FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Relative motion from individual motion
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 6 [80 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153344904.397359.151740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1153342683.038234.116570@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | tomgee wrote:
| > | > PD wrote:
| > | > > kenseto wrote:
| > | > > > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@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
| >
|
| Whew! Someone left their bait out on the doorstep too long, and it's
| smelling to high heaven!

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.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153344904.397359.151740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1153342683.038234.116570@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | tomgee wrote:
| > | > PD wrote:
| > | > > kenseto wrote:
| > | > > > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@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
|
|
| Whew! Someone left their bait out on the doorstep too long, and it's
| smelling to high heaven!

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.

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.

Quote:
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.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153347305.261532.60050@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1153344904.397359.151740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1153342683.038234.116570@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | tomgee wrote:
| > | > | > PD wrote:
| > | > | > > kenseto wrote:
| > | > | > > > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@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
| > | >
| > |
| > | Whew! Someone left their bait out on the doorstep too long, and it's
| > | smelling to high heaven!
| >
| > 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>
- subĚlimĚiĚnalĚly 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.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153347305.261532.60050@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > 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
- subĚlimĚiĚnalĚly 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
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:22 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@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".

I took that question as a rhetorical one, since what you get without

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.
Quote:

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.
Quote:

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.
Quote:

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.
Back to top
shuba
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 160

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:24 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

-)))> crosspost halved <((((-

Thomas Garcia wrote:

Quote:
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---
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153350407.443818.198040@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153347305.261532.60050@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > 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
- subĚlimĚiĚnalĚly 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?




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
Back to top
Mike1
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:22 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:
Quote:
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

Good.

Quote:
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.

Good

Quote:
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D have
been changed.

Good


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:16 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153335073.092372.50340@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153333803.107364.255950@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153327782.517730.42420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@conversent.net...
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?

You get a change in relative distance by having relative 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.0


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?

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".

Idiot....no individaul motion no relative motion.
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:20 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:QtidnTE745TsGSPZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@conversent.net...
Quote:

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:ontvg.30190$vl5.20181@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

"AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@conversent.net...

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:ssJug.45264$Eh1.45256@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?

If by motion, you mean a change in position, how do you achieve a
change in position without a reference?

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
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:23 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153335073.092372.50340@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153333803.107364.255950@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153327782.517730.42420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@conversent.net...
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?

You get a change in relative distance by having relative 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.0


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?

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.

The nonsense is on your indoctrinated mind.
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
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:27 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1153383751.763667.109680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

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

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.

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
Back to top
Mike1
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:34 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:
Quote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1153383751.763667.109680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

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

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.

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?

Mike




Quote:

Ken Seto
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:07 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1153388081.628389.244840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

kenseto wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1153383751.763667.109680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

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

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.

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.
Back to top
Mike1
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:22 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:
Quote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1153388081.628389.244840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1153383751.763667.109680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

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

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.

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.

Quote:
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
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 6 [80 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:46 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Seeking retired individual Kathy Mechanics 2 Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:30 pm
No new posts Is there a way to write out the process of the cumulative... Michael11 Math 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:16 am
No new posts Brownian motion, covariance Ken Honda Math 1 Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:48 pm
No new posts 3D motion of an Object IED Physics 0 Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:56 pm
No new posts Perpetual Motion Machines Rich1191 Physics 36 Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:01 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0474s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0025s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]