel/3.html

"Position, velocity, and acceleration are absolute quantities and are usually expressed in terms of their components along the unit vectors (I, J, K) of the reference frame."

***Why do you do that? Do you think all there is to physics is reading papers on the web, or treatises by philosophers? That's not how you learn it, the way you learn physics is by practicing it, solving thousands of mathematical problems. If you don't understand the math then you don't understand physics, and you have made it clear that you don't even understand the math of something as basic as what I just presented.***

Aurino, do you think that I didn't go beyond elementary calculus or something? Acceleratoin is a derivative of velocity which is based on position (reference frame) within a coordinate system. Maybe I missed the point that you are trying to make, but if so just make it clear. No reason to get into insults of my mathematical abilities.

***I really don't know what to say.***

Neither do I. Obviously you wanted to make a point but became upset when I mentioned that reference frames are specified in classical and relativity physics.

Warm regards, Harv

• I thought 2 + 2 = 5 - aurino - January 25, 2002 - 20:39 UTC
  • And now you - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 21:56 UTC
• Harwey, wrong page. Aurino is indeed right here. - alexander - January 25, 2002 - 20:46 UTC
  • Not based on internet searches - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 21:17 UTC
    • Correction - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 22:01 UTC
      • Sorry Harv - aurino - January 28, 2002 - 20:49 UTC
        • You have no clue - harvey1 - January 28, 2002 - 21:19 UTC
          • I can be nasty too - aurino - January 28, 2002 - 22:00 UTC
            • Okay - harvey1 - January 28, 2002 - 22:22 UTC
              • Correction - harvey1 - January 28, 2002 - 22:29 UTC
                • You are not paying attention! - doctordick - January 29, 2002 - 21:04 UTC
              • Is this 'professional' wrestling? - harvey1 - January 29, 2002 - 22:08 UTC
                • Tagged out??? - aurino - January 30, 2002 - 13:59 UTC
                  • Oh please - harvey1 - January 30, 2002 - 15:06 UTC
                    • Just who the hell do you think you are? - aurino - January 30, 2002 - 16:15 UTC
                      • Typical response from you (nt) - harvey1 - January 30, 2002 - 17:10 UTC
                • You have the wrong slant on this! - doctordick - January 30, 2002 - 14:07 UTC
              • Simon says? - harvey1 - January 30, 2002 - 15:15 UTC
              • Simon says? (messed up html, read this one) - harvey1 - January 30, 2002 - 15:17 UTC
                • I am very sorry about that! - doctordick - January 31, 2002 - 16:35 UTC
                  • Don't be sorry, Dick - pmartin - January 31, 2002 - 21:52 UTC
              • Are you trying to say that you are a sophisticated realist? - harvey1 - January 31, 2002 - 20:06 UTC
              • Read this one, I just am no good at html - harvey1 - January 31, 2002 - 20:07 UTC
    • Google :) corrections - something - January 26, 2002 - 05:35 UTC
  • Regarding my Rice University reference - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 22:19 UTC