how does an object actually achieve motion?

[DrDNA]

how does an object actually achieve motion?

 

 

When I was much younger, we used to go to the top of hills with various ranges of slopes and heights, get inside old tires, and then role down the hills to 'achieve motion'.

 

As we grew taller, the older ones among us had to use larger and heavier, old semi Truck tires to fit inside.

 

These larger truck tires, with greater 'm', were only for the most brave and the most stupid among us; because they achieved significantly greater values of 'F' quickly.

 

The effect of increasing 'm' on 'F' was quite dramatic in many cases, but we had no idea how to quantify 'F' nor vector 'a'. However, we could often approximate the value of 'm" by lifting the tires and comparing them to other objects that we already knew the approximate 'm' of, such as each other.

 

It was an exciting method to achieve 'motion' and an insightful way to study, not only how 'm' effected 'F', but also how variations in values of vector 'a' effected 'F'.

 

On numerous occasions, one of us would hit a tree, or a ditch. As you might have already surmised, the rather abrupt decrease in 'a' (ie, it went to zero quickly) would injure one of us, but usually not critically; few bones were broken, but we often received slight concussions.

 

It was a fun way to achieve 'motion'.... and crudely study F= ma.

[swansont]

"Collision" is not common term for electromagnetic interaction. However, if you let me define "constant collision", then its meaning can be derived from the existing definition:

 

col⋅li⋅sion

–noun

3. Physics, the meeting of particles or of bodies in which each exerts a force upon the other, causing the exchange of energy or momentum.

 

in⋅ter⋅ac⋅tion

–noun

1. reciprocal action, effect, or influence.

2. Physics, any of four fundamental ways in which elementary particles and bodies can influence each other, classified as strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational.

 

 

collision = interaction

 

no interaction = no collision

 

 

Basically, we can say two particles collide when they "interact" with each other, where 'interact' means - "change velocity, direction or spin".

 

If, for example, gravity field goes to infinity, then we can say it "interacts" with any other particle, no matter how far away and no matter how small that "influence" might be, it is still not zero and, in a way, they are "colliding". Their 'mass bodies' are not in contact, but their 'field forces' are colliding/interacting nevertheless.

 

 

I think you should just use "interaction" here. All collisions are interactions. Not all interactions are collisions.

[Sione]

I think you should just use "interaction" here. All collisions are interactions. Not all interactions are collisions.

 

Yes, I agree with that.

 

Let me propose new answer.

 

 

Motion is an effect of e/m and gravity fields interaction.

 

The true description of motion is a rate of change of linear and angular momentum, therefore the attribute to decide the "amount" of motion - it's acceleration - is mass. Hence, my best guess is that Newton's "unbalanced force" refers to difference in mass, as equal forces with different mass produce different acceleration.

 

I like what DrDNA said as well. That is, kind of, what I meant to say here too.

 

 

I also agree with OP that 1st law only makes confusion. Worse even, we really have no idea what in the world mass is and where that inertia thing comes from. Motion is easy, but how does an object actually achieve mass?

Edited January 23, 2009 by Sione

[Sisyphus]

On numerous occasions, one of us would hit a tree, or a ditch. As you might have already surmised, the rather abrupt decrease in 'a' (ie, it went to zero quickly) would injure one of us, but usually not critically; few bones were broken, but we often received slight concussions.

 

Actually, it wasn't the sudden decrease in acceleration, but the sudden decrease in velocity. In other words, it was very high acceleration. And it wasn't even the high acceleration, per se, so much as the fact that it was unevenly applied. If the front of you gets accelerated, the front of you applies force to the back of you, and you get all stretched and compressed inside in a kind of compressive wave. It's noticeable if you're being pushed by a car seat behind you, but the acceleration is much greater if you're, say, colliding with the pavement after jumping off a tall building...

[thief]

Thief here....I'm new around here..please overlook my typing

After 50+ replies I don't see a sure perspective.

I'm an old guy...and I try to keep up on things, but it looks like someone tweaked my universe when I wasn't looking.

Last I heard the singularity had no geometry at all, no height, no length, no width, and no movement.

Calculations, especially those including size, may not be appropriate.

For the singularity to be truly single, no secondary point may be allowed.

Without a secondary point, movement is not possible.

This is the paradox of the big bang.

Prior to the Bang, the universe could not be described by any term or number.

It might be called 'void', as long as you don't use the word.

'Not even One Word'

The void was uniform...empty...perfect.

The universe could thought of as aberration, a perversion of the perfect.

For the bang to go off...geometry and the reaction ideas must work.

But no one seems to notice...the singularity isn't moving. You need two points for that. No axial spin without an axis. An axis implies equilateral plane, which implies infinite points. The singularity is not single with all of that going on.

If an explosion takes place the result would be no more than an ever expanding hollow shock wave. Perfect in geometry. Forever dissipating.

Without rotation, the orbits, spirals, and axial rotation, matter, would never gel.

 

I believe in cause and effect.

Stuck with the evidence of rotation and orbit, I must confess the singularity had some action applied to it...before it was allowed to go bang.

No calculation can be applied...no numbers.

No rhetoric can be used...no terms.

The rotation is ponderous in quantity.

For now...for lack of anything else...I call the impetus...God.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Sayonara³
Double post removed

[Sayonara]

Good for you. Any plans to discuss the topic?

[npts2020]

Thief here....I'm new around here..please overlook my typing

After 50+ replies I don't see a sure perspective.

I'm an old guy...and I try to keep up on things, but it looks like someone tweaked my universe when I wasn't looking.

Last I heard the singularity had no geometry at all, no height, no length, no width, and no movement.

Calculations, especially those including size, may not be appropriate.

For the singularity to be truly single, no secondary point may be allowed.

Without a secondary point, movement is not possible.

This is the paradox of the big bang.

Prior to the Bang, the universe could not be described by any term or number.

It might be called 'void', as long as you don't use the word.

'Not even One Word'

The void was uniform...empty...perfect.

The universe could thought of as aberration, a perversion of the perfect.

For the bang to go off...geometry and the reaction ideas must work.

But no one seems to notice...the singularity isn't moving. You need two points for that. No axial spin without an axis. An axis implies equilateral plane, which implies infinite points. The singularity is not single with all of that going on.

If an explosion takes place the result would be no more than an ever expanding hollow shock wave. Perfect in geometry. Forever dissipating.

Without rotation, the orbits, spirals, and axial rotation, matter, would never gel.

 

I believe in cause and effect.

Stuck with the evidence of rotation and orbit, I must confess the singularity had some action applied to it...before it was allowed to go bang.

No calculation can be applied...no numbers.

No rhetoric can be used...no terms.

The rotation is ponderous in quantity.

For now...for lack of anything else...I call the impetus...God.

 

Great, now describe the impetus and how it works. (also I am kind of wondering how you have a void if there is a being of some kind there)

[moth]

is there anything that is not moving?

"at rest" depends on the observer who is probably moving in some way so the task is to change momentum by working against inertia.

could you say force against inertia is transformed into momentum? a force could be equally opposed by inertia, and if enough momentum is created by the force motion results?

[Sione]

is there anything that is not moving?

"at rest" depends on the observer who is probably moving in some way so the task is to change momentum by working against inertia.

could you say force against inertia is transformed into momentum? a force could be equally opposed by inertia, and if enough momentum is created by the force motion results?

 

Yes, I agree with all that... except for the word "enough". It is always "enough", it might be "small", but never zero, which kind of answers your 1st question - no, everything is moving.

 

 

What exist, moves. E pur si muove!

 

If it was not moving, there would be no time.

 

If it was not moving, there would be no heat or light.

 

 

If it was not moving, there would be no life. Motion=Animation=Life.

 

 

Universe is alive, except where is absolutely cold, but then there is no time or light there either and without time stuff does not really exists. Yes, quite literally you can 'freeze the time', which is convenient way to "kill the time" when traveling around galaxies.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Sione

[thief]

Thief here...

My previous post may have been a bit swayed.

Referring to the impetus as "God" is something I do readily.

I will refrain doing so for the rest of this topic, as it will surely distract.

The topic question is HOW an object achieves motion. I wanted to examine motion in it's most reduced form.

I quickly reduced all motion to one point, one 'object'.

Then stripped that object of all geometry. Any introduction of any secondary point, induces infinity as another point can always be squeezed in between any two given points.

Geometry destroyed, space/time relations disappear. All movement...gone.

One point, without size, is no longer the location device it was intended to be.

The void 'becomes' perfect, all of nothing in it's perfection of uniformity.

All motion we are now experiencing, has been with the universe from the event of the big bang.

The question struck me in this way...and I thought we were discussing the 'creation of motion'. Apparently not.

We seem to be discussing action/reaction, and more localized events.

Which direction are we going?

[Sione]

Thief here...

My previous post may have been a bit swayed.

Referring to the impetus as "God" is something I do readily.

I will refrain doing so for the rest of this topic' date=' as it will surely distract.

The topic question is HOW an object achieves motion. I wanted to examine motion in it's most reduced form.

I quickly reduced all motion to one point, one 'object'.

Then stripped that object of all geometry. Any introduction of any secondary point, induces infinity as another point can always be squeezed in between any two given points.

Geometry destroyed, space/time relations disappear. All movement...gone.

One point, without size, is no longer the location device it was intended to be.

The void 'becomes' perfect, all of nothing in it's perfection of uniformity.

All motion we are now experiencing, has been with the universe from the event of the big bang.

The question struck me in this way...and I thought we were discussing the 'creation of motion'. Apparently not.

We seem to be discussing action/reaction, and more localized events.

Which direction are we going?

[/quote']

 

You know... you're not that crazy. I agree with all that.

 

 

 

One point, without size, is no longer the location device it was intended to be.

One can have a dream baby

Two can make a dream so real

One can talk about being in love

Two can see how it really feels

 

It takes two baby

Just me and you

 

You know it takes two

 

 

...and I thought we were discussing the 'creation of motion'. Apparently not.

We seem to be discussing action/reaction, and more localized events.

Which direction are we going?

 

Yes, creation or origin of motion, why not.

 

Obviously motion is just an effect of action/reaction.

 

Action/reaction is just an effect of attraction/repulsion between electromagnetic fields.

 

 

'Big Bang' could have been "stationary", in a sense that charged particle could have appeared in stationary state without any linear or angular velocity. The very next instant they would start moving due to electromagnetic interaction and even due to gravitational attraction, no matter how far away they happen to be.

 

 

Was there ever such time when there was no charges or any other particles in the universe?

 

The answer is no, but that is not a real answer, it is only a product of our inability to conceive the time without motion, and motion does not exist with zero particles or one particle, like your said. It takes two, baby.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Sione

[npts2020]

The long and short of it is that a single point will not have motion until you introduce another point to to compare movement with. Motion is a comparative measurement (as opposed to mass which is an intrinsic measurement) meaning you need more than one thing to do a comparison.