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 4 of 6 [80 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
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
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
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 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 10:07 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 9:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"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!

PD
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"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



Androcles.
Back to top
Mike1
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:
Quote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Hqqvg.42907$FQ1.2954@attbi_s71...
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
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.

Hey idiot....how do you get dr without individual motion?


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
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
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". 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?

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.

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.

PD
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153341149.764566.180120@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Quote:
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?
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153341912.055602.79050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

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?
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".

Can you support that opinion?
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153340303.744521.208740@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Quote:
Randy, you done s**t 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.

Quote:
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?
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
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?
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".
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

Sam Wormley wrote:
Quote:
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.

Yes, absolutely, Worms! You got it right! There is no such

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.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

Randy Poe wrote:
Quote:
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.

Randy, you done s**t 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. 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?
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 6 [80 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:42 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: 0.1243s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0423s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]