Relative motion from individual motion
kenseto
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
C is moving wrt him at Vac
D is moving wrt him at Vad
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D have
been changed.
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
motion of A by acceleration.
5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived from
the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative motion
between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector component
of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual motion
along the line joining A and B.
Ken Seto
PD
kenseto wrote:
> 1.Observer A measures the following:
> B is moving wrt to him at Vab
> C is moving wrt him at Vac
> D is moving wrt him at Vad
> 2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
> 3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D have
> been changed.
> 4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
> motion of A by acceleration.
Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of *relative* motion with
respect to some reference.
I don't know where you got the idea that acceleration is the rate of
change of *absolute* motion.
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: I am glad that you left the specificity of speed of light out.
I already assume A, B, C and D are traveling along a "SRT" straight
line (not GR)..
PD needs to be informed that you meant that all observations are made
by inertial frames (SRT, again) and acceleration is only mentioned as a
way to denote/supply a reason for the difference and changes in an
inertial/constant velocity.
As stated, point 5 is correct, but it comes with baggage. The vector
difference is reduced to a speed. BUT how do you measure this speed?
By lightspeed? Reflection time? The time to get a light response?
TWLS???
The problem arises in that TWLS provides the relationship that you
describe (yes, I understand the whole thing). It would be skewed with
OWLS only in the sense that there is a preferred frame from which to
relate. In SRT, there is no problem with this except for the 2
postulates that dictate "how" to use an equivilant math.
This dictate (no preferrable frame), still allows a preferrable frame
wrt c if there is OWLS. Iow, SRT just tells us what we will measure
--- not the physic that supplies the conditions necessary for this
measurement. That is why I harp on subjectivity vs. objectivity. One
is a physic and the other is a "theory of measurement" (subjectively
applied).
TWLS is the principle that SRT is based upon. It is very good because
that is what we effectively measure (from our subjective pov). But it
is not a description of the 'objective' physic that we still must
understand (well, some of us).
SRT works for fish in an inertial river. It ignores the bank. Picture
sound waves that have a definite velocity in the water and you can
still obtain an SRT-type theory with identical math for the subjective
observer (fish), if the bank is ignored. TWLS vs. OWLS. The sound
(in the river flow) has a different relation to the bank, however. It
depends on how fast the river is streaming. Do you think that a
difference in speed of the river flow will NOT affect how fast the
sound wave will travel wrt the bank?
If we were a rock in the river, we can assert that the river-flow will
contain the properties for the sound wave. We can assert that the
river-flow acceleration will change those properties (or the relation
of those measureable properties). We tend to make the assertion that a
bank is not there because we have developed a math that describes what
we observe.
Just because we cannot "see" a bank as fish in water, it does not mean
a bank doesn't exist. If some asteriod came into the gravitational
influence of the Earth on it's eventual path toward the Sun, don't you
think the Earth acted as a bank (reverse perhaps) but still an
influence on the asteriod's path? Did the Earth act as a 'rock' in the
river that diverted the flow of water in the river? What of light in
gravity (sound in a river)?
We know full well that mass bends a lightpath. What is the "overt"
(and objective) mechanism that makes this so? What makes energy flow
so different from a river and its internal (subjective) pov?
Simple. We make theory from less than complete knowlege. Witches will
survive drowning. If you survive, we know you are a witch. Therefor,
we will kill you by other means. No way out if you are suspected. Is
this logic true, or is it what we practice today?
Theories don't have a larger logic. They are assumptions of how things
work. OK? We can get caught up in any belief. And make theory. And
make math along the concept. We bend the math for the belief by
introducing a concept for which the math can apply. Does this assume
that math cannot be applied along a different conceptual belief?
Why is the math for relative velocities not linear? Do we have an
unrecognised factor at work here? If c were a constant OWLS in MY
frame, wouldn't I have to conclude that my frame was preferred to all
others?
Even though G, M, c and R have subjective relationships, they are
profoundly different from any integration of them from current concept.
This not is because G, M, c and R are not described except as a
relationships, it is because we don't know what G, M, c and R are
besides a relationship of our own concept. But this shows the limit to
our awareness of a physic.
I am speaking beyond the comprehension of you or this group, but be
aware that no concept or belief will change the basic physic of this
universe (or beyond).
kenseto
<xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1153191813.1...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The purpose of this thread is not how to measure relative speed. It is to
show that relative motion is derived from individual motion.
However, it is interesting that relative speed between a moving source and
the observer must be measured by assuming that OWLS and TWLS is a constant
c.
> The problem arises in that TWLS provides the relationship that you
> describe (yes, I understand the whole thing). It would be skewed with
> OWLS only in the sense that there is a preferred frame from which to
> relate. In SRT, there is no problem with this except for the 2
> postulates that dictate "how" to use an equivilant math.
There is no problem. The speed of light as measured by all observer is a
constant math ratio as follow:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the ruler.
>
> This dictate (no preferrable frame), still allows a preferrable frame
> wrt c if there is OWLS.
No it doesn't dictate "no preferred frame".
>Iow, SRT just tells us what we will measure
> --- not the physic that supplies the conditions necessary for this
> measurement. That is why I harp on subjectivity vs. objectivity. One
> is a physic and the other is a "theory of measurement" (subjectively
> applied).
>
> TWLS is the principle that SRT is based upon. It is very good because
> that is what we effectively measure (from our subjective pov). But it
> is not a description of the 'objective' physic that we still must
> understand (well, some of us).
IRT contains both subjective and objective physics. A description of IRT is
in the following link page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
>
>
> We know full well that mass bends a lightpath. What is the "overt"
> (and objective) mechanism that makes this so?
The mechanism is that light is being transmitteds by a stationary,
structured and elastic ether called the E-Matrix and thus it will follow the
geometry (distortion) of the local E-Matrix on its way to the detector.
>What makes energy flow
> so different from a river and its internal (subjective) pov?
>
> Simple. We make theory from less than complete knowlege. Witches will
> survive drowning. If you survive, we know you are a witch. Therefor,
> we will kill you by other means. No way out if you are suspected. Is
> this logic true, or is it what we practice today?
>
> Theories don't have a larger logic. They are assumptions of how things
> work. OK? We can get caught up in any belief. And make theory. And
> make math along the concept. We bend the math for the belief by
> introducing a concept for which the math can apply. Does this assume
> that math cannot be applied along a different conceptual belief?
>
> Why is the math for relative velocities not linear? Do we have an
> unrecognised factor at work here? If c were a constant OWLS in MY
> frame, wouldn't I have to conclude that my frame was preferred to all
> others?
That's what SR assumes. That's why SR claims that all clocks mvoing wrt you
are running slow. However, this SR assertion makes SR incomplete.In real
life all observers are in a state of absolute motion and thus each observer
will see some clocks moving wrt him are running slow and some are running
fast.
Ken Seto
PD
kenseto wrote:
>
> The purpose of this thread is not how to measure relative speed. It is to
> show that relative motion is derived from individual motion.
> However, it is interesting that relative speed between a moving source and
> the observer must be measured by assuming that OWLS and TWLS is a constant
> c.
There is no "must". The relative speed between a moving source and an
observer can be measured in a number of ways, especially if the source
passes the observer. If the source does not pass the observer, then you
are relying on signals sent from the source to the observer. What the
signal is depends on the nature of the source and what lies in between.
If there is a material medium and some of the signal radiated from the
source is displacement of that medium, then you can use sonic signals
to measure the speed of the source without assuming anything about
light whatsoever. However, if there is no medium between the source and
the observer, then the number of signal options gets reduced. You can
use particles emitted from the source, such as protons and neutrinos,
especially if you know the energy of the protons and neutrinos when
they are emitted from the source. However, if those are scarce or hard
to detect, then you can use an abundant and easily detected particle, a
photon. In this case, you also do not assume anything about c. What you
*do* assume is that if you have two lines narrowly separated like they
are for a sodium source on earth, then these are still associated with
sodium in the source, even though they do not have the same wavelength.
The shift in the wavelength in this case tells you something about the
speed of the source. Handy, yes. Must, no.
PD
AllYou!
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:ssJug.45264$Eh1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> 1.Observer A measures the following:
> B is moving wrt to him at Vab
> C is moving wrt him at Vac
> D is moving wrt him at Vad
> 2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial
> again.
> 3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and
> D have
> been changed.
> 4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the
> individual
> motion of A by acceleration.
> 5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived
> from
> the individual motions of the two objects as follows:
Nope. The relative *speed* between any two objects must be derived
from the change in distance between them per unit time.
> The relative motion
> between two objects A and B is the...........
...........change in distance between them per unit time.
Sam Wormley
Way simpler than that, Seto--relative velocity is just dr/dt, the
derivative with respect to time of the distance between two objects.
Mike
PD wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> > 1.Observer A measures the following:
> > B is moving wrt to him at Vab
> > C is moving wrt him at Vac
> > D is moving wrt him at Vad
> > 2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
> > 3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D have
> > been changed.
> > 4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
> > motion of A by acceleration.
>
> Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of *relative* motion with
> respect to some reference.
and it is the same in all inertial FoR. Hardly relative.
>
> I don't know where you got the idea that acceleration is the rate of
> change of *absolute* motion.
Centripetal acceleration is. Newton showed that to you long time ago.
unless you believe that when you spin your head around it is actually
the whole universe that spins around you, that is unless you are a
waco.
Mike
kenseto
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZ...@conversent.net...
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:ssJug.45264$Eh1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> > 1.Observer A measures the following:
> > B is moving wrt to him at Vab
> > C is moving wrt him at Vac
> > D is moving wrt him at Vad
> > 2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial
> > again.
> > 3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and
> > D have
> > been changed.
> > 4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the
> > individual
> > motion of A by acceleration.
> > 5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived
> > from
> > the individual motions of the two objects as follows:
>
> Nope. The relative *speed* between any two objects must be derived
> from the change in distance between them per unit time.
So how do you achieve a change in distance without individual motion?
kenseto
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Hqqvg.42907$FQ1.2954@attbi_s71...
Hey idiot....how do you get dr without individual motion?
Randy Poe
kenseto wrote:
> "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZ...@conversent.net...
> > from the change in distance between them per unit time.
>
> So how do you achieve a change in distance without individual motion?
You get a change in relative distance by having relative motion.
- Randy
PD
r is defined as a distance *relative* to some reference point. The
change dr is the change in that *relative* distance.
There is no such thing as absolute position. There is only position
relative to some reference.
PD
PD
r is defined as a distance *relative* to some reference point. The
kenseto
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153327782....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
How do you get relative motion without individual motion?
You and I are standing next to each other with no relative motion between
us. How can we have relative motion if one or both of us are moving
individually??
Randy Poe
You just said we don't have any relative motion.
> if one or both of us are moving individually??
If there is any relative motion, then you are in relative motion to
me, and I am to you. It isn't "individual". We are either both in
relative motion with respect to each other, or there is no
relative motion.
- Randy
kenseto
ROTFLOL.....I demontrated to you that relative motion is born from
individual motion....how can you keep on denying that there is no individual
motion?
Randy Poe
Because for you, "demonstration" consists of repeating nonsense
over and over. It doesn't involve actual logic or reasoning, and
thus it is less than convincing.
"Sigh", "ROTFLOL" and "Idiot" are also not convincing logical
arguments. There's no such thing as "proof by sighing" or "proof
by laughing".
- Randy
AllYou!
If by motion, you mean a change in position, how do you achieve a
change in position without a reference?
AllYou!
How do you get dr without a reference?
Sam Wormley
>> Way simpler than that, Seto--relative velocity is just dr/dt, the
>> derivative with respect to time of the distance between two objects.
>
> Hey idiot....how do you get dr without individual motion?
>
r is the distance one object *measures* with respect to the other,
say with a laser range finder, radar, sound echo, ruler, etc. How
close are you to your mommy... that's the distance, r, between you
and your mommy.
Do it again to get the change in distance, r, between you and your
mommy. It's all relative Seto.
tomgee
wrong side? I've told you before that each discrete object or system
has abs. motion that can be compared to the abs. motions of other
objects or systems, the results of which are calculated between them
based on their relative motions. There is no other object in Newton's
sole object in his law 1, so there is no relative motion in it, so that
means his sole object is moving at abs. motion. What more "proof"
do you need?
tomgee
Sam Wormley wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> >
SNIP
> > 5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived from
> > the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative motion
> > between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector component
> > of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual motion
> > along the line joining A and B.
> >
> > Ken Seto
> >
> >
> Way simpler than that, Seto--relative velocity is just dr/dt, the
> derivative with respect to time of the distance between two objects.
>
aminal as relative motion except as a math construct, and
as such, abs. motion is reality and "relative motion" is only
a measurement, a tool, a figment of our imaginations, a
derivative, if you will, as you say above. Keep on thinking
like that and you might get thrown out of the Stooges' group,
as they don't allow their members to be right too often.
tomgee
PD wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > news:Hqqvg.42907$FQ1.2954@attbi_s71...
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > 1.Observer A measures the following:
> > > >
>
> r is defined as a distance *relative* to some reference point. The
> change dr is the change in that *relative* distance.
>
> There is no such thing as absolute position. There is only position
> relative to some reference.
>
Or your eyes? Or is that one of your famous tricks of distraction?
Master of the Twist 'n Turn tactic of misinterpretation of what others
say, it shows what contempt you hold for others who show more
brains than you.
First, there is abs. motion, then there are our math tools. We use
our math tools to compare the abs. motions of objects (otherwise
defined as "individual motions" elsewhere in this thread), and we
call such comparisons of abs. motion, "relative motion".
PD
tomgee wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > kenseto wrote:
> > > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Hqqvg.42907$FQ1.2954@attbi_s71...
> > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > 1.Observer A measures the following:
> > > > >
> SNIP
> >
> > r is defined as a distance *relative* to some reference point. The
> > change dr is the change in that *relative* distance.
> >
> > There is no such thing as absolute position. There is only position
> > relative to some reference.
> >
> "Absolute POSITION"??? Something wrong with your computer PD?
> Or your eyes? Or is that one of your famous tricks of distraction?
For the illiterate, I will attempt to fill in the gaps. The question
you snipped was how one gets dr without individual motion. d is a
shorthand algebraic symbol for "infinitesimal change in", and so dr
means "infinitesimal change in r". r in turn denotes position relative
to some reference. So dr means "infinitesimal change in position
relative to some reference". dr/dt means "the instantaneous rate of
change of position relative to some reference". There... does that help
fill in some of the gaps for you, TomGee?
> Master of the Twist 'n Turn tactic of misinterpretation of what others
> say, it shows what contempt you hold for others who show more
> brains than you.
>
> First, there is abs. motion,
Why, no, TomGee, no there's not absolute motion. Not at all. Certainly
not first, but in fact not at all.
> then there are our math tools. We use
> our math tools to compare the abs. motions of objects (otherwise
> defined as "individual motions" elsewhere in this thread), and we
> call such comparisons of abs. motion, "relative motion".
Actually, no we don't. We do *not* derive relative motions from
individual motions. We simply do not. It's not in the definition of
dr/dt at all.
PD
AllYou!
"tomgee" <tyro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153340303.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Randy, you done shit the stick here. Why are you always taking the
> wrong side? I've told you before that each discrete object or
> system
> has abs. motion that can be compared to the abs. motions of other
> objects or systems, the results of which are calculated between them
> based on their relative motions.
That's an unsupported opinion. The only way to measure the speed of
an object, or to even know if the object is in motion is to measure it
change in position relative to some other object. You've yet to even
begin to describe how it could be done otherwise.
> There is no other object in Newton's
> sole object in his law 1, so there is no relative motion in it, so
> that
> means his sole object is moving at abs. motion. What more "proof"
> do you need?
Newton was describing inertia, not motion, and so no other object was
required. Why would a second object be required in order to describe
inertia?
AllYou!
Can you support that opinion?
AllYou!
> There is no such
> aminal as relative motion except as a math construct,
So when I see you moving away from me, you're claiming that you're not
really moving, but just constructing math?
Mike
The only well-defined spatiotemporal relations are relative. This is
known since antiquity. You now come in naive ways to challenge these
notions. There is no verifiable absolute reference frame wrt which
absolute change in position can be defined. All position measurements
are relative to some reference frame, preferable inertial or an
appromation of such frame, kike the fixed stars.
In order to understnad that position and velocity are relative all you
need is to consider two bodies in inertial motion. Either one can be
taken as the frame of reference and the corresponding position change
magnitude is the same. This is what is meant by "relative motion". It
is called such because it is well-defined. On the contrary, absolute
position change is not well-defined because there is not a verifiable
absolute frame of reference.
Things get complicated when considering accelerations. You do not need
another reference frame to measure acceleration. It is
self-referential. But this does not necessarily imply the existence of
absolute space but only its sufficiency for absolute acceleration.
There are other alternavives like a spacetime structure that can
support absolute acceleration without compromizing relational
properties.
You are confusing individual motion with spatiotemporal quantities.
This is a very basic mistake. the fact that individual motion is needed
to change spatiotemporal quantities does not necessarily imply absolute
motion. This is because for each individual body in inertial motion
there is no apparent change in position unless there is another body to
refer such change to and this is what you must comnprehend. if there
were only one body in the universe moving inertially, an observer on it
could not determine its motion in a self-referential manner unless
there were to be another body around.
This is really trivial issues and I wonder what has made you so
confused about them.
Mike
Sorcerer
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153342683.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| tomgee wrote:
| > PD wrote:
| > > kenseto wrote:
| > > > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
| > > > news:Hqqvg.42907$FQ1.2954@attbi_s71...
| > > > > kenseto wrote:
| > > > > > 1.Observer A measures the following:
| > > > > >
| > SNIP
| > >
| > > r is defined as a distance *relative* to some reference point. The
| > > change dr is the change in that *relative* distance.
| > >
| > > There is no such thing as absolute position. There is only position
| > > relative to some reference.
| > >
| > "Absolute POSITION"??? Something wrong with your computer PD?
| > Or your eyes? Or is that one of your famous tricks of distraction?
|
| For the illiterate, I will attempt to fill in the gaps. The question
| you snipped
LOL!
Good at snipping, aren't you, you fuckin' troll. Tomgee has the measure of
you, moron.
YOU are the illiterate, Phuckwit Duck.
Slow down my clock by moving it, moron. As fast as you like.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif
You can't because you haven't a clue about physics, let alone electronics.
Androcles
Androcles.
PD
Whew! Someone left their bait out on the doorstep too long, and it's
smelling to high heaven!
PD
Sorcerer
Of course it is bait, but it's staying in the water. Didn't even look, did
you?
You'd rather gossip than discuss physics. That's why you are an illiterate
moron, another Hammond, jamming the signal with as much noise as you
can manage. I don't gossip about you, Phuckwit Duck. I'm not a hypocrite,
I tell you to your face you are cunt. Tomgee may not be bright, but he's
a fuckin' star compared to you.
Androcles.
PD
Sure I looked. The bait there smelled just as bad. When you are ready
to discuss physics, then I may choose to join in.
So far I've asked you how scintillator can slow a superluminal muon to
be subliminal, and yet show the same energy deposition as the
subsequent scintillator through which the subliminal muon passes. You
asked me whether I still beat my mother. Now, Androcles, you look at
your own unsnipped words below and tell me who is being the
hypocritical prick.
Sorcerer
You don't know any physics, you can't join in.
| So far I've asked you how scintillator can slow a superluminal muon to
| be subliminal,
subliminal
One entry found for subliminal.
Function: adjective
Etymology: sub- + Latin limin-, limen threshold
1 : inadequate to produce a sensation or a perception
2 : existing or functioning below the threshold of consciousness <the
subliminal mind> <subliminal advertising>
- sub·lim·i·nal·ly adverb
Your reputation in America regardless, your reputation here is that
you do not mean what you say, and you do not say what you mean.
Androcles.
PD
> | > Of course it is bait, but it's staying in the water. Didn't even look,
> did
> | > you?
> |
> | Sure I looked. The bait there smelled just as bad. When you are ready
> | to discuss physics, then I may choose to join in.
>
> You don't know any physics, you can't join in.
>
> | So far I've asked you how scintillator can slow a superluminal muon to
> | be subliminal,
>
> subliminal
> One entry found for subliminal.
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: sub- + Latin limin-, limen threshold
> 1 : inadequate to produce a sensation or a perception
> 2 : existing or functioning below the threshold of consciousness <the
> subliminal mind> <subliminal advertising>
> - sub·lim·i·nal·ly adverb
>
> Your reputation in America regardless, your reputation here is that
> you do not mean what you say, and you do not say what you mean.
>
:>)
Apparently.
My apologies for the gaffe. Please substitute "subluminal" for
"subliminal" and try again.
Or do you want to ask me if I beat my mother again, you hypocrite, you?
PD
tomgee
PD wrote:
> tomgee wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:Hqqvg.42907$FQ1.2954@attbi_s71...
> > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > 1.Observer A measures the following:
> > > > > >
> > SNIP
> > >
> > > r is defined as a distance *relative* to some reference point. The
> > > change dr is the change in that *relative* distance.
> > >
> > > There is no such thing as absolute position. There is only position
> > > relative to some reference.
> > >
> > "Absolute POSITION"??? Something wrong with your computer PD?
> > Or your eyes? Or is that one of your famous tricks of distraction?
>
> For the illiterate, I will attempt to fill in the gaps. The question
> you snipped was how one gets dr without individual motion. d is a
> shorthand algebraic symbol for "infinitesimal change in", and so dr
> means "infinitesimal change in r".
>
individual motion is a math construct, a rate of change, a figment of
our imaginations, having nothing to do with "individual motion" since
there is no abs. position, right? Seto is catering to you Stooges'
numb brains by calling abs. motion "individual motion", but I took
off my kid gloves long ago when you first started lyin' and cheating
to make yourselves look good.
You have been brainwashed to think there is no abs. motion, and
you cannot see that term as anything more than an attack on the
status quo of Modern Physics, so you will say anything to try to
prevent anyone seeing your bare asses passing by in parade.
>
> r in turn denotes position relative
> to some reference. So dr means "infinitesimal change in position
> relative to some reference". dr/dt means "the instantaneous rate of
> change of position relative to some reference". There... does that help
> fill in some of the gaps for you, TomGee?
>
You mean the gaps left by your massless photons as the em
wave expands? Oh no, that's right, you answered that fairytale
with another one, the Probabilities argument! I'm still chuckling
in my sleep over that one.
>
> > Master of the Twist 'n Turn tactic of misinterpretation of what others
> > say, it shows what contempt you hold for others who show more
> > brains than you.
> >
> > First, there is abs. motion,
>
> Why, no, TomGee, no there's not absolute motion. Not at all. Certainly
> not first, but in fact not at all.
>
In your dreams, that's true, but in the real world, there is only abs.
motion and anything else is a fictional math construct that all the
Stooges believe is reality, even though they know math is a tool
to measure with and not representative of reality.
>
> > then there are our math tools. We use
> > our math tools to compare the abs. motions of objects (otherwise
> > defined as "individual motions" elsewhere in this thread), and we
> > call such comparisons of abs. motion, "relative motion".
>
> Actually, no we don't. We do *not* derive relative motions from
> individual motions. We simply do not. It's not in the definition of
> dr/dt at all.
>
Of course not. How could there be any real motion in a
measurement? Only in a fairytale where relative motion
measurements are believed to be real, that's how. That
is beyond your ability to comprehend, PD et al, because
you can't tell what's real and what isn't.
shuba
Thomas Garcia wrote:
> math is a tool
> to measure with and not representative of reality.
Measuring tools do represent reality.
You're wrong about mathematics, too.
---Tim Shuba---
Sorcerer
You don't see the point of the question, do you?
I means that I'm assuming something that may not be true, just as you do
constantly. Such questions are objected to in a court of law and the
objection
is invariably sustained. You are obviously too thick to see that.
A scintillator will slow a muon the same way the ocean will slow a jetliner,
with a splash of water to show for it. You are obviously too thick to see
that.
Androcles.
PD
Mike
kenseto wrote:
> 1.Observer A measures the following:
> C is moving wrt him at Vac
> D is moving wrt him at Vad
Good.
> 2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
Good
> 3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D have
> been changed.
Good
> 4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
> motion of A by acceleration.
No. the 'cause" is not clear at all. This is the result.
> 5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived from
> the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative motion
> between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector component
> of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual motion
> along the line joining A and B.
>
First of all, I do nto understand why you had to include four object.
Two are enough for your example.
Then, the fact that A accelerated does not change the fact that the
vector rAB is a relative measure and there is no absolute reference C
so that:
rCB = rAB+rAC
and these quantities measured.
So you are talking metaphysics. You want to claim that since A
accelerated then the relative change in position is caused by the
absolute motion of A. But such argument is circular since it assumes
absolute motion in the first place. That is, you conclusion carries
your assumption which is not verifiable.
Mike
> Ken Seto
kenseto
Idiot....no individaul motion no relative motion.
kenseto
Sigh....you achieve a change of position by individual motion as follows:
The relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference
of the vector component of A's individual motion and the vector component
of B's individual motion along the line joining A and B.
No individual motion by A or B .....no relative moiton and no change of
position.
Ken Seto
kenseto
The nonsense is on your indoctrinated mind.
kenseto
Mike
This is obvious. So what is exactly the point you want to make?
Mike
>
> Ken Seto
kenseto
The point is that individual motion exists. No reference is needed for
individual motion.
Mike
Empirically, to determine that something has moved you need something
else to refer the motion to.
Thus, individual motion can only be infered from relative motion
kinematically speaking. Try to understand this.
>From a dynamic perspective, you can infer individual motion only when
accelerating. Not in the case of inertial motion. Thus, individual
motion in general cannot be infered in a self referential empirical
manner.
Therefore, from an empirical standpoint the only well-defined motion is
relative. Individual motion is only infered, not determined.
Mike
AllYou!
You reply is unresponsive, and I'll show you exactly how:
You begin by claiming that you're going to be responsive when you say
"you achieve a change of position by individual motion as follows:",
but then you immediately proceed to discuss relative motion and how
it's achieved (i.e., quantified) through the comparison of individual
motions (i.e., vector difference between two individual motions). Do
you see it now? You've based your claim about relative motion on
individual motion, and so now I'm asking you how you achieve (i.e.,
quantify) individual motion (i.e., change in position) without a
reference. <sigh>
Care to try again?
Mike
he is confusing spatiotemporal quantities, which are relative, with the
notion of motion of a body or particle, which is a self evident fact,
i.e. things are known to move around.
But there is no way to determine spatiotemporal quantities from just
the notion of motion of individual bodies. Further, to claim that
relative spatiotemporal quantities are caused by individual motion is
just an assumption which cannot be proved because there is no absolute
reference to determine each motion and compare it to the relative
measured motion.
Mike
surrealis...@hotmail.com
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > kenseto wrote:
> > > "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1153327782....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZ...@conversent.net...
> > > > > > from the change in distance between them per unit time.
> > > > >
> > > > > So how do you achieve a change in distance without individual motion?
> > > >
> > >
> > > How do you get relative motion without individual motion?
> > > You and I are standing next to each other with no relative motion between
> > > us. How can we have relative motion
> >
> > You just said we don't have any relative motion.
> >
> > > if one or both of us are moving individually??
> >
> > If there is any relative motion, then you are in relative motion to
> > me, and I am to you. It isn't "individual". We are either both in
> > relative motion with respect to each other, or there is no
> > relative motion.
> >
> wrong side? I've told you before that each discrete object or system
> has abs. motion that can be compared to the abs. motions of other
> objects or systems, the results of which are calculated between them
> based on their relative motions.
Then tell us which frame it is that absolute rest occurs.
> There is no other object in Newton's
> sole object in his law 1, so there is no relative motion in it, so that
>
> means his sole object is moving at abs. motion. What more "proof"
> do you need?
Such is the problem common with pre-operational definitions in physics!
I will present Newton's First law without appealing to any notion of an
absolute rest space.
Newton's First Law should be re-stated along this line (kinematics
before dynamics):
Let there be a rigid physical frame F setup to establish
spacio-temporal coordinates (with some clock synchronization operation
defined) at all points of the frame (an idealization, of course, but it
can be approximated in reality). Let F be in such a state of uniform
motion such that, relative to the fixed stars, F is in constant linear
motion without rotation.
Now, let P be a particle observable in F. P is said to be in inertial
motion if it is in a state of uniform motion such that, relative to F,
P is in constant linear motion (including being "at rest" relative to
frame F as a special case where its speed relative to F is zero). We
now introduce the dynamical concept of force as a cause of deviation
from inertial motion: P is said to be acted on by an unballanced
(nonzero) external force if and only if it is in non-inertial motion.
Inertial motion of P as seen from F corresponds to P being acted upon
by zero unballanced external force.
Note: The more epigrammatic one makes a statement of a physical law,
the more tendency there is to embue the law with misconceptions,
especially to novices.
Mike
You next define inertial motion of a particle in terms of the inertial
motion of the frame.
You must understand that circular definitions are of no value.
>
> Now, let P be a particle observable in F. P is said to be in inertial
> motion if it is in a state of uniform motion such that, relative to F,
> P is in constant linear motion (including being "at rest" relative to
> frame F as a special case where its speed relative to F is zero). We
> now introduce the dynamical concept of force as a cause of deviation
> from inertial motion: P is said to be acted on by an unballanced
> (nonzero) external force if and only if it is in non-inertial motion.
> Inertial motion of P as seen from F corresponds to P being acted upon
> by zero unballanced external force.
Thus, in your attempt, in order to define inertial motion one must be
able to first define a frame in inertial motion.
>
> Note: The more epigrammatic one makes a statement of a physical law,
> the more tendency there is to embue the law with misconceptions,
> especially to novices.
However, circular reasoning does not solve the problem either.
Mike
PD
I see. And the size of the splash will be the same as the one created
when the jetliner hits the next ocean underneath?
I must be thick, as you say. I have muons traveling through a stack of
scintillators, and I know the distance between successive scintillators
and I can measure the time of the signals from each scintillators to
high precision. Moreover, I can measure the energy deposited by the
passing muon in each scintillator.
Observation: Using the distance between scintillators 1 and 2, and the
time between the signals deposited, I find that the speed of the muon
between scintillators 1 and 2 is a hair under c. Repeating the same for
scintillators 2 and 3 for the same muon, I find the same result.
Repeating the same for scintillators 3 and 4 for the same muon, I find
the same result.
Observeration: The energy deposited in each scintillator is the same
within a percent or so.
If the muon was superluminal before hitting scintillator 1, please
explain these observations. Or am I assuming something that may not be
true?
PD
tomgee
position before he measures a second time.
>
> > > > > > 5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived
> > > > from
> > > > > > the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative
> > > > motion
> > > > > > between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector
> > > > component
> > > > > > of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual
> > > > motion
> > > > > > along the line joining A and B.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > First of all, I do nto understand why you had to include four object.
> > > > > Two are enough for your example.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, the fact that A accelerated does not change the fact that the
> > > > > vector rAB is a relative measure and there is no absolute reference C
> > > > > so that:
> > > > >
> > > > > rCB = rAB+rAC
> > > > >
> > > > > and these quantities measured.
> > > > >
> > > > > So you are talking metaphysics. You want to claim that since A
> > > > > accelerated then the relative change in position is caused by the
> > > > > absolute motion of A. But such argument is circular since it assumes
> > > > > absolute motion in the first place. That is, you conclusion carries
> > > > > your assumption which is not verifiable.
> > > >
to do is to explain mathematically what is observed, but with little
success. What is observed is what he's calling "individual motion",
and no one can deny that is a valid application to that observation.
The fact that we cannot empirically remove all other objects so that
we may test whether or not a sole object still has motion does not
impugn the fact of motion. We must accept the fact of individual
motion because we know that some objects move without the aid
of forces from other objects. That is to say, the motions of two
stars, e.g., far apart in the universe cannot be said to affect each
other.
If we accept the basic concept of the BBT, the initial motion of all
discrete objects was caused by the BB explosion. Only later did
the relative motions of objects affect each other. To say that there
can be no motion unless it is relative motion is to deny the BBT as
well as Newton's 1st law of motion. Besides, that's a silly notion
anyway. Relative motion does indeed require a reference point,
but individual motion, aka absolute motion, does not.
Newton's 1st law has a sole object moving on its own when no
external forces are acting upon it, meaning that objects can move
on their own without the existence of other objects. Relative motion
is simply a comparison of motions between objects, it is not a
requirement for motion to exist.
>
> > > > The relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference
> > > > of the vector component of A's individual motion and the vector
> > component
> > > > of B's individual motion along the line joining A and B.
> > > > No individual motion by A or B .....no relative moiton and no change of
> > > > position.
> > >
> > > This is obvious. So what is exactly the point you want to make?
> >
> > The point is that individual motion exists. No reference is needed for
> > individual motion.
>
> Empirically, to determine that something has moved you need something
> else to refer the motion to.
>
> Thus, individual motion can only be infered from relative motion
> kinematically speaking. Try to understand this.
>
Everyone understands that, but you are saying that motion can
only be determined wrt another ref. point, and that is not the point
Seto making. He is not trying to determine that something has
moved, nor to measure that motion. He is trying to explain that
motion does not have to be measured in order for it to be motion.
To say that it does is to say that motion cannot exist unless and
until we can measure it. Now, how stupid is that?
>
> >From a dynamic perspective, you can infer individual motion only when
> accelerating. Not in the case of inertial motion. Thus, individual
> motion in general cannot be infered in a self referential empirical
> manner.
>
That's crap and you know it. If you don't know it, that's metaphysics.
>
> Therefore, from an empirical standpoint the only well-defined motion is
> relative. Individual motion is only infered, not determined.
>
So individual motion is only inferred, eh? Well, guess what? To
infer is to conclude something on the basis of evidence or
reasoning. What is your reasoning or evidence, in the face of all
of mine, that there can be no motion unless and until it can be
compared to a ref. point?
PD
TomGee, rather than all of this machismo and chest-beating, why don't
you tell us how you know that absolute motion exists.
I'm expecting your answer to be something of the form, "Because it
seems intuitive to me, and you haven't proven to me that it doesn't
exist."
Can you do better than my low expectation?
Ken, by the way, believes that the only way to measure relative motion
is by subtracting two absolute motions, and this is how he knows that
absolute motion exists. Of course, Ken is an idiot. Can you do better
than him?
PD
tomgee
>
> > There is no other object in Newton's
> > sole object in his law 1, so there is no relative motion in it, so that
> >
> > means his sole object is moving at abs. motion. What more "proof"
> > do you need?
>
> Such is the problem common with pre-operational definitions in physics!
>
>
> I will present Newton's First law without appealing to any notion of an
> absolute rest space.
>
> Newton's First Law should be re-stated along this line (kinematics
> before dynamics):
>
> Let there be a rigid physical frame F setup to establish
> spacio-temporal coordinates (with some clock synchronization operation
> defined) at all points of the frame (an idealization, of course, but it
> can be approximated in reality). Let F be in such a state of uniform
> motion such that, relative to the fixed stars, F is in constant linear
> motion without rotation.
>
uniform motion. That's something you have added to it.
>
> Now, let P be a particle observable in F. P is said to be in inertial
> motion if it is in a state of uniform motion such that, relative to F,
> P is in constant linear motion (including being "at rest" relative to
> frame F as a special case where its speed relative to F is zero).
>
>
> We
> now introduce the dynamical concept of force as a cause of deviation
> from inertial motion: P is said to be acted on by an unballanced
> (nonzero) external force if and only if it is in non-inertial motion.
>
any net forces acting upon it, right?
>
> Inertial motion of P as seen from F corresponds to P being acted upon
> by zero unballanced external force.
>
change,
and so from F it looks like nothing is acting upon P.
>
> Note: The more epigrammatic one makes a statement of a physical law,
> the more tendency there is to embue the law with misconceptions,
> especially to novices.
>
AllYou!
"tomgee" <tyro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153418247....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Everyone understands that, but you are saying that motion can
> only be determined wrt another ref. point, and that is not the point
> Seto making. He is not trying to determine that something has
> moved, nor to measure that motion. He is trying to explain that
> motion does not have to be measured in order for it to be motion.
>
> To say that it does is to say that motion cannot exist unless and
> until we can measure it. Now, how stupid is that?
Your mistake is that you think people don't understand what you're
saying, when instead, it's that you can raise your cognizance to a
sufficient level to understand that motion is meaningless if there's
no way to know it exists. Seto's point that relative motion is the
vector difference between two individual motions is meaningless
because he's got no way to quantify the individual motions. Yet we do
have a way to quantify relative motion. So in light of those two
truths, how stupid are you and Seto?
tomgee
ass backwards. He is saying that "the notion of a body or
particle" is a self-evident fact, same as you. The confusion
is on the other side, where they claim there can't be motion
unless they can measure it.
>
> But there is no way to determine spatiotemporal quantities from just
> the notion of motion of individual bodies.
>
>
> Further, to claim that
> relative spatiotemporal quantities are caused by individual motion is
> just an assumption which cannot be proved because there is no absolute
> reference to determine each motion and compare it to the relative
> measured motion.
>
PD
tomgee wrote:
> >
> As I recall, Newton said nothing about relative-to-the-fixed-stars
> uniform motion. That's something you have added to it.
> >
Newton, in his Principia:
"But we my distinguish rest and motion, absolute and relative, one from
the other by their properties, causes and effects. It is a property of
rest, that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one another. And
therefore as it is possible, that in the remote regions of the fixed
stars, or perhaps far beyond them, there may be some body absolutely at
rest; but impossible to know, from the position of bodies to one
another in our regions whether any of these do keep the same position
to that remote body; it follows that absolute rest cannot be determined
from the position of bodies in our regions."
TomGee, as usual, takes the position that if it isn't inside his small
circle of understanding, it doesn't exist.
PD
AllYou!
>
> surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > > If there is any relative motion, then you are in relative
>> > > motion to
>> > > me, and I am to you. It isn't "individual". We are either both
>> > > in
>> > > relative motion with respect to each other, or there is no
>> > > relative motion.
>> > >
>> > Randy, you done shit the stick here. Why are you always taking
>> > the
>> > wrong side? I've told you before that each discrete object or
>> > system
>> > has abs. motion that can be compared to the abs. motions of other
>> > objects or systems, the results of which are calculated between
>> > them
>> > based on their relative motions.
>>
>> Then tell us which frame it is that absolute rest occurs.
>>
> If you subscribe to the BBT, there can be no such aminal.
But why didn't you tell us in which frame that absolute rest occurs?
Do you subscribe to the BBT?
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Mike wrote:
> surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > tomgee wrote:
...
> >
> > Newton's First Law should be re-stated along this line (kinematics
> > before dynamics):
> >
> > Let there be a rigid physical frame F
Can be established by measurement alone.
> > setup to establish
> > spacio-temporal coordinates (with some clock synchronization operation
> > defined) at all points of the frame (an idealization, of course, but it
> > can be approximated in reality).
Can be established by procedures that are part of the measurement
process.
> > Can be established by measurement alone.Let F be in such a state of uniform
> > motion such that, relative to the fixed stars, F is in constant linear
> > motion without rotation.
Can be established by measurement alone.
>
> You next define inertial motion of a particle in terms of the inertial
> motion of the frame.
Not exactly, since I hadn't at that point defined inertial motion as
applying to anything but particles! But even if I had, the initial
definition of the special frame did not require the use of an inertial
object to set up the special frame. Thus my definition was never
circular.
Now, an example of using inertiality circularly is by saying that frame
B is inertial if it moves in uniform linear motion and without rotation
relative to inertial frame A. Well, that's obviously circular, and
that's why I didn't do it!
In my case, I started with the frame of the fixed stars. There are two
important things to note about this starting frame: 1) it is uniquely
determined for each rigid frame of reference, and 2) I didn't bother to
call it inertial. What's more, initially, I didn't even bother to call
the special frame F inertial.
>
> You must understand that circular definitions are of no value.
My definition is not circular. The frame F defined above is
OPERATIONALLY defined, meaning that its state of motion is determined
SOLELY by measurements made within the frame relative to the fixed
stars and by any other operationally defined means, such as the
comparison of Doppler shifted light frequencies or by use of an
accelerometer, etc. It is measurement-determined to fit a certain
requite state of motion (I have not as yet given that special state of
motion a name of its own!).
I grant that if we decide to use either an accelerometer or Doppler
shifting of light frequencies that we do not as yet have an
intepretation of how those things work, but that is not a problem to
setting up operational definitions themselves! All the operational
definitions have to do to work is to be a self-consistent set. In fact,
since we are only at the ground level of setting up a theory of
physics, there could not be a prior theoretical interpretation of what
those measurements mean.
Initially we can perhaps justify the use of those meaurements by
physical intuition and then hope that someday theory will evolve to
give a satisfying physical interpretation of those measurements in a
consistent manner.
I point out that Newton's theory never had a hypothesis of the rigid
body; it merely took the existence of such for granted. it also took
the existence of action-at-a-distance forces for granted, though it had
no hypothesis about how that is done in reality.
>
> >
> > Now, let P be a particle observable in F. P is said to be in inertial
> > motion if it is in a state of uniform motion such that, relative to F,
> > P is in constant linear motion (including being "at rest" relative to
> > frame F as a special case where its speed relative to F is zero).
Determined by measurements alone.
> > We
> > now introduce the dynamical concept of force as a cause of deviation
> > from inertial motion: P is said to be acted on by an unballanced
> > (nonzero) external force if and only if it is in non-inertial motion.
> > Inertial motion of P as seen from F corresponds to P being acted upon
> > by zero unballanced external force.
>
>
> Thus, in your attempt, in order to define inertial motion one must be
> able to first define a frame in inertial motion.
What I actually did was to operationally define a special frame. But I
did not use the word "inertial" to set up that original special frame
F. There is no cirularity.
In fact, I can invent a new definition by which to call that special
frame F given above as "inertial." Now that we have a definition of an
inertial particle (or a particle in inertial motion), we can use that
to define an "inertial frame": A rigid frame is said to be inertial (or
in inertial motion) if every particle in the frame is inertial.
Obviously every particle in a frame F is at rest in the frame and thus
is, by the definition given above, in inertial motion.
So, what I did is similar to what Newton did. He started off his theory
by looking at what happens to particles and then he determined what
happens to aggregates of particles.
AllYou!
The claim is that motion is meaningless unless it can be determined to
be occurring.
>> But there is no way to determine spatiotemporal quantities from
>> just
>> the notion of motion of individual bodies.
>>
> No one is arguing that. Everyone already knows that.
Pssst. He's just illustrating why your position is stupid, not that
you didn't know what he said was true.
>> Further, to claim that
>> relative spatiotemporal quantities are caused by individual motion
>> is
>> just an assumption which cannot be proved because there is no
>> absolute
>> reference to determine each motion and compare it to the relative
>> measured motion.
>>
> Why are you arguing that? No one is claiming otherwise.
Once again, he's showing that because what he said is true, your
position is stupid.
Sorcerer
A jetliner will bounce off the water like a stone being skipped. You
haven't spent much time near water, have you? My grandson is still
learning how to skip stones down by the river, I've shown him many
times now but he'll get the hang of it someday.
The second scintillator will still splash photons like the ocean
splashes water, but the splash will be smaller.
The experiment is "rigged" so that there isn't an early trigger by
a different muon at the second scintillator, so the velocity is ALWAYS
measured to be < 300,000 km/s. When a really fast muon flies
through both scintillators at 600,000 km/s, it is then said that the
second scintillator was triggered by a different muon and the
counter is not registered by the computer. After all, there is no
point in proving Einstein was wrong when you are trying to prove
he was right.
I must be thick, as you say.
Yep.
I have muons traveling through a stack of
scintillators,
No you don't. You are a liar.
Androcles.
PD
Ah, then a scintillator does NOT slow down a muon in the same way the
ocean will slow down a jetliner, because a muon does not bounce off the
scintillator like a stone being skipped. So either you lied or you're
stupid. Which is it?
>
> The second scintillator will still splash photons like the ocean
> splashes water, but the splash will be smaller.
> The experiment is "rigged" so that there isn't an early trigger by
> a different muon at the second scintillator, so the velocity is ALWAYS
> measured to be < 300,000 km/s. When a really fast muon flies
> through both scintillators at 600,000 km/s, it is then said that the
> second scintillator was triggered by a different muon and the
> counter is not registered by the computer.
This is actually incorrect. Muons faster than c are certainly allowed
by the trigger. They just aren't seen. Here is how it is done these
days, since you apparently don't know.
The signal from Sc 1 crosses a threshold in a discriminator and creates
a TDC "start" signal, as well as an input for a coincidence gate G.
Signals from Sc 2, 3, 4 are split in half. One half of each is sent to
the coincidence gate, and the other half is sent to a discriminator to
form a TDC "stop" for each channel of the TDC. Depending on the
position of the TDCs and discriminators, calibrated delay lines may be
introduced so that the TDC is sensitive to a time passage of as little
as 0 ns from one scintillator to the next or as much as would
correspond to a muon speed of, say, 1/5 c. The TDC "start" gate is
ANDed with the output of the coincidence gate, so that the timing is
initiated only for cases where Sc 1, 2, 3, 4 all fire within a broad
time window including, as I said, all firing at once or all firing one
after the other. This is not hard to do in an unbiased way.
I'm shocked --- SHOCKED, I say --- that you this abysmally uneducated
about how to set up a proper scintillator trigger to measure
time-of-flight.
> After all, there is no
> point in proving Einstein was wrong when you are trying to prove
> he was right.
But we're not trying to prove he was right. That would be a biased
experiment. The experiment has to be able to tell if he's wrong, too,
otherwise it isn't a sound test. Fortunately, the good tests are not
biased.
>
>
> I must be thick, as you say.
>
> Yep.
>
> I have muons traveling through a stack of
> scintillators,
>
> No you don't. You are a liar.
No, actually I do.
http://www-d0.fnal.gov/
>
> Androcles.
Sorcerer
Analogies can be pushed too far.
> The second scintillator will still splash photons like the ocean
> splashes water, but the splash will be smaller.
> The experiment is "rigged" so that there isn't an early trigger by
> a different muon at the second scintillator, so the velocity is ALWAYS
> measured to be < 300,000 km/s. When a really fast muon flies
> through both scintillators at 600,000 km/s, it is then said that the
> second scintillator was triggered by a different muon and the
> counter is not registered by the computer.
This is actually incorrect. Muons faster than c are certainly allowed
by the trigger.
No they are not. You are actually incorrect.
This snipping you've allowed is good fun, isn't it?
You've typed a load of crap and I don't have to bother to read it.
Androcles.
Mike
I will say once more that the only motion that can be determined
experimentally and pass verifiability is relative motion. Since physics
is an experimental science, therefore absolute motion cannot exist in
physics since it is unverifiable. the rest you say is a plain game of
words that have no meaning to anyone dealing with physics. Furthermore,
Newton's 1st it is understood today to define the FoR in which the 2nd
law holds. Newton was not stupid not to notice that mathematically his
1st can be derived from the 2nd as in: F = dp/dt = 0 ==> p = constant
===> v = constant.
But had he done that, he would have left a dark spot on his laws of
motion. He first defined the reference frames and then the 2nd law that
applies in this reference frame. In other words, he firsted defined the
domain of application of the 2nd law. This is the reason he did not
deduce the 1st from the 2nd, that would have been a mistake.
> Newton's 1st law has a sole object moving on its own when no
> external forces are acting upon it, meaning that objects can move
> on their own without the existence of other objects. Relative motion
> is simply a comparison of motions between objects, it is not a
> requirement for motion to exist.
Well, i repeat to you the notion of verifiability. You cannot verify
inertial motion in a self referential manner. if you cannot verify it,
it may, or may not exist.
It is plausible that motion of a single particle in the absence of
other particles is impossible. This was an idea expressed as far as in
the 5th century BC by the Eleatic philosophers. they said that ONE can
only exist still, is immovable and does not change. In respoce, the
pluralists said that it takes TWO to have change, including motion.
So, if you think that the notion of motion can apply to single isolated
partsiles there are different philosophical views about it since
antiquity. In modern ways, you have failed to demonstrate to me or
anyone else here how to determine that an isolated particle in inertial
motion really moves. Until you can demonstrate that, you are not doing
physics but a re-play of old metaphysics. As I said, physics is an
experimental science where of inferences made must pass the
veriafiability test.
So that answers laso your puzzlement about inferred motion. It is not
enough in physics to infer things. You must then confirm your
inferences by experimentation, otherwise your theory is plain wrong.
Having said that, I cannot be certain or absolutely deny the
possibility that one dauy absolute motion will be demonstrated. Even if
that happens, relative motion will always be well-defined and remain
such.
Mike
tomgee
PD wrote:
> tomgee wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > tomgee wrote:
> > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:Hqqvg.42907$FQ1.2954@attbi_s71...
> > > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > 1.Observer A measures the following:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > SNIP
> > >
> > measurement? Only in a fairytale where relative motion
> > measurements are believed to be real, that's how. That
> > is beyond your ability to comprehend, PD et al, because
> > you can't tell what's real and what isn't.
>
> TomGee, rather than all of this machismo and chest-beating, why don't
> you tell us how you know that absolute motion exists.
>
so to you that is machismo and chest-beating?
I have already explained more than once in this thread
why I hold that opinion, and destroyed utterly your silly
arguments claiming no motion can exist unless it can be
measured. What more can you ask of me, unless you
just want more because you have come to like the mental
whuppings you've been getting lately on a regular basis?
tomgee
>
> Since physics
> is an experimental science, therefore absolute motion cannot exist in
> physics since it is unverifiable.
>
Physics, which is not an experimental science but disdains
experiment in favor of mathematics and philosophy. And
even if you're blind, you can know that motion exists by simply
getting up from bed in the morning. In doing so, you have
moved relative to your bed, your house, your planet, your
galaxy, and the entire universe. You have measured nothing,
yet you have performed motion and thus added that to your
relative motions wrt of all of the above.
>
> the rest you say is a plain game of
> words that have no meaning to anyone dealing with physics.
>
not dealing with the physics of experiment nor of
theoretical physics. You seem to be dealing with your
problem of being so brainwashed you can only parrot
the same ol' inanities of some others here. You don't
seem to know why you keep repeating an opinion that
is not being argued by anyone here, either.
>
> Furthermore,
> Newton's 1st it is understood today to define the FoR in which the 2nd
> law holds.
>
here, and you offer no support for that opinion.
>
> Newton was not stupid not to notice that mathematically his
> 1st can be derived from the 2nd as in: F = dp/dt = 0 ==> p = constant
> ===> v = constant.
>
> But had he done that, he would have left a dark spot on his laws of
> motion. He first defined the reference frames and then the 2nd law that
> applies in this reference frame. In other words, he firsted defined the
> domain of application of the 2nd law. This is the reason he did not
> deduce the 1st from the 2nd, that would have been a mistake.
>
single one of them?
>
> > Newton's 1st law has a sole object moving on its own when no
> > external forces are acting upon it, meaning that objects can move
> > on their own without the existence of other objects. Relative motion
> > is simply a comparison of motions between objects, it is not a
> > requirement for motion to exist.
>
> Well, i repeat to you the notion of verifiability. You cannot verify
> inertial motion in a self referential manner. if you cannot verify it,
> it may, or may not exist.
>
as what your eyes see moving. Even then, it's doubtful you
could show in any reasonable way that motion may or may
not exist. You're saying nothing moves unless and until its
motion has been measured!
>
> It is plausible that motion of a single particle in the absence of
> other particles is impossible. This was an idea expressed as far as in
> the 5th century BC by the Eleatic philosophers. they said that ONE can
> only exist still, is immovable and does not change. In respoce, the
> pluralists said that it takes TWO to have change, including motion.
>
makes you think such explanations are plausible in view
of what we know today?
>
> So, if you think that the notion of motion can apply to single isolated
> partsiles there are different philosophical views about it since
> antiquity.
>
>
> In modern ways, you have failed to demonstrate to me or
> anyone else here how to determine that an isolated particle in inertial
> motion really moves.
>
are mistaken about what's going on here!
>
> Until you can demonstrate that, you are not doing
> physics but a re-play of old metaphysics. As I said, physics is an
> experimental science where of inferences made must pass the
> veriafiability test.
>
still not understand what's going on here.
>
> So that answers laso your puzzlement about inferred motion.
>
just a fantasy of yours.
>
> It is not
> enough in physics to infer things.
>
>
> You must then confirm your
> inferences by experimentation, otherwise your theory is plain wrong.
>
PD
Agreed. You pushed that clean off the edge. So does that make you a
liar or just stupid?
>
> > The second scintillator will still splash photons like the ocean
> > splashes water, but the splash will be smaller.
> > The experiment is "rigged" so that there isn't an early trigger by
> > a different muon at the second scintillator, so the velocity is ALWAYS
> > measured to be < 300,000 km/s. When a really fast muon flies
> > through both scintillators at 600,000 km/s, it is then said that the
> > second scintillator was triggered by a different muon and the
> > counter is not registered by the computer.
>
> This is actually incorrect. Muons faster than c are certainly allowed
> by the trigger.
>
> No they are not. You are actually incorrect.
> This snipping you've allowed is good fun, isn't it?
> You've typed a load of crap and I don't have to bother to read it.
Of course you don't. You certainly have the right to remain both stupid
and wrong.
In your case, it's a short trip to Wrong.
>
> Androcles.
PD
I see you have no answer, and instead prefer machismo and
chest-beating.
PD
Sorcerer
Do you still beat your mother?
>
> > The second scintillator will still splash photons like the ocean
> > splashes water, but the splash will be smaller.
> > The experiment is "rigged" so that there isn't an early trigger by
> > a different muon at the second scintillator, so the velocity is ALWAYS
> > measured to be < 300,000 km/s. When a really fast muon flies
> > through both scintillators at 600,000 km/s, it is then said that the
> > second scintillator was triggered by a different muon and the
> > counter is not registered by the computer.
>
> This is actually incorrect. Muons faster than c are certainly allowed
> by the trigger.
>
> No they are not. You are actually incorrect.
> This snipping you've allowed is good fun, isn't it?
> You've typed a load of crap and I don't have to bother to read it.
[snip more crap]
Androcles
PD
>
> >
> > > Analogies can be pushed too far.
>
> > Agreed. You pushed that clean off the edge. So does that make you a
> > liar or just stupid?
>
> Do you still beat your mother?
>
> Androcles
Stupid it is, then.
PD
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Look up the word operationalism in Google. There is a lot about it.
Unfortunately, it rarely gets taught in physics at any level, much less
in first-year level college.
> >
> > I will present Newton's First law without appealing to any notion of an
> > absolute rest space.
> >
> > Newton's First Law should be re-stated along this line (kinematics
> > before dynamics):
> >
> > Let there be a rigid physical frame F setup to establish
> > spacio-temporal coordinates (with some clock synchronization operation
> > defined) at all points of the frame (an idealization, of course, but it
> > can be approximated in reality). Let F be in such a state of uniform
> > motion such that, relative to the fixed stars, F is in constant linear
> > motion without rotation.
> >
> As I recall, Newton said nothing about relative-to-the-fixed-stars
> uniform motion. That's something you have added to it.
Yes, indeed. I'm trying to get away from the circular definitions of
Newton. It was the ambiguity of Newton's presentation of the First law
that opened the door for you to surmise absolute velocities to be
implied, which they weren't. The problem was that it was not stated by
Newton from which frame these velocities were being judged by. But it's
clear from any text on Newtonian mechanaics that any "inertial" frame
can claim to be "at rest."
> >
> > Now, let P be a particle observable in F. P is said to be in inertial
> > motion if it is in a state of uniform motion such that, relative to F,
> > P is in constant linear motion (including being "at rest" relative to
> > frame F as a special case where its speed relative to F is zero).
> >
> Okay, P and F are in motion at constant velocity.
But that terse claim is specious because it does not tell us from what
frame these velocities are being measured. That's the same mistake that
Newton and you made. If you say, "Well, of course from inertial
frames," then I counter with, "But how do you know when a frame is
inertial?" You're working under a pre-operational notion of velocity.
> >
> > We
> > now introduce the dynamical concept of force as a cause of deviation
> > from inertial motion: P is said to be acted on by an unballanced
> > (nonzero) external force if and only if it is in non-inertial motion.
> >
> Meaning that, since P is in inertial motion, P successfully resists
> any net forces acting upon it, right?
Well, yes, depending on what you mean by "resisting" an unballanced
force. If there were no "resistance" to an unballanced external force
applied to a particle, the particle would accelerate to infinite speed
instantly, I guess (we're being counterfactual here). Inertia is a
property, which put simple, means that velocity is finite over finite
intervals, and acceleration of the particle is proportional to the
force applied on it and inversely proportional to the mass of the
particle. But all of that is in the Second Law, and it's arguable
whether I should mention it at all here.
> >
> > Inertial motion of P as seen from F corresponds to P being acted upon
> > by zero unballanced external force.
> >
> No. So long as P is in inertial motion, it successfully resists
> change,
The phrase "successfully resists change" is unclear to me.
> and so from F it looks like nothing is acting upon P.
Isn't that what I said? Maybe my wording is less than clear then.
kenseto
absolute motion is verifiable with the following experiments:
1. A direct one-way speed of light measurement.
2.The proposed experiments in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
tomgee
when you can't explain the problem? Bad form.
> > >
> > > I will present Newton's First law without appealing to any notion of an
> > > absolute rest space.
> > >
> > > Newton's First Law should be re-stated along this line (kinematics
> > > before dynamics):
> > >
> > > Let there be a rigid physical frame F setup to establish
> > > spacio-temporal coordinates (with some clock synchronization operation
> > > defined) at all points of the frame (an idealization, of course, but it
> > > can be approximated in reality). Let F be in such a state of uniform
> > > motion such that, relative to the fixed stars, F is in constant linear
> > > motion without rotation.
> > >
> > As I recall, Newton said nothing about relative-to-the-fixed-stars
> > uniform motion. That's something you have added to it.
>
> Yes, indeed. I'm trying to get away from the circular definitions of
> Newton.
>
fallacious statements in Newton's works? That would be
earth-shattering news! When do you get the Nobel?
>
> It was the ambiguity of Newton's presentation of the First law
> that opened the door for you to surmise absolute velocities to be
> implied, which they weren't.
>
Abs. motion is proclaimed therein and nothing was left out.
In another work, Newton supports his law 1 by saying that a
body in one of his examples that has no external forces acting
upon it continues at uniform motion under its inherent force.
He knew nothing can move without some impetus as if the
medium it's in is carrying it, like a river will carry a leaf. His
inherent force is the abs. motion that you deny exists.
>
> The problem was that it was not stated by
> Newton from which frame these velocities were being judged by.
>
Did he say that? Or is that from one of his detractors?
>
> But it's
> clear from any text on Newtonian mechanaics that any "inertial" frame
> can claim to be "at rest."
>
No, inertial frames can do no such thing. Only humans can
make such claims. An inertial frame can be "at rest" or in
motion. Motion is not what determines whether or not a
frame is inertial. An inertial frame is one that is at constant
velocity, either "at rest" or moving in non-accelerated motion.
> > >
> > > Now, let P be a particle observable in F. P is said to be in inertial
> > > motion if it is in a state of uniform motion such that, relative to F,
> > > P is in constant linear motion (including being "at rest" relative to
> > > frame F as a special case where its speed relative to F is zero).
> > >
> > Okay, P and F are in motion at constant velocity.
>
> But that terse claim is specious because it does not tell us from what
> frame these velocities are being measured.
>
You stated that in the frame of F, P is in motion. Therefore,
P is being observed in the frame F. Observers do not have
to be in an inertial frame. They are at certain Points Of
View (POV). We observe the frames from different POVs.
Note that it is being observed that in the frame F there is a P
that is moving at the same speed as F. That alone, however,
does not mean they are at constant velocity because they
could be moving in different directions. For P to be "at rest"
wrt F, they must both be moving at the same speed and in the
same direction. The part in parentheses above is not possible
because of that, and also because if P is in constant motion
relative to F, meaning that it is moving differently than F, it
cannot be "at rest" relative to F.
>
> That's the same mistake that
> Newton and you made. If you say, "Well, of course from inertial
> frames," then I counter with, "But how do you know when a frame is
> inertial?" You're working under a pre-operational notion of velocity.
>
It does not have to be from an inertial frame. Yet we can
know when it is an inertial frame, by definition. A frame of
reference is simply one that is at a constant velocity - i.e.,
it is moving or "at rest" without any acceleration.
> > >
> > > We
> > > now introduce the dynamical concept of force as a cause of deviation
> > > from inertial motion: P is said to be acted on by an unballanced
> > > (nonzero) external force if and only if it is in non-inertial motion.
> > >
> > Meaning that, since P is in inertial motion, P successfully resists
> > any net forces acting upon it, right?
>
> Well, yes, depending on what you mean by "resisting" an unballanced
> force. If there were no "resistance" to an unballanced external force
> applied to a particle, the particle would accelerate to infinite speed
> instantly, I guess (we're being counterfactual here). Inertia is a
> property, which put simple, means that velocity is finite over finite
> intervals, and acceleration of the particle is proportional to the
> force applied on it and inversely proportional to the mass of the
> particle. But all of that is in the Second Law, and it's arguable
> whether I should mention it at all here.
>
Right. That was not at all necessary. My point was really that if P
is acted upon by a net external force, the result is that it will be
accelerated and then is when it is in a non-inertial frame.
> > >
> > > Inertial motion of P as seen from F corresponds to P being acted upon
> > > by zero unballanced external force.
> > >
> > No. So long as P is in inertial motion, it successfully resists
> > change,
>
> The phrase "successfully resists change" is unclear to me.
>
And rightly so. I misread your statement and thought you meant
something different. My fault, sorry.
>
> > and so from F it looks like nothing is acting upon P.
>
> Isn't that what I said? Maybe my wording is less than clear then.
>
More likely I was reading too fast. My apologies.
Mike
You said nothing aboove to support your claims.
> >
> > the rest you say is a plain game of
> > words that have no meaning to anyone dealing with physics.
> >
> They must mean a lot to you then 'cause you're sure
> not dealing with the physics of experiment nor of
> theoretical physics. You seem to be dealing with your
> problem of being so brainwashed you can only parrot
> the same ol' inanities of some others here. You don't
> seem to know why you keep repeating an opinion that
> is not being argued by anyone here, either.
> >
This 'appeal" of yours to "anyone else" is just a plain informal
fallacy.
> > Furthermore,
> > Newton's 1st it is understood today to define the FoR in which the 2nd
> > law holds.
> >
> That's how you understand it, but no one has said that
> here, and you offer no support for that opinion.
> >
> > Newton was not stupid not to notice that mathematically his
> > 1st can be derived from the 2nd as in: F = dp/dt = 0 ==> p = constant
> > ===> v = constant.
> >
> > But had he done that, he would have left a dark spot on his laws of
> > motion. He first defined the reference frames and then the 2nd law that
> > applies in this reference frame. In other words, he firsted defined the
> > domain of application of the 2nd law. This is the reason he did not
> > deduce the 1st from the 2nd, that would have been a mistake.
> >
> You have listed 4 opinions above - can you support a
> single one of them?
The burden of proof is on you to support your claims. I just present
the alternatives.
> >
> > > Newton's 1st law has a sole object moving on its own when no
> > > external forces are acting upon it, meaning that objects can move
> > > on their own without the existence of other objects. Relative motion
> > > is simply a comparison of motions between objects, it is not a
> > > requirement for motion to exist.
> >
> > Well, i repeat to you the notion of verifiability. You cannot verify
> > inertial motion in a self referential manner. if you cannot verify it,
> > it may, or may not exist.
> >
> No, that's patently false unless you reject his 1st law as well
> as what your eyes see moving. Even then, it's doubtful you
> could show in any reasonable way that motion may or may
> not exist. You're saying nothing moves unless and until its
> motion has been measured!
> >
Again, you construct arguments that do nothing to support your claims
or refute the opposite claim. Just appeals to imagination.
> > It is plausible that motion of a single particle in the absence of
> > other particles is impossible. This was an idea expressed as far as in
> > the 5th century BC by the Eleatic philosophers. they said that ONE can
> > only exist still, is immovable and does not change. In respoce, the
> > pluralists said that it takes TWO to have change, including motion.
> >
> So you're stuck in ancient times, so what? And what
> makes you think such explanations are plausible in view
> of what we know today?
> >
I see that your horizons are very restrcited and limited, your
knowledge of the subject basically none and your misunderstandings
many.
You do not want to learn. When cornered or after realizing you lack the
basic knowledge you will become offensive as usual.
> > So, if you think that the notion of motion can apply to single isolated
> > partsiles there are different philosophical views about it since
> > antiquity.
> >
> Yes, I thought you mistakenly think this is a philosophy ng.
> >
Since you have not talked about physics at all you you seem unable to,
we have concentrated on the philosophical issues of your metaphysical
queries.
> > In modern ways, you have failed to demonstrate to me or
> > anyone else here how to determine that an isolated particle in inertial
> > motion really moves.
> >
> No one here is trying to demonstate that to anyone! You
> are mistaken about what's going on here!
> >
> > Until you can demonstrate that, you are not doing
> > physics but a re-play of old metaphysics. As I said, physics is an
> > experimental science where of inferences made must pass the
> > veriafiability test.
> >
> I believe that even if I wanted to or could do that, you would
> still not understand what's going on here.
> >
What is going on is that you are not a physicist and you know nothing
about the subjects you get involved or like to chat about..
> > So that answers laso your puzzlement about inferred motion.
> >
> No, it doesn't. I am not puzzled about inferred motion. That's
> just a fantasy of yours.
> >
> > It is not
> > enough in physics to infer things.
> >
> No one here is arguing that it is enough.
> >
> > You must then confirm your
> > inferences by experimentation, otherwise your theory is plain wrong.
> >
> Parrot.
It is clear that you do not want to learn. You intend to provide
support for your false idea by attacking those who try to teach you the
correct way.
It is now clear that:
1. You do not understand the concept of motion
2. You have a naive understanding of Newton's laws
3. You do not understand the distinction between physics and
metaphysics
4. You are not willing to learn
5. You grow ad hominen as your lack of knowledge gets exposed
the sum of the above is a strong indication that you are an idot.
Mike
kenseto
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:IVHvg.39460$u11....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> >
> >>
> >> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:ontvg.30190$vl5....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> >> >
> >> > news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZ...@conversent.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> news:ssJug.45264$Eh1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> >> >> > B is moving wrt to him at Vab
> >> >> > C is moving wrt him at Vac
> >> >> > D is moving wrt him at Vad
> >> >> > inertial
> >> >> > again.
> >> >> > C
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > D have
> >> >> > been changed.
> >> >> > individual
> >> >> > motion of A by acceleration.
> >> >> > derived
> >> >> > from
> >> >> > the individual motions of the two objects as follows:
> >> >>
> >> >> derived
> >> >> from the change in distance between them per unit time.
> >> >
> >> > So how do you achieve a change in distance without individual
> >> > motion?
> >>
> >> change in position without a reference?
> >
> > follows:
> > The relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector
> > difference
> > of the vector component of A's individual motion and the vector
> > component
> > of B's individual motion along the line joining A and B.
> > of
> > position.
>
>
> You begin by claiming that you're going to be responsive when you say
> "you achieve a change of position by individual motion as follows:",
> but then you immediately proceed to discuss relative motion and how
> it's achieved (i.e., quantified) through the comparison of individual
> motions (i.e., vector difference between two individual motions). Do
> you see it now? You've based your claim about relative motion on
> individual motion, and so now I'm asking you how you achieve (i.e.,
> quantify) individual motion (i.e., change in position) without a
> reference. <sigh>
Sigh....Eaxh object in the universe is already in a state of absolute
motion. You can change your state of absolute motion by acceleration.
You and I are standing side by side so we are in the same state of absolute
motion and we don't have relative motion wrt each other. I
accelerated....this means that I changed my state of absolute motion.
Relative motion is born between you and I. Clearky this means that I changed
my state of absolute motion without using you as a reference and clearly
relative motion between you and I is born after I changed my state of
absolute motion.
BTW denying this arguement is much like denying your mother is not your
mother.....unless...
Ken Seto
Mike
You probably are not using the term "absolute motion" in its accepetd
and widely understood way.
> You and I are standing side by side so we are in the same state of absolute
> motion and we don't have relative motion wrt each other. I
> accelerated....this means that I changed my state of absolute motion.
Hardly. You cannot prove that in any way possible. If I insist that
without the other body presence you would be unable to move you cannot
deny my claim since you cannot prove that you can move in the absence
of other bodies around you.
> Relative motion is born between you and I. Clearky this means that I changed
> my state of absolute motion without using you as a reference and clearly
> relative motion between you and I is born after I changed my state of
> absolute motion.
Then, tell us you absolute position right now, your absolute velocity,
etc. Can you?
> BTW denying this arguement is much like denying your mother is not your
> mother.....unless...
Fallacies on top of fallacies hardly make a sound argument. Again, if
you know of a physics where absolute motion exists, go ahead and give
us the absolute coordinates of Earth.
The absolute - relational spacetime/motion debate is well known and
understood these days. The relationalists have the advantage that
spatiotemporal quantities are well-defined. their metaphysical problem
is how spacetime is structured. Absolutists have no
well-definedspatiotemporal quantities and when they must solve a
problem always use relational ones. Their position is metaphysical from
start.
Your claims are totally unfounded.
Mike
>
> Ken Seto
kenseto
kenseto
> > "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:3KmdnWECJ-r56CLZ...@conversent.net...
> > >
> > > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:IVHvg.39460$u11....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:QtidnTE745TsGSPZ...@conversent.net...
> > > >>
> > >
> > > You begin by claiming that you're going to be responsive when you say
> > > "you achieve a change of position by individual motion as follows:",
> > > but then you immediately proceed to discuss relative motion and how
> > > it's achieved (i.e., quantified) through the comparison of individual
> > > motions (i.e., vector difference between two individual motions). Do
> > > you see it now? You've based your claim about relative motion on
> > > individual motion, and so now I'm asking you how you achieve (i.e.,
> > > quantify) individual motion (i.e., change in position) without a
> > > reference. <sigh>
> >
> > Sigh....Eaxh object in the universe is already in a state of absolute
> > motion. You can change your state of absolute motion by acceleration.
>
> You probably are not using the term "absolute motion" in its accepetd
> and widely understood way.
>
> > You and I are standing side by side so we are in the same state of
absolute
> > motion and we don't have relative motion wrt each other. I
> > accelerated....this means that I changed my state of absolute motion.
>
> Hardly. You cannot prove that in any way possible. If I insist that
> without the other body presence you would be unable to move you cannot
> deny my claim since you cannot prove that you can move in the absence
> of other bodies around you.
So are you saying that acceleration is not moving? Why do I need other body
to experience acceleration?
>
> > Relative motion is born between you and I. Clearky this means that I
changed
> > my state of absolute motion without using you as a reference and clearly
> > relative motion between you and I is born after I changed my state of
> > absolute motion.
>
> Then, tell us you absolute position right now, your absolute velocity,
> etc. Can you?
Since I am in a state of absolute motion there is no such thing as absolute
position for me. The absolute velocity wrt local light rays can be
determined by doing the experiments in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
>
>
AllYou!
That's the proposition under debate, and so it serves no purpose to
repeat it.
> You can change your state of absolute motion by acceleration.
> You and I are standing side by side so we are in the same state of
> absolute
> motion and we don't have relative motion wrt each other. I
> accelerated....this means that I changed my state of absolute
> motion.
That's the proposition under debate, and so it serves no purpose to
repeat it.
> Relative motion is born between you and I. Clearky this means that I
> changed
> my state of absolute motion without using you as a reference and
> clearly
> relative motion between you and I is born after I changed my state
> of
> absolute motion.
That's the proposition under debate, and so it serves no purpose to
repeat it.
But now answer the question. How do you achieve (i.e., quantify)
individual motion (i.e., change in position) without a reference? In
fact, how do you even determine whether or not individual motion is
occurring without a reference?
You see, the argument presented above is circular. You're using the
proposition that you're advocating as the basis for the support of
your argument. You can see how silly that is, right? If you had a
valid argument for "individual motion", you wouldn't have to keep
making that argument in terms of relative motion. IOW, you wouldn't
have to keep using hypothetical which involve two or more objects
(e.g., you and me).
Can you make your argument without doing either of these (i.e., using
two objects, or using the proposition under debate as the basis for
your argument)?
AllYou!
>
> "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> news:1153483155.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Hardly. You cannot prove that in any way possible. If I insist that
>> without the other body presence you would be unable to move you
>> cannot
>> deny my claim since you cannot prove that you can move in the
>> absence
>> of other bodies around you.
>
> So are you saying that acceleration is not moving? Why do I need
> other body
> to experience acceleration?
Are you saying that you can only determine individual motion in the
case of acceleration?
PD
kenseto wrote:
>
> So are you saying that acceleration is not moving? Why do I need other body
> to experience acceleration?
Acceleration is a *change* in motion.
If you toss a ball in the air, on the way up it accelerates at 9.8
m/s^2 downward. On the way down it accelerates at 9.8 m/s^2 downward.
At the moment at the very top where the motion of the ball relative to
the earth is *zero*, the acceleration is *still* 9.8 m/s^2 downward.
Notice in the last case, there is plainly acceleration when there is no
motion.
PD
AllYou!
>
> I see that your horizons are very restrcited and limited, your
> knowledge of the subject basically none and your misunderstandings
> many.
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - tomgee; 10 May 2006
> You do not want to learn. When cornered or after realizing you lack
> the
> basic knowledge you will become offensive as usual.
"I don't know that much math." - tomgee; 2 April 2006
Mike
Just tell me of a way to impart acceleration to a body without the
presence of another body.
I do not hink you can find one. Even gravitational acceleration is the
result of the presence of other bodies. Impressed forces are due to
other bodies. Any kind of force you can think of is the result of the
presence of another body acting on the body under consideration. There
is no magical force.
Even in the case of a rocket igniting its thrusters, particles of fuel
leave the exhuat at high speed and the rocket moves according to
Newton's 2nd law and conservation of momentum.
Thus, there can be no motion without the presence of another body and
the accelration you are talking about is duw to interactions always in
a relational spacetime where absolute states are neither well-defined,
nor necessary to explain motion.
I think you are at a nice point to admit you have err.
Mike
Sam Wormley
>
> So are you saying that acceleration is not moving? Why do I need other body
> to experience acceleration?
>
Acceleration, a vector quantity, is the second derivative of position
with respect to time. That's the *definition* of acceleration and how
it is understood and used in physics.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Acceleration.html
a = dv/dt = d^2r/dt^2
Acceleration is a change in velocity with respect to time. And without
another body to serve as a reference, d^2r/dt^2, and therefor,
acceleration would be meaningless.
Mike
Not only that. You need at least another body to gain acceleration as a
result of interaction. There are no magical accelerations. Every
d^r/dt^2 is a result of some type of a mechanical interaction of
particles.
Mike
surrealis...@hotmail.com
....
> > > >
> > > > Such is the problem common with pre-operational definitions in physics!
> > > >
> > > "Pre-operational definitions"? You mean math operations? Or what?
> >
> > Look up the word operationalism in Google. There is a lot about it.
> > Unfortunately, it rarely gets taught in physics at any level, much less
> > in first-year level college.
> >
> You don't know, huh? Why claim that something is a problem
> when you can't explain the problem? Bad form.
No. I gave you an adequate reference for you to get educated. That's a
disingenuous excuse for not doing your homework. Please do as you were
requested, if you really want to learn something for a change.
The notion of operationalism is broad and deep. I can't spend the time
here to present it effectively in a few words, beyond what I have
already done. Besides, there are many good websites to tell you about
operationalism.
...
> > > >
> > > As I recall, Newton said nothing about relative-to-the-fixed-stars
> > > uniform motion. That's something you have added to it.
> >
> > Yes, indeed. I'm trying to get away from the circular definitions of
> > Newton.
> >
> What circular definitions? You think you have found some
> fallacious statements in Newton's works? That would be
> earth-shattering news! When do you get the Nobel?
I haven't discovered any such thing. This weakness of Newton's
presentation has been know for centuries. It's one of the reasons the
operational approach was developed. Einstein was well aware of it and
he cited it as a reason to extend SR to GR. It's not my fault that
physics is so badly taught! I'm trying to help you learn, but you have
to 1) keep an open mind and 2) do your homework.
> >
> > It was the ambiguity of Newton's presentation of the First law
> > that opened the door for you to surmise absolute velocities to be
> > implied, which they weren't.
> >
> What ambiguity is that? Nothing in the 1st law is ambiguous.
> Abs. motion is proclaimed therein and nothing was left out.
> In another work, Newton supports his law 1 by saying that a
> body in one of his examples that has no external forces acting
> upon it continues at uniform motion under its inherent force.
>
> He knew nothing can move without some impetus as if the
> medium it's in is carrying it, like a river will carry a leaf. His
> inherent force is the abs. motion that you deny exists.
First, there is a huge difference between "knowing" something and
making that so-called knowledge a part of a theory, which has a
definite structure and rules to be obeyed.
> >
> > The problem was that it was not stated by
> > Newton from which frame these velocities were being judged by.
> >
> Did he say that? Or is that from one of his detractors?
If he could have said it, I wouldn't be repeating this claim against
him.
> >
> > But it's
> > clear from any text on Newtonian mechanaics that any "inertial" frame
> > can claim to be "at rest."
> >
> No, inertial frames can do no such thing. Only humans can
> make such claims.
Well, excuse me for using a common rhetorical device. I'll be more
careful for you in the future. People sitting inside of any inertial
frame can claim it (the frame) to be "at rest."
> An inertial frame can be "at rest" or in
> motion. Motion is not what determines whether or not a
> frame is inertial. An inertial frame is one that is at constant
> velocity, either "at rest" or moving in non-accelerated motion.
Constant velocity with respect to what, I keep asking you. I warned you
about making these nonoperational claims before.
> > > >
> > > > Now, let P be a particle observable in F. P is said to be in inertial
> > > > motion if it is in a state of uniform motion such that, relative to F,
> > > > P is in constant linear motion (including being "at rest" relative to
> > > > frame F as a special case where its speed relative to F is zero).
> > > >
> > > Okay, P and F are in motion at constant velocity.
> >
> > But that terse claim is specious because it does not tell us from what
> > frame these velocities are being measured.
> >
> You stated that in the frame of F, P is in motion. Therefore,
> P is being observed in the frame F. Observers do not have
> to be in an inertial frame. They are at certain Points Of
> View (POV). We observe the frames from different POVs.
Define a "point of view"? How is it different from a frame of
reference?
>
> Note that it is being observed that in the frame F there is a P
> that is moving at the same speed as F.
That statement is specious! You have tacitly introduced another frame
without declaring it! As I setup the thought experiment, the only
frames that could assign velocities are F or the rest frame of the
distant stars, sotospeak. If you want to talk about another frame of
reference then introduce it explicitly and give it a name.
> That alone, however,
> does not mean they are at constant velocity because they
> could be moving in different directions. For P to be "at rest"
> wrt F, they must both be moving at the same speed and in the
> same direction. The part in parentheses above is not possible
> because of that, and also because if P is in constant motion
> relative to F, meaning that it is moving differently than F, it
> cannot be "at rest" relative to F.
> >
> > That's the same mistake that
> > Newton and you made. If you say, "Well, of course from inertial
> > frames," then I counter with, "But how do you know when a frame is
> > inertial?" You're working under a pre-operational notion of velocity.
> >
> It does not have to be from an inertial frame. Yet we can
> know when it is an inertial frame, by definition.
What! A frame is known to be inertial by definition? How? I'm not
talking about a theoretical inertial frame in a thought experiment! I'm
talking about determining if a REAL frame of reference is inertial.
> A frame of
> reference is simply one that is at a constant velocity - i.e.,
> it is moving or "at rest" without any acceleration.
Did you mean an inertial frame? How does one determine whether or not a
frame is at "constant velocity"? Constant velocity with respect to
what? Accelerating as judged by what instrument? An accelerometer?
Measurements made against the fixed stars?
> > > >
> > > > We
> > > > now introduce the dynamical concept of force as a cause of deviation
> > > > from inertial motion: P is said to be acted on by an unballanced
> > > > (nonzero) external force if and only if it is in non-inertial motion.
> > > >
> > > Meaning that, since P is in inertial motion, P successfully resists
> > > any net forces acting upon it, right?
> >
> > Well, yes, depending on what you mean by "resisting" an unballanced
> > force. If there were no "resistance" to an unballanced external force
> > applied to a particle, the particle would accelerate to infinite speed
> > instantly, I guess (we're being counterfactual here). Inertia is a
> > property, which put simple, means that velocity is finite over finite
> > intervals, and acceleration of the particle is proportional to the
> > force applied on it and inversely proportional to the mass of the
> > particle. But all of that is in the Second Law, and it's arguable
> > whether I should mention it at all here.
> >
> Right. That was not at all necessary. My point was really that if P
> is acted upon by a net external force, the result is that it will be
> accelerated and then is when it is in a non-inertial frame.
Tell me by what specific instrument YOU use to tell if the frame is
being accelerated or not.
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Mike wrote:
> AllYou! wrote:
....
>
> he is confusing spatiotemporal quantities, which are relative, with the
> notion of motion of a body or particle, which is a self evident fact,
> i.e. things are known to move around.
Since when is physics mysticism? Velocities have to be measured, not
intuited.
Absolute Space! The Great Unknowable!
kenseto
No....you can detect individual motion wrt the local light rays by doing the
kenseto
Sigh...a rocket?
>
> I do not hink you can find one. Even gravitational acceleration is the
> result of the presence of other bodies. Impressed forces are due to
> other bodies. Any kind of force you can think of is the result of the
> presence of another body acting on the body under consideration. There
> is no magical force.
It is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> Even in the case of a rocket igniting its thrusters, particles of fuel
> leave the exhuat at high speed and the rocket moves according to
> Newton's 2nd law and conservation of momentum.
>
> Thus, there can be no motion without the presence of another body and
> the accelration you are talking about is duw to interactions always in
> a relational spacetime where absolute states are neither well-defined,
> nor necessary to explain motion.
>
> I think you are at a nice point to admit you have err.
I think that you are an idiot.
Ken Seto
kenseto
.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
Mike
That would be true if you could come up with an acceleration cause that
does not require the presence of another body. But you did not. So you
are the one who does not know what he is talking about.
Come'on chicken, show us how a body can accelerate without another body
acting on it.
> >
> > Even in the case of a rocket igniting its thrusters, particles of fuel
> > leave the exhuat at high speed and the rocket moves according to
> > Newton's 2nd law and conservation of momentum.
> >
> > Thus, there can be no motion without the presence of another body and
> > the accelration you are talking about is duw to interactions always in
> > a relational spacetime where absolute states are neither well-defined,
> > nor necessary to explain motion.
> >
> > I think you are at a nice point to admit you have err.
>
> I think that you are an idiot.
I never insulted you before. I think I will place you at the top of my
crank list. Up to now I had you in neutral territory because I never
paid attention to your stupidity. But it seems you have severe
comprehension problems about basic issues and a distorted view of
reality.
Bye crank.
Mike
Sam Wormley
That's an interesting response, Ken, to the definition of
acceleration. Then you may not be the smartest kid on the
block.
Mike
hey crank, what does SR have to do with all these? We are talking very
simple things hare, Sam understands velocity and you do not. Go hide in
your absolute space before men in white outfits find you and take you
for treatment. Accelerate magically into a corner in your absolute
insanity where nobody can trace you in relation to another lunatic. You
are a serious case.
Mike
kenseto
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:nD2wg.55845$Eh1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:3KmdnWECJ-r56CLZ...@conversent.net...
> >>
No it is your arguement that's circular. Acceleration is achieved without
any reference to any other object. Acceleration comes first before there is
any relative motion.
Ken Seto
Sorcerer
You sure are wicked to your mother, then, you evil bastard.
Androcles
| PD
|
PD
Sorcerer wrote:
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153436124.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Sorcerer wrote:
> | > "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:1153434132.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> | >
> | > >
> | > > > Analogies can be pushed too far.
> | >
> | > > Agreed. You pushed that clean off the edge. So does that make you a
> | > > liar or just stupid?
> | >
> | > Do you still beat your mother?
> | >
> | > [snip more crap]
> | > Androcles
> |
> | Stupid it is, then.
>
> You sure are wicked to your mother, then, you evil bastard.
> Androcles
>
My mother died when I was young, Androcles.
Now, were you also stupid when you were young, or is that a recent
development?
PD
AllYou!
Haven't you heard? The speed of a local light ray is always the same,
not matter what the speed of the local system.
Sorcerer
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1153436124.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1153434132.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > | >
| > | > >
| > | > > > Analogies can be pushed too far.
| > | >
| > | > > Agreed. You pushed that clean off the edge. So does that make you
a
| > | > > liar or just stupid?
| > | >
| > | > Do you still beat your mother?
| > | >
| > | > [snip more crap]
| > | > Androcles
| > |
| > | Stupid it is, then.
| >
| > You sure are wicked to your mother, then, you evil bastard.
| > Androcles
| >
|
| My mother died when I was young, Androcles.
Sorry to hear that, Duck. Did you beat her when you were young?
(Sorry about the snip, but new rules of the game, one line at a time.)
Androcles.
kenseto
Haven't you heard? The OWLS was never been measured. In any case my proposed
experiment is not all about measuring the speed of light. They are about
detecting the direction and magnitude of absolute motion.
>
>
kenseto
Hey idiot....you said that acceleration is a change of velocity wrt time.
That is a change of individual motion and no reference is needed.
kenseto
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >> > 1.Observer A measures the following:
> >> > B is moving wrt to him at Vab
> >> > C is moving wrt him at Vac
> >> > D is moving wrt him at Vad
> >> > 2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial
> >> > again.
> >> > 3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C
> >> > and D
> > have
> >> > been changed.
> >> > 4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the
> >> > individual
> >> > motion of A by acceleration.
> >> > 5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be
> >> > derived
> > from
> >> > relative
> > motion
> >> > between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the
> >> > vector
> > component
> >> > of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's
> >> > individual
> > motion
> >> > along the line joining A and B.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Way simpler than that, Seto--relative velocity is just dr/dt,
> >> the
> >> derivative with respect to time of the distance between two
> >> objects.
> >
> > Hey idiot....how do you get dr without individual motion?
>
> How do you get dr without a reference?
1. First you get a change in individual motion by acceleration. No reference
is needed for this step.
2. Then you get a change in relative motion as a result of a change in
individual motion.
Ken Seto