Harv,

Just so that your stupidity becomes more apparent, a better way to define acceleration is a = d(dx/dt)/dt. I would use the proper double-derivative symbol if I had it, but I'm sure you're knowledgeable enough to understand the equation without it.

Now your demand for a definition of velocity becomes a demand for a definition of space. Oh, and you missed the opportunity to be really annoying by demanding a definition for time. But I'm smarter than you and I'll tell you:

space: is whatever you want it to be, in whatever reference frame you want it to be, and whatever else you want to add

time: is whatever you want it to be, in whatever reference frame you want it to be, and whatever else you want to add

If you were smart enough, you'd see that the definition of acceleration applies to whatever you want to apply it. But unfortunately for you, you're not smart enough.

I'm really, really sorry.

• 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