traveler Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 As long as there is no acceleration, you can't say, absolutely, who is moving. You can't imagine which is moving, but that doesn't mean there isn't a reality of the situation. Every object has a velocity and direction. Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't change the reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 so you are saying there is an absolute reference frame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 so you are saying there is an absolute reference frame? What's a reference frame, the point of view of an observer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 a reference frame is an arbitrary coordinate system where you can say if something has a velocity of zero with respect to the coordinate system then it is stationary. if you are saying what i think your are saying then there is a preffered reference frame that is absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 a reference frame is an arbitrary coordinate system where you can say if something has a velocity of zero with respect to the coordinate system then it is stationary. In reality, no object has a velocity of zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 you really are thick aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 you really are thick aren't you? No, just accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Every object has velocity zero in its own reference frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 Every object has velocity zero in its own reference frame. No object has a zero velocity, PERIOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 No traveler, the point is that it is impossible to say what is moving and what isn't. Consider a universe where there are two balls, one red and one blue. The distance between the two balls is increasing at 1 m/s. Which one is moving? It is impossible to say because it differs depending on the reference frame. I.e. if we choose a coordinate system that keeps the red ball at (0,0), it appears that the blue ball is moving. If we choose a coordinate system that keeps the blue ball at (0,0) is appears that the red ball is moving. If we choose a coordinate system that keeps (0,0) right between both balls, then it appears that both are moving. Which one is "correct"? The answer is that they all are, from their point of view. There is no such thing as a preferred reference frame -- the laws of physics work equally well in ant reference frame. And, it is also impossible to tell which scenario is true (red ball moving, blue ball moving, or both moving). Because we can choose a frame that makes each of the scenarios true. So, in effect, any object can have a velocity of zero, if you choose a coordinate system to follow that object. The definition of velocity is intricately linked to the definition of coordinate system. If the object doesn't change coordinates -- say by using a coordinate system that keeps the object at (0,0) (or any other fixed point), then the object has no velocity. The big thing is that coordinate systems are an invention of mankind, and are primarily chosen to make the math easier. Nature doesn't know if you picked a coordinate system to follow one object or another, or it you picked Cartesian, cylindrical or spherical coordinates, not does Nature care. Because there are no coordinate systems in Nature, any and all different ones are equally valid. And indistinguishable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 (edited) No object has a zero velocity, PERIOD! (why am I doing this?) 3-Velocity has no absolute meaning. (4-velocity for massive particles is different). Thus, zero/non-zero with respect to what reference frame/natural coordinate system etc... A good experiment to perform is grab your best friend by the hand and go for a walk or if you feel fit a little jog. We can illustrate relativity by looking at Galilean relativity where all we need to is add velocities.. Ask yourself "how fast am I moving relative to my friend?" Then ask yourself "how fast am I moving relative to the ground?" And then "how fast am I moving relative to someone passing us? " Which one is the "true" speed? Edited November 2, 2008 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Moron. Prove me wrong then. I just proved you wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Albers Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 (edited) Everything vibrates, but velocity is discernible in a relative sense only given more than one entity. On the other hand it is so that the cosmic microwave background is a blackbody spectrum and this indeed has a preferred frame of reference - there was sort of a theoretical BODY, namely the WALLS in the analysis, or the average mass-energy density in this region at the time of cosmic decoupling of the radiation. The spectrum is not Lorentz invariant. Edited November 2, 2008 by Norman Albers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 No, just accurate. You are not being accurate; you are just making random statements which do not relate to the discussion. Simply saying "NOTHING has zero velocity!!!!" without even knowing what a reference frame is quite clearly shows to those who do know what they are that you have not got the faintest clue what you are talking about. I strongly suggest you learn about reference frames before you continue with this thread. You are not exactly being revolutionary or novel and you are going to end up looking like a complete nitwit if you don't sort yourself out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 (edited) No traveler, the point is that it is impossible to say what is moving and what isn't. I agree, it's impossible to say, but that doesn't mean there isn't a truth of the reality. Compare those objects to other objects, and their velocities and accelerations, geometrically in all directions, and there is a reality which could never be known or calculated, because time never began and will never end. Consider a universe where there are two balls, one red and one blue. The distance between the two balls is increasing at 1 m/s. Which one is moving? It is impossible to say because it differs depending on the reference frame. I.e. if we choose a coordinate system that keeps the red ball at (0,0), it appears that the blue ball is moving. If we choose a coordinate system that keeps the blue ball at (0,0) is appears that the red ball is moving. If we choose a coordinate system that keeps (0,0) right between both balls, then it appears that both are moving. Which one is "correct"? The answer is that they all are, from their point of view. There is no such thing as a preferred reference frame -- the laws of physics work equally well in ant reference frame. And, it is also impossible to tell which scenario is true (red ball moving, blue ball moving, or both moving). Because we can choose a frame that makes each of the scenarios true. So, in effect, any object can have a velocity of zero, if you choose a coordinate system to follow that object. The definition of velocity is intricately linked to the definition of coordinate system. If the object doesn't change coordinates -- say by using a coordinate system that keeps the object at (0,0) (or any other fixed point), then the object has no velocity. The big thing is that coordinate systems are an invention of mankind, and are primarily chosen to make the math easier. Nature doesn't know if you picked a coordinate system to follow one object or another, or it you picked Cartesian, cylindrical or spherical coordinates, not does Nature care. Because there are no coordinate systems in Nature, any and all different ones are equally valid. And indistinguishable. If one of the balls impacts another object of known velocity and mass, which reaction occurs? If one ball's frame of reference is assumed to be zero velocity, surely if that ball is impacted upon by another object, the reconfiguration of mass, distance and time will concur as to if the ball actually had a zero velocity? NO, it won't, because there is no object in this universe that is motionless (an object with a zero velocity). Edited November 2, 2008 by traveler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 there is a reality which could never be known or calculated... ...and is therefore immaterial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 ...and is therefore immaterial. Immaterial according to who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Immaterial according to who? To anyone who's exploring *REALITY*. No object has a zero velocity, PERIOD! Okay, fine, let's roll with it, then. I am standing on top of a steady rock. What is the rock's velocity? What is my velocity? For that matter, if I stand in the middle of nowhere (in the middle of the universe, in between gelaxies, where I have no stars or stellar objects to give me reference, hence I can't see if or how much I am moving), how do I *measure* my speed? How do I prove I have speed? If you have a theory, and, let's say, that it's accepted, you will now have to show how it is *BENEFICIAL* in studying and understanding our universe. The current theories do a GREAT job helping us make sense of the universe, that's why they're accepted. You need to show that your theory can explain everything the current theories are EXCELLENT ALREADY in explaining, and why your theory is BETTER in helping us predict, understand and make sense of the universe. Can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 To anyone who's exploring *REALITY*. Okay, fine, let's roll with it, then. I am standing on top of a steady rock. What is the rock's velocity? What is my velocity? For that matter, if I stand in the middle of nowhere (in the middle of the universe, in between gelaxies, where I have no stars or stellar objects to give me reference, hence I can't see if or how much I am moving), how do I *measure* my speed? How do I prove I have speed? If you had thrusters you could reverse thrust until a change of direction of travel occurred, and graph the entire event with accelerometers so that you had a printout of velocity and accelerations, and which direction of travel at all durations of the event desired to be measured. All measures of motion are of the past because the time has to have elapsed in order to complete the distance traveled per time interval measurements. You can't measure the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 If you had thrusters you could reverse thrust until a change of direction of travel occurred, and graph the entire event with accelerometers so that you had a printout of velocity and accelerations, and which direction of travel at all durations of the event desired to be measured. All measures of motion are of the past because the time has to have elapsed in order to complete the distance traveled per time interval measurements. You can't measure the future. You can only use acceleration to calculate your velocity if you have the initial conditions. Absent that, the answer will be the same to within an additive constant. A "change in direction of travel" assumes a reference against which you are making the measurement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 If you had thrusters you could reverse thrust until a change of direction of travel occurred, and graph the entire event with accelerometers so that you had a printout of velocity and accelerations, and which direction of travel at all durations of the event desired to be measured. All measures of motion are of the past because the time has to have elapsed in order to complete the distance traveled per time interval measurements. You can't measure the future. Tell that to ancient sea men. When you use the stars to guide you, in the middle of the ocean, one of the WORST things you can have is a cloudy night. You have absolutely NO WAY of knowing where you are, where you're going, or if you're MOVING. The waves on the boat make it impossible to figure out if you're moving or if you're stationary, without the *reference* of the stars (or some land mass). So what you're essentially saying is that not only can you not substantiate anything you're saying, you're also incapable of dealing the simplest problems that current theories do handle. If pirates took your theory, they'd all be dead and lost. What do you think would happen to Astronauts anywhere outside our own solar system? ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 You can only use acceleration to calculate your velocity if you have the initial conditions. Absent that, the answer will be the same to within an additive constant. A "change in direction of travel" assumes a reference against which you are making the measurement. --->10 m/s <--Reverse thrust. When the velocity reaches 0 m/s and the direction changes, with a fixed power thrust system, the "changeover" point is a fixed point for the measurements to be calculated against, at which point the entire event can be calculated and graphed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 So you ignored my point because you can't answer it or because your statements are turned to be false by it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 So you ignored my point because you can't answer it or because your statements are turned to be false by it? Getting lost sounds like a personal problem. Lack of information is no excuse to make stuff up. That's no different than bible thumpers saying "God must have done it because what else could it be?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Getting lost sounds like a personal problem. Lack of information is no excuse to make stuff up. That's no different that bible thumpers saying "God" must have done it because what else could it be. Getting lost because they used your IDIOTIC theory is not just personal, it's reckless on your part. Avoiding dealing with the problems in your theory is COWARDLY on your part. I think "my myth is better than your myth" forum would suit you better. We don't work with cowards who are afraid of thinking. That's not science. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts