An object at rest "tends" to stay at rest?

[swansont]

of course there is, the statement that leaves less room for misinterpretation is better. also, according to Occam - simplest solution is the best. the fact that you simply can not go wrong with this one, makes it perfect: -"only force accelerates."

 

 

but i combined all three laws in one:

- only force accelerates and unless opposed by equal force, it always does so. F= m*a

 

How do you measure how much misinterpretation is going on? Given some of your statements (e.g. the misrepresentation of the third law here and in another thread), I submit that you are not the best arbiter of such an assessment.

[PlayStationX]

How do you measure how much misinterpretation is going on?

 

by reading these two threads and the rest of the internet. i measure an increased amount of misinterpretation.

 

 

Given some of your statements (e.g. the misrepresentation of the third law here and in another thread), I submit that you are not the best arbiter of such an assessment.

 

i see you say stuff,

but i do not see any reasoning, explanation or arguments for it.

 

 

shall we discuss it or shall we believe you?

[Sayonara]

all there words are very intended, what do you mean?

Just because you wanted all three words to appear in the phrase, doesn't mean that it can only possibly be interpreted in one way.

 

If you stopped being so obtuse this discussion might actually get somewhere.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

shall we discuss it or shall we believe you?

Well, seeing as Swanson is an actual physicist doing actual physics which would blow up half of the East coast if he was so fundamentally wrong about simple principles, I don't think that's a difficult call.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Sayonara³
Consecutive post/s merged.

[PlayStationX]

Just because you wanted all three words to appear in the phrase, doesn't mean that it can only possibly be interpreted in one way.

 

"only force accelerates",

- these three words are meant to completely replace Newton's 1st law. in that context, id like to insist this can not be misinterpreted, while it lacks none of the original information and even has some new.

 

 

 

Well, seeing as Swanson is an actual physicist doing actual physics which would blow up half of the East coast if he was so fundamentally wrong about simple principles, I don't think that's a difficult call.

 

are you saying you are picking whom to believe based on destructive power?

 

 

- Don't be to proud of this technological terror you've constructed.

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

 

 

 

If you stopped being so obtuse this discussion might actually get somewhere.

 

im not in hurry, nor i planned to go anywhere. just being kind and clearing up confusion, answering questions... so, if you have anything you would like to know about Life, Universe and Everything, feel free to ask!

Edited January 14, 2009 by PlayStationX

[Sayonara]

"only force accelerates",

- these three words are meant to completely replace Newton's 1st law. in that context, id like to insist this can not be misinterpreted, while it lacks none of the original information and even has some new.

You've already been given an adequate example of why that phrase can be misinterpreted. So insist away; you'll just be repeatedly wrong.

 

 

are you saying you are picking whom to believe based on destructive power?

No, but now that you mention it it does seem like a criterion that could end a lot of academic squabbling.

 

 

im not in hurry, nor i planned to go anywhere. just being kind and clearing up confusion, answering questions... so, if you have anything you would like to know about Life, Universe and Everything, feel free to ask!

In this thread and a couple of others, you are "answering questions" to real life physicists. Arguing semantics is not the best way to discuss terms which are given their meanings by universal convention.

[swansont]

by reading these two threads and the rest of the internet. i measure an increased amount of misinterpretation.

 

That assumes you are right. If the rest of the internet is right, the amount of misconception goes down.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

im not in hurry, nor i planned to go anywhere. just being kind and clearing up confusion, answering questions... so, if you have anything you would like to know about Life, Universe and Everything, feel free to ask!

 

Oh, my.

 

Is ego bosonic?

[PlayStationX]

You've already been given an adequate example of why that phrase can be misinterpreted. So insist away; you'll just be repeatedly wrong.

 

so, you do agree it contains the full information from the original law and the only problem, you say, is that someone can confuse words "only", "force" and "acceleration" for something else?

 

im sorry for those people, i did not know anyone that stupid can exist, but now i agree with you. still, three words can never be misinterpreted as much as current popular definition, which this thread demonstrates very well.

 

 

 

In this thread and a couple of others, you are "answering questions" to real life physicists. Arguing semantics is not the best way to discuss terms which are given their meanings by universal convention.

 

i have no idea what are you referring to, im not arguing semantics, there is no one here to argue with, i do not see any arguments but mine.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Is ego bosonic?

 

you're changing subject and avoiding to respond to the questions at hand, i'll take that as your confirmation. but, if you feel like talking about physics again, i welcome you.

Edited January 14, 2009 by PlayStationX
Consecutive post/s merged.

[D H]

i have no idea what are you referring to, im not arguing semantics, there is no one here to argue with, i do not see any arguments but mine.

Arguing semantics is all you are doing here. You are arguing about the meaning of words and the best way to word Newton's laws of motion. You are not backing up your arguments with mathematics or with logic. In short, semantics.

[PlayStationX]

Arguing semantics is all you are doing here. You are arguing about the meaning of words and the best way to word Newton's laws of motion. You are not backing up your arguments with mathematics or with logic. In short, semantics.

 

yes i do, but i meant to say there is no one to argue with, as in - i have arguments, while others do not.

 

im not backing up? what? logic?

 

"only force accelerates"

 

...there is nothing to back up here, if you understood Newton's first law than you should be able to see that statement equals to what Newton said about inertia. if not, then please tell me what information is missing from my formulation of it?

 

 

please, what particular statement of mine would you like an arguments for?

[Sayonara]

so, you do agree it contains the full information from the original law and the only problem, you say, is that someone can confuse words "only", "force" and "acceleration" for something else?

 

im sorry for those people, i did not know anyone that stupid can exist, but now i agree with you. still, three words can never be misinterpreted as much as current popular definition, which this thread demonstrates very well.

As with many combinations of words it has one possible sensible interpretation only to people who already know what it is supposed to mean.

 

If this ridiculous pantomime of false innocence and indignant replies continues I guarantee you will start accruing infraction points left, right, and centre. Familiarise yourself with the SFN rules immediately.

 

 

i have no idea what are you referring to, im not arguing semantics, there is no one here to argue with, i do not see any arguments but mine.

O rly?

in any case, im just trying to discuss semantics, definitions and their meaning. i do not propose new definition, im just explaining what it really means, its pure logic and semantics, usage, meaning and interpretation of the words, thats what this thread is about, i gather.

...and...

"Only force accelerates", the truth about that only "force" can do it comes out of the very definition and necessity for the word, which then makes it unnecessary to mention. still, i like it because it seems as "bold statement", while its actually a matter of semantics.

 

you're changing subject and avoiding to respond to the questions at hand, i'll take that as your confirmation. but, if you feel like talking about physics again, i welcome you.

You have already been warned about the condescending attitude several times. Infraction on its way.

[Baby Astronaut]

...you will start accruing infraction points left, right, and centre.

Surely that won't be misinterpreted

 

 

I am a force.

I can accelerate myself.

Nothing else can accelerate itself.

all three words are very intended, what do you mean?

I know you're not a dolt by your style of trollism. Or as Sayonara called it, ridiculous pantomime

 

Your opening statements were a bit jumbled but with nuggets of insight. So thanks even if you hadn't intended it. I can see you'll possibly get booted soon for crafting your responses in a way that focuses back on your disproved points, and feigning ignorance of this occurrence.

 

To put it another way: you've been "caught". Stating the obvious, I know. Now we might either have a real discussion, or you'll continue a path that seems to be constructive only for getting your kicks. Hopefully the former.

[PlayStationX]

If this ridiculous pantomime of false innocence and indignant replies continues I guarantee you will start accruing infraction points left, right, and centre. Familiarise yourself with the SFN rules immediately.

 

i have no idea what are you referring to and i do not know what are you trying to say, it sounds like some kind of threat? what's SFN?

 

what rules am i breaking, being smarter than you?

 

 

As with many combinations of words it has one possible sensible interpretation only to people who already know what it is supposed to mean.

 

and your arguments are?

 

now, if you mean to claim such unnecessary thing, feel free. but without an example, argument or explanation i do not see any reason to believe you.

 

if you have really thought about it, then to come to your conclusion you would actually need to come up with an example, but since you did not post it here, it can only mean two things:

 

1.) you did not really think about it

2.) you have thought about it, but were unable to find any example

 

which one?

 

 

You have already been warned about the condescending attitude several times. Infraction on its way.

 

that is your subjective opinion not supported with any arguments.

 

 

you came here falsely accusing me of what, attitude?

 

sorry if my attitude hurts you, and if you feel like playing gestapo, then why not ban me and burn some books while you at it. otherwise, you may leave the rest of us to talk, that's what public forums are for.

 

 

...and please, don't hate me just because i'm cool

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

baby,

 

you quoted this:

-"all three words are very intended, what do you mean?"

 

but you said nothing about it, you just went on to insult me ...and you say im trolling?

 

you want a real discussion and all you have are insults?

you want a real discussion and you avoid talking about the subject?

you want a real discussion and you have no idea about equation for gravity?

 

 

i wonder if anyone will realize the naked truth i said here, why would anyone get angry about it? i suppose, ignorance is bliss...

 

 

so no one has anything else to say but insults?

Edited January 15, 2009 by PlayStationX
Consecutive post/s merged.

[the tree]

...and please, don't hate me just because i'm cool

There is no risk of that, from anyone.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

i have no idea what are you referring to and i do not know what are you trying to say, it sounds like some kind of threat? what's SFN?

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=18&a=14

 

And take a look at the logo in the upper left of each page...

[questioning_the_theory]

I always thought that with Newton's understanding, he would have stated it more like

"an object's motion remains constant unless acted upon by some force." Since it seems

that it must have been clear to him that "everything" is in motion, there is nothing we

know of that is "at rest".

[swansont]

I always thought that with Newton's understanding, he would have stated it more like

"an object's motion remains constant unless acted upon by some force." Since it seems

that it must have been clear to him that "everything" is in motion, there is nothing we

know of that is "at rest".

 

That's not clear to me. Anyway, whatever you've read about Newton's laws is a translation from Latin.

[bbouch111]

Am I the only person who has a hard time believing that an object in motion tends to stay in motion? If this is true, doesn't that mean a car could never stop moving if it were to start moving? This law stated that an object would stay still unless acted upon by an external source, but he never defined an object in motion. He never set a true definition to the object in motion. Does that mean that all objects are at rest until they are put into motion? That doesn't work because an external force can physically stop an object in motion and put it into a resting state.

[swansont]

Am I the only person who has a hard time believing that an object in motion tends to stay in motion? If this is true, doesn't that mean a car could never stop moving if it were to start moving? This law stated that an object would stay still unless acted upon by an external source, but he never defined an object in motion. He never set a true definition to the object in motion. Does that mean that all objects are at rest until they are put into motion? That doesn't work because an external force can physically stop an object in motion and put it into a resting state.

 

No, you aren't the only one, because there are a number of people who don't understand physics. A car is subject to forces which bring it to rest, which is fully in accordance with Newton's laws. But those forces have to be there to bring it to rest.

 

Objects that are not subject to accelerations are at rest in their own frame of reference. Motion is always in reference to some frame.

[Samm]

Am I the only person who has a hard time believing that an object in motion tends to stay in motion? If this is true, doesn't that mean a car could never stop moving if it were to start moving?

 

That would be true if the car was on a frictionless road, driving in a perfect vacuum.