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


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

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

Sorcerer wrote:
"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.

Ah, then a scintillator does NOT slow down a muon in the same way the
ocean will slow down a jetliner, because a muon does not bounce off the
scintillator like a stone being skipped. So either you lied or you're
stupid. Which is it?

Quote:

The second scintillator will still splash photons like the ocean
splashes water, but the splash will be smaller.
The experiment is "rigged" so that there isn't an early trigger by
a different muon at the second scintillator, so the velocity is ALWAYS
measured to be < 300,000 km/s. When a really fast muon flies
through both scintillators at 600,000 km/s, it is then said that the
second scintillator was triggered by a different muon and the
counter is not registered by the computer.

This is actually incorrect. Muons faster than c are certainly allowed
by the trigger. They just aren't seen. Here is how it is done these
days, since you apparently don't know.
The signal from Sc 1 crosses a threshold in a discriminator and creates
a TDC "start" signal, as well as an input for a coincidence gate G.
Signals from Sc 2, 3, 4 are split in half. One half of each is sent to
the coincidence gate, and the other half is sent to a discriminator to
form a TDC "stop" for each channel of the TDC. Depending on the
position of the TDCs and discriminators, calibrated delay lines may be
introduced so that the TDC is sensitive to a time passage of as little
as 0 ns from one scintillator to the next or as much as would
correspond to a muon speed of, say, 1/5 c. The TDC "start" gate is
ANDed with the output of the coincidence gate, so that the timing is
initiated only for cases where Sc 1, 2, 3, 4 all fire within a broad
time window including, as I said, all firing at once or all firing one
after the other. This is not hard to do in an unbiased way.

I'm shocked --- SHOCKED, I say --- that you this abysmally uneducated
about how to set up a proper scintillator trigger to measure
time-of-flight.

Quote:
After all, there is no
point in proving Einstein was wrong when you are trying to prove
he was right.

But we're not trying to prove he was right. That would be a biased
experiment. The experiment has to be able to tell if he's wrong, too,
otherwise it isn't a sound test. Fortunately, the good tests are not
biased.

Quote:


I must be thick, as you say.

Yep.

I have muons traveling through a stack of
scintillators,

No you don't. You are a liar.

No, actually I do.
http://www-d0.fnal.gov/

Quote:

Androcles.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153424307.728610.45360@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

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

Sorcerer wrote:
"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.

Ah, then a scintillator does NOT slow down a muon in the same way the
ocean will slow down a jetliner, because a muon does not bounce off the
scintillator like a stone being skipped. So either you lied or you're
stupid. Which is it?

Analogies can be pushed too far.

Quote:
The second scintillator will still splash photons like the ocean
splashes water, but the splash will be smaller.
The experiment is "rigged" so that there isn't an early trigger by
a different muon at the second scintillator, so the velocity is ALWAYS
measured to be < 300,000 km/s. When a really fast muon flies
through both scintillators at 600,000 km/s, it is then said that the
second scintillator was triggered by a different muon and the
counter is not registered by the computer.

This is actually incorrect. Muons faster than c are certainly allowed
by the trigger.

No they are not. You are actually incorrect.
This snipping you've allowed is good fun, isn't it?
You've typed a load of crap and I don't have to bother to read it.

Androcles.
Back to top
Mike1
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
Mike wrote:
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.

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.


I will say once more that the only motion that can be determined
experimentally and pass verifiability is relative motion. Since physics
is an experimental science, therefore absolute motion cannot exist in
physics since it is unverifiable. the rest you say is a plain game of
words that have no meaning to anyone dealing with physics. Furthermore,
Newton's 1st it is understood today to define the FoR in which the 2nd
law holds. Newton was not stupid not to notice that mathematically his
1st can be derived from the 2nd as in: F = dp/dt = 0 ==> p = constant
===> v = constant.

But had he done that, he would have left a dark spot on his laws of
motion. He first defined the reference frames and then the 2nd law that
applies in this reference frame. In other words, he firsted defined the
domain of application of the 2nd law. This is the reason he did not
deduce the 1st from the 2nd, that would have been a mistake.


Quote:
Newton's 1st law has a sole object moving on its own when no
external forces are acting upon it, meaning that objects can move
on their own without the existence of other objects. Relative motion
is simply a comparison of motions between objects, it is not a
requirement for motion to exist.

Well, i repeat to you the notion of verifiability. You cannot verify
inertial motion in a self referential manner. if you cannot verify it,
it may, or may not exist.

It is plausible that motion of a single particle in the absence of
other particles is impossible. This was an idea expressed as far as in
the 5th century BC by the Eleatic philosophers. they said that ONE can
only exist still, is immovable and does not change. In respoce, the
pluralists said that it takes TWO to have change, including motion.

So, if you think that the notion of motion can apply to single isolated
partsiles there are different philosophical views about it since
antiquity. In modern ways, you have failed to demonstrate to me or
anyone else here how to determine that an isolated particle in inertial
motion really moves. Until you can demonstrate that, you are not doing
physics but a re-play of old metaphysics. As I said, physics is an
experimental science where of inferences made must pass the
veriafiability test.

So that answers laso your puzzlement about inferred motion. It is not
enough in physics to infer things. You must then confirm your
inferences by experimentation, otherwise your theory is plain wrong.

Having said that, I cannot be certain or absolutely deny the
possibility that one dauy absolute motion will be demonstrated. Even if
that happens, relative motion will always be well-defined and remain
such.

Mike







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?

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
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
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

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.

What? You have no answer for my question above and

so to you that is machismo and chest-beating?

I have already explained more than once in this thread
why I hold that opinion, and destroyed utterly your silly
arguments claiming no motion can exist unless it can be
measured. What more can you ask of me, unless you
just want more because you have come to like the mental
whuppings you've been getting lately on a regular basis?
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
Mike wrote:
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.

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.


I will say once more that the only motion that can be determined
experimentally and pass verifiability is relative motion.

My question is, why? No one is arguing otherwise!

Since physics
is an experimental science, therefore absolute motion cannot exist in
physics since it is unverifiable.

No, you're mistaken about that. Physics includes Theoretical

Physics, which is not an experimental science but disdains
experiment in favor of mathematics and philosophy. And
even if you're blind, you can know that motion exists by simply
getting up from bed in the morning. In doing so, you have
moved relative to your bed, your house, your planet, your
galaxy, and the entire universe. You have measured nothing,
yet you have performed motion and thus added that to your
relative motions wrt of all of the above.
Quote:

the rest you say is a plain game of
words that have no meaning to anyone dealing with physics.

They must mean a lot to you then 'cause you're sure

not dealing with the physics of experiment nor of
theoretical physics. You seem to be dealing with your
problem of being so brainwashed you can only parrot
the same ol' inanities of some others here. You don't
seem to know why you keep repeating an opinion that
is not being argued by anyone here, either.
Quote:

Furthermore,
Newton's 1st it is understood today to define the FoR in which the 2nd
law holds.

That's how you understand it, but no one has said that

here, and you offer no support for that opinion.
Quote:

Newton was not stupid not to notice that mathematically his
1st can be derived from the 2nd as in: F = dp/dt = 0 ==> p = constant
===> v = constant.

But had he done that, he would have left a dark spot on his laws of
motion. He first defined the reference frames and then the 2nd law that
applies in this reference frame. In other words, he firsted defined the
domain of application of the 2nd law. This is the reason he did not
deduce the 1st from the 2nd, that would have been a mistake.

You have listed 4 opinions above - can you support a

single one of them?
Quote:

Newton's 1st law has a sole object moving on its own when no
external forces are acting upon it, meaning that objects can move
on their own without the existence of other objects. Relative motion
is simply a comparison of motions between objects, it is not a
requirement for motion to exist.

Well, i repeat to you the notion of verifiability. You cannot verify
inertial motion in a self referential manner. if you cannot verify it,
it may, or may not exist.

No, that's patently false unless you reject his 1st law as well

as what your eyes see moving. Even then, it's doubtful you
could show in any reasonable way that motion may or may
not exist. You're saying nothing moves unless and until its
motion has been measured!
Quote:

It is plausible that motion of a single particle in the absence of
other particles is impossible. This was an idea expressed as far as in
the 5th century BC by the Eleatic philosophers. they said that ONE can
only exist still, is immovable and does not change. In respoce, the
pluralists said that it takes TWO to have change, including motion.

So you're stuck in ancient times, so what? And what

makes you think such explanations are plausible in view
of what we know today?
Quote:

So, if you think that the notion of motion can apply to single isolated
partsiles there are different philosophical views about it since
antiquity.

Yes, I thought you mistakenly think this is a philosophy ng.

In modern ways, you have failed to demonstrate to me or
anyone else here how to determine that an isolated particle in inertial
motion really moves.

No one here is trying to demonstate that to anyone! You

are mistaken about what's going on here!
Quote:

Until you can demonstrate that, you are not doing
physics but a re-play of old metaphysics. As I said, physics is an
experimental science where of inferences made must pass the
veriafiability test.

I believe that even if I wanted to or could do that, you would

still not understand what's going on here.
Quote:

So that answers laso your puzzlement about inferred motion.

No, it doesn't. I am not puzzled about inferred motion. That's

just a fantasy of yours.
Quote:

It is not
enough in physics to infer things.

No one here is arguing that it is enough.

You must then confirm your
inferences by experimentation, otherwise your theory is plain wrong.

Parrot.

Having said that, I cannot be certain or absolutely deny the
possibility that one dauy absolute motion will be demonstrated. Even if
that happens, relative motion will always be well-defined and remain
such.

Mike








The relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference
of the vector component of A's individual motion and the vector
component
of B's individual motion along the line joining A and B.
No individual motion by A or B .....no relative moiton and no change of
position.

This is obvious. So what is exactly the point you want to make?

The point is that individual motion exists. No reference is needed for
individual motion.

Empirically, to determine that something has moved you need something
else to refer the motion to.

Thus, individual motion can only be infered from relative motion
kinematically speaking. Try to understand this.

Everyone understands that, but you are saying that motion can
only be determined wrt another ref. point, and that is not the point
Seto making. He is not trying to determine that something has
moved, nor to measure that motion. He is trying to explain that
motion does not have to be measured in order for it to be motion.

To say that it does is to say that motion cannot exist unless and
until we can measure it. Now, how stupid is that?

From a dynamic perspective, you can infer individual motion only when
accelerating. Not in the case of inertial motion. Thus, individual
motion in general cannot be infered in a self referential empirical
manner.

That's crap and you know it. If you don't know it, that's metaphysics.

Therefore, from an empirical standpoint the only well-defined motion is
relative. Individual motion is only infered, not determined.

So individual motion is only inferred, eh? Well, guess what? To
infer is to conclude something on the basis of evidence or
reasoning. What is your reasoning or evidence, in the face of all
of mine, that there can be no motion unless and until it can be
compared to a ref. point?
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

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

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153424307.728610.45360@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

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

Sorcerer wrote:
"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.

Ah, then a scintillator does NOT slow down a muon in the same way the
ocean will slow down a jetliner, because a muon does not bounce off the
scintillator like a stone being skipped. So either you lied or you're
stupid. Which is it?

Analogies can be pushed too far.

Agreed. You pushed that clean off the edge. So does that make you a
liar or just stupid?

Quote:

The second scintillator will still splash photons like the ocean
splashes water, but the splash will be smaller.
The experiment is "rigged" so that there isn't an early trigger by
a different muon at the second scintillator, so the velocity is ALWAYS
measured to be < 300,000 km/s. When a really fast muon flies
through both scintillators at 600,000 km/s, it is then said that the
second scintillator was triggered by a different muon and the
counter is not registered by the computer.

This is actually incorrect. Muons faster than c are certainly allowed
by the trigger.

No they are not. You are actually incorrect.
This snipping you've allowed is good fun, isn't it?
You've typed a load of crap and I don't have to bother to read it.

Of course you don't. You certainly have the right to remain both stupid
and wrong.
In your case, it's a short trip to Wrong.

Quote:

Androcles.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
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

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.

What? You have no answer for my question above and
so to you that is machismo and chest-beating?

I have already explained more than once in this thread
why I hold that opinion, and destroyed utterly your silly
arguments claiming no motion can exist unless it can be
measured. What more can you ask of me, unless you
just want more because you have come to like the mental
whuppings you've been getting lately on a regular basis?

I see you have no answer, and instead prefer machismo and
chest-beating.

PD
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153434132.959618.265200@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153424307.728610.45360@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

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

Sorcerer wrote:
"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.

Ah, then a scintillator does NOT slow down a muon in the same way the
ocean will slow down a jetliner, because a muon does not bounce off the
scintillator like a stone being skipped. So either you lied or you're
stupid. Which is it?

Analogies can be pushed too far.

Agreed. You pushed that clean off the edge. So does that make you a
liar or just stupid?

Do you still beat your mother?


Quote:

The second scintillator will still splash photons like the ocean
splashes water, but the splash will be smaller.
The experiment is "rigged" so that there isn't an early trigger by
a different muon at the second scintillator, so the velocity is ALWAYS
measured to be < 300,000 km/s. When a really fast muon flies
through both scintillators at 600,000 km/s, it is then said that the
second scintillator was triggered by a different muon and the
counter is not registered by the computer.

This is actually incorrect. Muons faster than c are certainly allowed
by the trigger.

No they are not. You are actually incorrect.
This snipping you've allowed is good fun, isn't it?
You've typed a load of crap and I don't have to bother to read it.
[snip more crap]

Androcles
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153434132.959618.265200@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


Analogies can be pushed too far.

Agreed. You pushed that clean off the edge. So does that make you a
liar or just stupid?

Do you still beat your mother?

[snip more crap]
Androcles

Stupid it is, then.

PD
Back to top
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:15 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com wrote:
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?

Look up the word operationalism in Google. There is a lot about it.
Unfortunately, it rarely gets taught in physics at any level, much less
in first-year level college.

Quote:

I will present Newton's First law without appealing to any notion of an
absolute rest space.

Newton's First Law should be re-stated along this line (kinematics
before dynamics):

Let there be a rigid physical frame F setup to establish
spacio-temporal coordinates (with some clock synchronization operation
defined) at all points of the frame (an idealization, of course, but it
can be approximated in reality). Let F be in such a state of uniform
motion such that, relative to the fixed stars, F is in constant linear
motion without rotation.

As I recall, Newton said nothing about relative-to-the-fixed-stars
uniform motion. That's something you have added to it.

Yes, indeed. I'm trying to get away from the circular definitions of
Newton. It was the ambiguity of Newton's presentation of the First law
that opened the door for you to surmise absolute velocities to be
implied, which they weren't. The problem was that it was not stated by
Newton from which frame these velocities were being judged by. But it's
clear from any text on Newtonian mechanaics that any "inertial" frame
can claim to be "at rest."

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.

But that terse claim is specious because it does not tell us from what
frame these velocities are being measured. That's the same mistake that
Newton and you made. If you say, "Well, of course from inertial
frames," then I counter with, "But how do you know when a frame is
inertial?" You're working under a pre-operational notion of velocity.

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.

Meaning that, since P is in inertial motion, P successfully resists
any net forces acting upon it, right?

Well, yes, depending on what you mean by "resisting" an unballanced
force. If there were no "resistance" to an unballanced external force
applied to a particle, the particle would accelerate to infinite speed
instantly, I guess (we're being counterfactual here). Inertia is a
property, which put simple, means that velocity is finite over finite
intervals, and acceleration of the particle is proportional to the
force applied on it and inversely proportional to the mass of the
particle. But all of that is in the Second Law, and it's arguable
whether I should mention it at all here.

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,

The phrase "successfully resists change" is unclear to me.

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

Isn't that what I said? Maybe my wording is less than clear then.
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:48 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1153427999.345992.86240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

tomgee wrote:
Mike wrote:
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.

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.


I will say once more that the only motion that can be determined
experimentally and pass verifiability is relative motion. Since physics
is an experimental science, therefore absolute motion cannot exist in
physics since it is unverifiable.

absolute motion is verifiable with the following experiments:
1. A direct one-way speed of light measurement.
2.The proposed experiments in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf

Ken Seto
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:57 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com wrote:
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?

Look up the word operationalism in Google. There is a lot about it.
Unfortunately, it rarely gets taught in physics at any level, much less
in first-year level college.

You don't know, huh? Why claim that something is a problem

when you can't explain the problem? Bad form.
Quote:

I will present Newton's First law without appealing to any notion of an
absolute rest space.

Newton's First Law should be re-stated along this line (kinematics
before dynamics):

Let there be a rigid physical frame F setup to establish
spacio-temporal coordinates (with some clock synchronization operation
defined) at all points of the frame (an idealization, of course, but it
can be approximated in reality). Let F be in such a state of uniform
motion such that, relative to the fixed stars, F is in constant linear
motion without rotation.

As I recall, Newton said nothing about relative-to-the-fixed-stars
uniform motion. That's something you have added to it.

Yes, indeed. I'm trying to get away from the circular definitions of
Newton.

What circular definitions? You think you have found some

fallacious statements in Newton's works? That would be
earth-shattering news! When do you get the Nobel?
Quote:

It was the ambiguity of Newton's presentation of the First law
that opened the door for you to surmise absolute velocities to be
implied, which they weren't.

What ambiguity is that? Nothing in the 1st law is ambiguous.

Abs. motion is proclaimed therein and nothing was left out.
In another work, Newton supports his law 1 by saying that a
body in one of his examples that has no external forces acting
upon it continues at uniform motion under its inherent force.

He knew nothing can move without some impetus as if the
medium it's in is carrying it, like a river will carry a leaf. His
inherent force is the abs. motion that you deny exists.
Quote:

The problem was that it was not stated by
Newton from which frame these velocities were being judged by.

Did he say that? Or is that from one of his detractors?

But it's
clear from any text on Newtonian mechanaics that any "inertial" frame
can claim to be "at rest."

No, inertial frames can do no such thing. Only humans can

make such claims. An inertial frame can be "at rest" or in
motion. Motion is not what determines whether or not a
frame is inertial. An inertial frame is one that is at constant
velocity, either "at rest" or moving in non-accelerated motion.
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.

But that terse claim is specious because it does not tell us from what
frame these velocities are being measured.

You stated that in the frame of F, P is in motion. Therefore,

P is being observed in the frame F. Observers do not have
to be in an inertial frame. They are at certain Points Of
View (POV). We observe the frames from different POVs.

Note that it is being observed that in the frame F there is a P
that is moving at the same speed as F. That alone, however,
does not mean they are at constant velocity because they
could be moving in different directions. For P to be "at rest"
wrt F, they must both be moving at the same speed and in the
same direction. The part in parentheses above is not possible
because of that, and also because if P is in constant motion
relative to F, meaning that it is moving differently than F, it
cannot be "at rest" relative to F.
Quote:

That's the same mistake that
Newton and you made. If you say, "Well, of course from inertial
frames," then I counter with, "But how do you know when a frame is
inertial?" You're working under a pre-operational notion of velocity.

It does not have to be from an inertial frame. Yet we can

know when it is an inertial frame, by definition. A frame of
reference is simply one that is at a constant velocity - i.e.,
it is moving or "at rest" without any acceleration.
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.

Meaning that, since P is in inertial motion, P successfully resists
any net forces acting upon it, right?

Well, yes, depending on what you mean by "resisting" an unballanced
force. If there were no "resistance" to an unballanced external force
applied to a particle, the particle would accelerate to infinite speed
instantly, I guess (we're being counterfactual here). Inertia is a
property, which put simple, means that velocity is finite over finite
intervals, and acceleration of the particle is proportional to the
force applied on it and inversely proportional to the mass of the
particle. But all of that is in the Second Law, and it's arguable
whether I should mention it at all here.

Right. That was not at all necessary. My point was really that if P

is acted upon by a net external force, the result is that it will be
accelerated and then is when it is in a non-inertial frame.
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,

The phrase "successfully resists change" is unclear to me.

And rightly so. I misread your statement and thought you meant

something different. My fault, sorry.
Quote:

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

Isn't that what I said? Maybe my wording is less than clear then.

More likely I was reading too fast. My apologies.
Back to top
Mike1
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:30 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
Mike wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Mike wrote:
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.

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.


I will say once more that the only motion that can be determined
experimentally and pass verifiability is relative motion.

My question is, why? No one is arguing otherwise!

Since physics
is an experimental science, therefore absolute motion cannot exist in
physics since it is unverifiable.

No, you're mistaken about that. Physics includes Theoretical
Physics, which is not an experimental science but disdains
experiment in favor of mathematics and philosophy. And
even if you're blind, you can know that motion exists by simply
getting up from bed in the morning. In doing so, you have
moved relative to your bed, your house, your planet, your
galaxy, and the entire universe. You have measured nothing,
yet you have performed motion and thus added that to your
relative motions wrt of all of the above.


You said nothing aboove to support your claims.


Quote:

the rest you say is a plain game of
words that have no meaning to anyone dealing with physics.

They must mean a lot to you then 'cause you're sure
not dealing with the physics of experiment nor of
theoretical physics. You seem to be dealing with your
problem of being so brainwashed you can only parrot
the same ol' inanities of some others here. You don't
seem to know why you keep repeating an opinion that
is not being argued by anyone here, either.


This 'appeal" of yours to "anyone else" is just a plain informal
fallacy.



Quote:
Furthermore,
Newton's 1st it is understood today to define the FoR in which the 2nd
law holds.

That's how you understand it, but no one has said that
here, and you offer no support for that opinion.

Newton was not stupid not to notice that mathematically his
1st can be derived from the 2nd as in: F = dp/dt = 0 ==> p = constant
===> v = constant.

But had he done that, he would have left a dark spot on his laws of
motion. He first defined the reference frames and then the 2nd law that
applies in this reference frame. In other words, he firsted defined the
domain of application of the 2nd law. This is the reason he did not
deduce the 1st from the 2nd, that would have been a mistake.

You have listed 4 opinions above - can you support a
single one of them?

The burden of proof is on you to support your claims. I just present
the alternatives.

Quote:

Newton's 1st law has a sole object moving on its own when no
external forces are acting upon it, meaning that objects can move
on their own without the existence of other objects. Relative motion
is simply a comparison of motions between objects, it is not a
requirement for motion to exist.

Well, i repeat to you the notion of verifiability. You cannot verify
inertial motion in a self referential manner. if you cannot verify it,
it may, or may not exist.

No, that's patently false unless you reject his 1st law as well
as what your eyes see moving. Even then, it's doubtful you
could show in any reasonable way that motion may or may
not exist. You're saying nothing moves unless and until its
motion has been measured!


Again, you construct arguments that do nothing to support your claims
or refute the opposite claim. Just appeals to imagination.


Quote:
It is plausible that motion of a single particle in the absence of
other particles is impossible. This was an idea expressed as far as in
the 5th century BC by the Eleatic philosophers. they said that ONE can
only exist still, is immovable and does not change. In respoce, the
pluralists said that it takes TWO to have change, including motion.

So you're stuck in ancient times, so what? And what
makes you think such explanations are plausible in view
of what we know today?


I see that your horizons are very restrcited and limited, your
knowledge of the subject basically none and your misunderstandings
many.

You do not want to learn. When cornered or after realizing you lack the
basic knowledge you will become offensive as usual.

Quote:
So, if you think that the notion of motion can apply to single isolated
partsiles there are different philosophical views about it since
antiquity.

Yes, I thought you mistakenly think this is a philosophy ng.


Since you have not talked about physics at all you you seem unable to,
we have concentrated on the philosophical issues of your metaphysical
queries.

Quote:
In modern ways, you have failed to demonstrate to me or
anyone else here how to determine that an isolated particle in inertial
motion really moves.

No one here is trying to demonstate that to anyone! You
are mistaken about what's going on here!

Until you can demonstrate that, you are not doing
physics but a re-play of old metaphysics. As I said, physics is an
experimental science where of inferences made must pass the
veriafiability test.

I believe that even if I wanted to or could do that, you would
still not understand what's going on here.


What is going on is that you are not a physicist and you know nothing
about the subjects you get involved or like to chat about..


Quote:
So that answers laso your puzzlement about inferred motion.

No, it doesn't. I am not puzzled about inferred motion. That's
just a fantasy of yours.

It is not
enough in physics to infer things.

No one here is arguing that it is enough.

You must then confirm your
inferences by experimentation, otherwise your theory is plain wrong.

Parrot.


It is clear that you do not want to learn. You intend to provide
support for your false idea by attacking those who try to teach you the
correct way.

It is now clear that:

1. You do not understand the concept of motion
2. You have a naive understanding of Newton's laws
3. You do not understand the distinction between physics and
metaphysics
4. You are not willing to learn
5. You grow ad hominen as your lack of knowledge gets exposed

the sum of the above is a strong indication that you are an idot.

Mike



Quote:

Having said that, I cannot be certain or absolutely deny the
possibility that one dauy absolute motion will be demonstrated. Even if
that happens, relative motion will always be well-defined and remain
such.

Mike








The relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference
of the vector component of A's individual motion and the vector
component
of B's individual motion along the line joining A and B.
No individual motion by A or B .....no relative moiton and no change of
position.

This is obvious. So what is exactly the point you want to make?

The point is that individual motion exists. No reference is needed for
individual motion.

Empirically, to determine that something has moved you need something
else to refer the motion to.

Thus, individual motion can only be infered from relative motion
kinematically speaking. Try to understand this.

Everyone understands that, but you are saying that motion can
only be determined wrt another ref. point, and that is not the point
Seto making. He is not trying to determine that something has
moved, nor to measure that motion. He is trying to explain that
motion does not have to be measured in order for it to be motion.

To say that it does is to say that motion cannot exist unless and
until we can measure it. Now, how stupid is that?

From a dynamic perspective, you can infer individual motion only when
accelerating. Not in the case of inertial motion. Thus, individual
motion in general cannot be infered in a self referential empirical
manner.

That's crap and you know it. If you don't know it, that's metaphysics.

Therefore, from an empirical standpoint the only well-defined motion is
relative. Individual motion is only infered, not determined.

So individual motion is only inferred, eh? Well, guess what? To
infer is to conclude something on the basis of evidence or
reasoning. What is your reasoning or evidence, in the face of all
of mine, that there can be no motion unless and until it can be
compared to a ref. point?
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:11 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:3KmdnWECJ-r56CLZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@conversent.net...
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

Sigh....Eaxh object in the universe is already in a state of absolute
motion. You can change your state of absolute motion by acceleration.
You and I are standing side by side so we are in the same state of absolute
motion and we don't have relative motion wrt each other. I
accelerated....this means that I changed my state of absolute motion.
Relative motion is born between you and I. Clearky this means that I changed
my state of absolute motion without using you as a reference and clearly
relative motion between you and I is born after I changed my state of
absolute motion.
BTW denying this arguement is much like denying your mother is not your
mother.....unless...

Ken Seto
Back to top
Mike1
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:59 am    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:
Quote:
"AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:3KmdnWECJ-r56CLZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@conversent.net...

"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

Sigh....Eaxh object in the universe is already in a state of absolute
motion. You can change your state of absolute motion by acceleration.

You probably are not using the term "absolute motion" in its accepetd
and widely understood way.

Quote:
You and I are standing side by side so we are in the same state of absolute
motion and we don't have relative motion wrt each other. I
accelerated....this means that I changed my state of absolute motion.

Hardly. You cannot prove that in any way possible. If I insist that
without the other body presence you would be unable to move you cannot
deny my claim since you cannot prove that you can move in the absence
of other bodies around you.

Quote:
Relative motion is born between you and I. Clearky this means that I changed
my state of absolute motion without using you as a reference and clearly
relative motion between you and I is born after I changed my state of
absolute motion.

Then, tell us you absolute position right now, your absolute velocity,
etc. Can you?


Quote:
BTW denying this arguement is much like denying your mother is not your
mother.....unless...

Fallacies on top of fallacies hardly make a sound argument. Again, if
you know of a physics where absolute motion exists, go ahead and give
us the absolute coordinates of Earth.

The absolute - relational spacetime/motion debate is well known and
understood these days. The relationalists have the advantage that
spatiotemporal quantities are well-defined. their metaphysical problem
is how spacetime is structured. Absolutists have no
well-definedspatiotemporal quantities and when they must solve a
problem always use relational ones. Their position is metaphysical from
start.

Your claims are totally unfounded.

Mike


Quote:

Ken Seto
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 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: 0.1111s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0258s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]