Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free fall
Next: 50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
From: Herman Trivilino on 25 Sep 2005 17:37 "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote ... >> 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. What s it that keeps bodies at rest? Is a state of rest is equivalent to a state of uniform motion? If your worldview requires a cause for a state of uniform motion, why does it not also require the SAME cause for a state of rest? ----== 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 =----
From: TomGee on 26 Sep 2005 01:50 Herman Trivilino wrote: > "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote ... > > >> 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. > > What s it that keeps bodies at rest? > > There are no bodies at rest in our universe except wrt to other objects. And get you facts straight: I did not write the above which you have attributed to me. > > > Is a state of rest is equivalent to a state of uniform motion? > > No. > > > If your worldview requires a cause for a state of uniform motion, why does > it not also require the SAME cause for a state of rest? > > Because there can be no state of rest in an expanding universe except when comparing the motions of two or more objects, and even those objects are moving within the universe.
From: TomGee on 26 Sep 2005 02:01 He asked a bunch of questions, Platopes, which one do you find so great?
From: platopes on 26 Sep 2005 02:37 TomGee wrote: > He asked a bunch of questions, Platopes, which one do you find so > great? Gee, Tom, there were three sentences, but only one question. Here it is in a fourth incarnation - We know what halts an otherwise un-impeded, (walls and such), body in motion here on earth; gravity and friction. If the same otherwise un-impeded body in motion were placed safely far enough away from gravity and friction, just. why. do. you. think. it. would. stop? p
From: TomGee on 26 Sep 2005 02:42
Paul Stowe wrote: > 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. > > Izzatso? Let's a reference, please, where "cause & effect" says that. > > > Momentum is an inertial process and exists > without 'further' need for cause. > > Inertia is not a process; it is resistance to change. Momentum is a quantity expressing the motion and resistance of a body, and it is also a force inherent in a body. > > > > 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... > > "subtlety", "suit". > > > 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. > > Your claim, "In your mental concept perhaps" is an argument even if you think not. Your belief that objects get a free ride in space is based on your belief that space is empty of anything that could offer resistance to their constant velocity. It has long been thought that the "quantum vacuum" is made up of "fields" and processes that conjure up particles from nothing and that was the standard model until we were able to see the effects of what we termed Dark Matter. That shifted our knowledge out of the box we were in out into a better explanation for the so-called fields and phantom particles. But some of the heads in the box find it too difficult to change their minds and so they will continue to believe in fantastical realms of fields and in the creation of particles out of nothingness. |