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


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1153483155.217223.312370@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

kenseto wrote:
"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.

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.

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?


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



Ken Seto
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1153483155.217223.312370@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

kenseto wrote:
"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...

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.

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.

So are you saying that acceleration is not moving? Why do I need other body
to experience acceleration?
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?

Since I am in a state of absolute motion there is no such thing as absolute
position for me. The absolute velocity wrt local light rays can be
determined by doing the experiments in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf

Ken Seto
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



Ken Seto
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:nD2wg.55845$Eh1.23716@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
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.

That's the proposition under debate, and so it serves no purpose to
repeat it.

Quote:
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.

That's the proposition under debate, and so it serves no purpose to
repeat it.

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.

That's the proposition under debate, and so it serves no purpose to
repeat it.


But now answer the question. How do you achieve (i.e., quantify)
individual motion (i.e., change in position) without a reference? In
fact, how do you even determine whether or not individual motion is
occurring without a reference?

You see, the argument presented above is circular. You're using the
proposition that you're advocating as the basis for the support of
your argument. You can see how silly that is, right? If you had a
valid argument for "individual motion", you wouldn't have to keep
making that argument in terms of relative motion. IOW, you wouldn't
have to keep using hypothetical which involve two or more objects
(e.g., you and me).

Can you make your argument without doing either of these (i.e., using
two objects, or using the proposition under debate as the basis for
your argument)?
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:du4wg.55849$Eh1.4457@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Quote:

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1153483155.217223.312370@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...


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.

So are you saying that acceleration is not moving? Why do I need
other body
to experience acceleration?

Are you saying that you can only determine individual motion in the
case of acceleration?
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Relative motion from individual motion Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:
Quote:

So are you saying that acceleration is not moving? Why do I need other body
to experience acceleration?

Acceleration is a *change* in motion.
If you toss a ball in the air, on the way up it accelerates at 9.8
m/s^2 downward. On the way down it accelerates at 9.8 m/s^2 downward.
At the moment at the very top where the motion of the ball relative to
the earth is *zero*, the acceleration is *still* 9.8 m/s^2 downward.
Notice in the last case, there is plainly acceleration when there is no
motion.

PD
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 6 of 6 [80 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:28 am | 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: 0.0490s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0043s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]