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
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:IVHvg.39460$u11.31679@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Quote:

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

"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.

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?
Back to top
Mike1
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

AllYou! wrote:
Quote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:IVHvg.39460$u11.31679@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

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

"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.

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?

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
Back to top
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
Randy Poe wrote:
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.

Then tell us which frame it is that absolute rest occurs.

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?

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.
Back to top
Mike1
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
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.

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.

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.

Quote:

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.


Quote:

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
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

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

Sorcerer wrote:
"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.

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
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
Quote:
kenseto wrote:
"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.

I agree. I would say that the cause is the fact that A changes

position before he measures a second time.
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.

IMO, math is the metaphysical part of physics. What Seto is trying

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.
Quote:

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?
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.

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?
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
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.

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.

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
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
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.

Then tell us which frame it is that absolute rest occurs.

If you subscribe to the BBT, there can be no such aminal.

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!

"Pre-operational definitions"? You mean math operations? Or what?

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.
Quote:

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.

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?
Quote:

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,
and so from F it looks like nothing is acting upon P.
Quote:

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.

I say!
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153418247.511028.17940@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Quote:
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?
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153420827.209410.208870@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

surrealistic-dream@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 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.

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?
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
Quote:
AllYou! wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:IVHvg.39460$u11.31679@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

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

"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.

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?

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.

If your reference is to what Seto is trying to do, you have it

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.
Quote:

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.

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.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:

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
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153421719.315739.127870@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Mike wrote:
AllYou! wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:IVHvg.39460$u11.31679@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

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

"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.

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?

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.

If your reference is to what Seto is trying to do, you have it
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.

The claim is that motion is meaningless unless it can be determined to
be occurring.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Back to top
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
Quote:
surrealistic-dream@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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:


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.


Quote:
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.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153417803.843323.282730@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

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

Sorcerer wrote:
"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.

I see. And the size of the splash will be the same as the one created
when the jetliner hits the next ocean underneath?

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.
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 Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:51 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: 0.0737s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0139s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]