Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 2 of 6 [80 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
kenseto
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 Quote: kenseto wrote: "Randy Poe" wrote in message news:1153327782.517730.42420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... kenseto wrote: "AllYou!" 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?
Randy Poe
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

kenseto wrote:
 Quote: "Randy Poe" wrote in message news:1153333803.107364.255950@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... kenseto wrote: "Randy Poe" wrote in message news:1153327782.517730.42420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... kenseto wrote: "AllYou!" 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".
- Randy
AllYou!
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
 Quote: "AllYou!" wrote in message news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@conversent.net... "kenseto" 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?
AllYou!
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
 Quote: "Sam Wormley" 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?

How do you get dr without a reference?
Sam Wormley
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

kenseto wrote:

 Quote: Way simpler than that, Seto--relative velocity is just dr/dt, the derivative with respect to time of the distance between two objects. Hey idiot....how do you get dr without individual motion?

r is the distance one object *measures* with respect to the other,
say with a laser range finder, radar, sound echo, ruler, etc. How
close are you to your mommy... that's the distance, r, between you

Do it again to get the change in distance, r, between you and your
mommy. It's all relative Seto.
tomgee1
science forum Guru

Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

Randy Poe wrote:
 Quote: kenseto wrote: "Randy Poe" wrote in message news:1153327782.517730.42420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... kenseto wrote: "AllYou!" 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?
tomgee1
science forum Guru

Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

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.
tomgee1
science forum Guru

Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

PD wrote:
 Quote: kenseto wrote: "Sam Wormley" 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".
AllYou!
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message

 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?
AllYou!
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 Quote: PD wrote: kenseto wrote: "Sam Wormley" 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?
AllYou!
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message

 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?
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

tomgee wrote:
 Quote: PD wrote: kenseto wrote: "Sam Wormley" 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
Mike1
science forum Guru

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

kenseto wrote:
 Quote: "Sam Wormley" 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

Mike
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

 Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion "PD" wrote in message news:1153342683.038234.116570@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... | | tomgee wrote: | > PD wrote: | > > kenseto wrote: | > > > "Sam Wormley" wrote in message | > > > news:Hqqvg.42907\$FQ1.2954@attbi_s71... | > > > > kenseto wrote: | > > > > > 1.Observer A measures the following: | > > > > > | > SNIP | > > | > > r is defined as a distance *relative* to some reference point. The | > > change dr is the change in that *relative* distance. | > > | > > There is no such thing as absolute position. There is only position | > > relative to some reference. | > > | > "Absolute POSITION"??? Something wrong with your computer PD? | > Or your eyes? Or is that one of your famous tricks of distraction? | | For the illiterate, I will attempt to fill in the gaps. The question | you snipped LOL! Good at snipping, aren't you, you fuckin' troll. Tomgee has the measure of you, moron. YOU are the illiterate, Phuckwit Duck. Slow down my clock by moving it, moron. As fast as you like. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif You can't because you haven't a clue about physics, let alone electronics. Androcles Androcles.
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion

Sorcerer wrote:
 Quote: "PD" wrote in message news:1153342683.038234.116570@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... | | tomgee wrote: | > PD wrote: | > > kenseto wrote: | > > > "Sam Wormley" 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

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 2 of 6 [80 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:17 am | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Seeking retired individual Kathy Mechanics 2 Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:30 pm Is there a way to write out the process of the cumulative... Michael11 Math 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:16 am Brownian motion, covariance Ken Honda Math 1 Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:48 pm 3D motion of an Object IED Physics 0 Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:56 pm Perpetual Motion Machines Rich1191 Physics 36 Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:01 am