Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free fall
Next: 50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
From: Traveler on 25 Sep 2005 10:50 On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 03:22:19 GMT, Paul Stowe <TheAetherist(a)best.net> wrote: > It all stems back to this, > > Randy Poe: > > "That's correct. There is no force that keeps bodies in > motion. Forces only act to change motion." > > True... False. The law of cause and effect requires a cause for every effect. Physicists have long assumed that bodies move for no reason, as if by magic. This belief is pure superstition. It will go down in history as the most stupid blunder in the history of science, more laughable than the flat earth hypothesis. The logical fact is that motion, like every effect, is caused. No need to invoke either Newton or Einstein to understand this. Use your own common sense. Motion requires energy and acceleration requires more energy. It follows that we are moving in a highly energetic sea of particles. Why? Because sustained motion is caused by a series of interactions. Motion is thus proof of the aether, not a lumineferous aether for the propagation of waves, but a particulate aether, one which explains phenomena such as the electric and magnetic fields, and gravity. The new physics revolution will start when somebody finds a way to use the energy in the aether for propulsion, navigation and energy production. I personally suspect that the mechanism will be quite simple. Afterwards, all bets are off. It's Aristotle redux. Deny at your own detriment. Louis Savain Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
From: Don1 on 25 Sep 2005 11:32 Traveler wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 03:22:19 GMT, Paul Stowe <TheAetherist(a)best.net> > wrote: > > > It all stems back to this, > > > > Randy Poe: > > > > "That's correct. There is no force that keeps bodies in > > motion. Forces only act to change motion." > > > > True... > > False. The law of cause and effect requires a cause for every effect. > Physicists have long assumed that bodies move for no reason, as if by > magic. This belief is pure superstition. It will go down in history as > the most stupid blunder in the history of science, more laughable than > the flat earth hypothesis. > > The logical fact is that motion, like every effect, is caused. No need > to invoke either Newton or Einstein to understand this. Use your own > common sense. > > Motion requires energy and acceleration requires more energy. It > follows that we are moving in a highly energetic sea of particles. > Why? Because sustained motion is caused by a series of interactions. > Motion is thus proof of the aether, not a lumineferous aether for the > propagation of waves, but a particulate aether, one which explains > phenomena such as the electric and magnetic fields, and gravity. > > The new physics revolution will start when somebody finds a way to use > the energy in the aether for propulsion, navigation and energy > production. I personally suspect that the mechanism will be quite > simple. Afterwards, all bets are off. > > It's Aristotle redux. Deny at your own detriment. > > Louis Savain > > Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: > http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm Hurrah; hurray. Except I dunno about that last paragraph Louis(;^? Don
From: TomGee on 25 Sep 2005 17:00 Traveler wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 03:22:19 GMT, Paul Stowe <TheAetherist(a)best.net> > wrote: > > > It all stems back to this, > > > > Randy Poe: > > > > "That's correct. There is no force that keeps bodies in > > motion. Forces only act to change motion." > > > > True... > > False. The law of cause and effect requires a cause for every effect. > Physicists have long assumed that bodies move for no reason, as if by > magic. This belief is pure superstition. It will go down in history as > the most stupid blunder in the history of science, more laughable than > the flat earth hypothesis. > > Well said, Traveler. > > > The logical fact is that motion, like every effect, is caused. No need > to invoke either Newton or Einstein to understand this. Use your own > common sense. > > The move by science teachers to ingrain into baby boomers the belief that common sense is always unreliable will take another generation to remove it from the science world. They did that because they had no answers other than nature is weird like that and God works in mysterious ways. That's why physics is in such a fix today with its many unfalsifiable theories being believed as true by many today. > > > Motion requires energy and acceleration requires more energy. It > follows that we are moving in a highly energetic sea of particles. > Why? Because sustained motion is caused by a series of interactions. > Motion is thus proof of the aether, not a lumineferous aether for the > propagation of waves, but a particulate aether, one which explains > phenomena such as the electric and magnetic fields, and gravity. > > Yes, that's perzactly what my model of the universe provides. > > > The new physics revolution will start when somebody finds a way to use > the energy in the aether for propulsion, navigation and energy > production. I personally suspect that the mechanism will be quite > simple. Afterwards, all bets are off. > > It's Aristotle redux. Deny at your own detriment. > > Yes, the mechanism is simple once you understand the explanations. And it is a rebirth, more like a reinstatement of some of Ari's ideas. And my model will survive all of us. > > Just so you don't think I'm trying to sidle up next to you, Savain, as you have intimated in the past, Go suck a pig's foot!
From: Paul Stowe on 25 Sep 2005 17:21 On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:50:43 -0400, Traveler <traveler(a)nospam.net> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 03:22:19 GMT, Paul Stowe <TheAetherist(a)best.net> >wrote: > >> It all stems back to this, >> >> Randy Poe: >> >> "That's correct. There is no force that keeps bodies in >> motion. Forces only act to change motion." >> >> True... > > False. The law of cause and effect requires a cause for every > effect. So? The 'cause' is whatever force generated the motion. However cause & effect also says that once 'caused' it cannot change without further cause. Momentum is an inertial process and exists without 'further' need for cause. > Physicists have long assumed that bodies move for no reason, as if > by magic. None that I know of... Every one I know would say bodies move as a result of forces acting on them. However, those forces need not be constant. Indeed, if they were, we'd have non-linear results. > This belief is pure superstition. It will go down in history as > the most stupid blunder in the history of science, more laughable > than the flat earth hypothesis. > > The logical fact is that motion, like every effect, is caused. Who's arguing against this??? > No need to invoke either Newton or Einstein to understand this. > Use your own common sense. > > Motion requires energy Mass in motion IS, by definition, both momentum and ENERGY, period! Qunatified as, v2 / p = m | dv / v1 v2 / E = m | v dv / v1 > ... and acceleration requires more energy. Ah, subtly isn't your strong suite I see... Wrt mass, acceleration is associated with the term we call force. It take this acting thru a non-zero distance to effect any energy change. > It follows that we are moving in a highly energetic sea of particles. > Why? Because sustained motion is caused by a series of interactions. > Motion is thus proof of the aether, not a lumineferous aether for the > propagation of waves, but a particulate aether, one which explains > phenomena such as the electric and magnetic fields, and gravity. In your mental concept perhaps. I'll not argue this one way or the other, I'll just say that, like the rest frame of the aether, it has no observational affect on inertial motion of masses. > The new physics revolution will start when somebody finds a way to > use the energy in the aether for propulsion, navigation and energy > production. I personally suspect that the mechanism will be quite > simple. Afterwards, all bets are off. Remember this term, "Field Energy Converters" :) > It's Aristotle redux. Deny at your own detriment. Deny what? Paul Stowe
From: Herman Trivilino on 25 Sep 2005 17:31
"TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote ... >> Isn't the topic of discussion "momentum and force are the >> same thing"? > No it's not. > I agree, but that is not the only relationship of the two, simply > because momentum is not only a quantity but also a force. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |