Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free fall
Next: 50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
From: Traveler on 26 Sep 2005 13:22 On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:13:15 -0500, "Herman Trivilino" <physhead(a)kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote: >Is a state of rest (with respect to another object) equivalent to a state of >uniform motion (with respect to another object)? Motion is not a state, uniform or otherwise. It is a series of effects, of changes in positions, to be exact. Get your definitions straight, otherwise you'll keep on asking stupid questions. Louis Savain Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
From: PD on 26 Sep 2005 14:25 TomGee wrote: > Well, thanks for your input, Paul. Would you be able to answer my > question to Randy? Herman tried but he had no luck with it either. Or > maybe you can clarify the question for them as you have clarlfied the > equation which Randy claims "relates" to our topic. First of all, the equation that Randy is citing (F = dp/dt) is correct, and it is written in words in Encarta as well, which has been quoted back to you. Secondly, the *other* equation that Encarta puts in words is p=mv, which is not generally correct. Finally, as for the "question" you have for them, I'm not sure to what you refer. If your question was "What do you mean by F = dp/dt", I have only a guess as to what Randy truly means by it. Are you asking what I mean by it? Are you asking what physicists in general mean by it? PD
From: PD on 26 Sep 2005 14:29 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. This is either a false law or one that requires careful classification of "effects". Uniform motion is NOT an effect. Acceleration IS an effect. This distinction is precisely one of the fundamental underpinnings of classical mechanics. > 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 No, it doesn't. Wherever did you get that idea? > 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: TomGee on 26 Sep 2005 14:43 PD wrote: > TomGee wrote: > > Well, thanks for your input, Paul. Would you be able to answer my > > question to Randy? Herman tried but he had no luck with it either. Or > > maybe you can clarify the question for them as you have clarlfied the > > equation which Randy claims "relates" to our topic. > > First of all, the equation that Randy is citing (F = dp/dt) is correct, > and it is written in words in Encarta as well, which has been quoted > back to you. > > So what? It has no relevance to the topic and no one said it isn't correct, so your "First of all" is not relevant either. > > > Secondly, the *other* equation that Encarta puts in words is p=mv, > which is not generally correct. > > Encarta said no such thing, AFAIK, so you're lying again, so your "Secondly" is also not relevant. > > > Finally, as for the "question" you have for them, I'm not sure to what > you refer. If your question was "What do you mean by F = dp/dt", I have > only a guess as to what Randy truly means by it. Are you asking what I > mean by it? Are you asking what physicists in general mean by it? > > I know what it means. Randy's use of it has no relevance to our discussion so I wanted to find out how he meant it since he gave no support for his use of it.
From: PD on 26 Sep 2005 14:44
Traveler wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:13:15 -0500, "Herman Trivilino" > <physhead(a)kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote: > > >Is a state of rest (with respect to another object) equivalent to a state of > >uniform motion (with respect to another object)? > > Motion is not a state, uniform or otherwise. It is a series of > effects, of changes in positions, to be exact. Get your definitions > straight, otherwise you'll keep on asking stupid questions. Position is defined with respect to a reference point. What reference point are you taking to determine whether something is experiencing the "effect" of motion or not? What is your position as you sit there, Louis, and is that changing or not? > > Louis Savain > > Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: > http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm |