Need expert advice on how to handle a seemingly legitimate objection

[none]

I'd say zero, but that is just me.
I recant, I just thought about having a zero in the denominator so it's speed should be undefined.

 

[fast]

...
The two faster objects zoom by the slower object and then the slower object and one of the faster objects disappear. I would say the remaining object is in fact moving. The lack of a relative object to measure it's speed against doesn't seem to contradict that point. It may not be an object in motion relative to another object in motion, but it's nevertheless an object in motion.

then tell me the speed of singularity if you don't need a relative object...

I'm not confident about the consequences of speaking in regards to a singularity. I'm simply talking about a lone hypothetical object in a vast universe and whether or not it should be true to say of such a thing that it is moving or not despite the absence of another object.

 

[none]

...
I'm not confident about the consequences of speaking in regards to a singularity. I'm simply talking about a lone hypothetical object in a vast universe and whether or not it should be true to say of such a thing that it is moving or not despite the absence of another object.

singularity is hypothetical...
you have to have relative object or use the space itself as a reference.
if you have space with a single object the object wouldn't be moving unless you plot is coordinates.
the formula is pretty simple, speed = distance / time.
if you can't establish distance you can't complete the equation.

 

[fast]

...
I'm not confident about the consequences of speaking in regards to a singularity. I'm simply talking about a lone hypothetical object in a vast universe and whether or not it should be true to say of such a thing that it is moving or not despite the absence of another object.

singularity is hypothetical...
you have to have relative object or use the space itself as a reference.
if you have space with a single object the object wouldn't be moving unless you plot is coordinates.
the formula is pretty simple, speed = distance / time.
if you can't establish distance you can't complete the equation.

I don't understand why the object isn't moving. I can understand why we cant say how fast it's moving.

 

[none]

singularity is hypothetical...
you have to have relative object or use the space itself as a reference.
if you have space with a single object the object wouldn't be moving unless you plot is coordinates.
the formula is pretty simple, speed = distance / time.
if you can't establish distance you can't complete the equation.

I don't understand why the object isn't moving.

being motionless to what?

I can understand why we cant say how fast it's moving.

how do you come to this conclusion?
first sentence on wiki about motion....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics)

In physics, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time and its reference point.
..

AND you haven't established any distances, that's why motion/speed isn't solved.

 

[fast]

If we could superimpose a 3D grid (with x, y, z coordinates) on the universe, we would clearly see that most if not all objects are moving, but we can't do such a thing, but the inability to do so doesn't show that objects are not in motion. I suppose some of you think time doesn't pass either in a universe with no objects. Smart people can make complicated calculations; they can run exciting experiments. They can produce some amazing and admirable results, but when it comes to the interpretation of those results, they can really lead people astray.

 

[none]

If we could superimpose a 3D grid (with x, y, z coordinates) on the universe, we would clearly see that most if not all objects are moving, but we can't do such a thing, but the inability to do so doesn't show that objects are not in motion. I suppose some of you think time doesn't pass either in a universe with no objects. Smart people can make complicated calculations; they can run exciting experiments. They can produce some amazing and admirable results, but when it comes to the interpretation of those results, they can really lead people astray.

this doesn't address the hypothetical that a single object with no reference is moving.
did you give up arguing that hypothetical?

 

[fast]

If we could superimpose a 3D grid (with x, y, z coordinates) on the universe, we would clearly see that most if not all objects are moving, but we can't do such a thing, but the inability to do so doesn't show that objects are not in motion. I suppose some of you think time doesn't pass either in a universe with no objects. Smart people can make complicated calculations; they can run exciting experiments. They can produce some amazing and admirable results, but when it comes to the interpretation of those results, they can really lead people astray.

this doesn't address the hypothetical that a single object with no reference is moving.
did you give up arguing that hypothetical?

I gave you an example of 3 objects moving where 2 vanished leaving a single moving object.

 

[none]

I gave you an example of 3 objects moving where 2 vanished leaving a single moving object.

glad we are able to discuss your hypothetical again....
how do you know the single object is moving?

 

[fast]

I gave you an example of 3 objects moving where 2 vanished leaving a single moving object.

glad we are able to discuss your hypothetical again....
how do you know the single object is moving?

Because I had other objects to compare it against

 

[none]

I gave you an example of 3 objects moving where 2 vanished leaving a single moving object.

glad we are able to discuss your hypothetical again....
how do you know the single object is moving?

Because I had other objects to compare it against

you HAD other objects, so when the reference disappears ( other objects ) so does it's motion, unless you are using a different reference than the objects that were once visible.
how do you complete the equation: motion = distance/time or speed = distance/time ( from what I read on the wiki page about motion they are interchangeable equations )

 

[fast]

I gave you an example of 3 objects moving where 2 vanished leaving a single moving object.

glad we are able to discuss your hypothetical again....
how do you know the single object is moving?

Because I had other objects to compare it against

you HAD other objects, so when the reference disappears ( other objects ) so does it's motion, unless you are using a different reference than the objects that were once visible.
how do you complete the equation: motion = distance/time or speed = distance/time ( from what I read on the wiki page about motion they are interchangeable equations )

What made it stop moving? It's not moving relative to the other objects, but we're not discussing it's movement to other objects. We're discussing whether or not it's moving.

 

[Kharakov]

Well, the warping of spacetime due to motion in a specific direction, assuming the object has any rotation relative to spacetime, would create barely detectable effects on the object. I'd assume that after 10^99 years or so, the slight effect upon the object may be noticeable.

Do you object? Do you object?

Show

seriously, can't you just alter the inflection of the preceding statements without a fricken hint

 

[fast]

I don't know the distance travelled, so I cant make the calculation, but there's still an unknown answer.

 

[fast]

Well, the warping of spacetime due to motion in a specific direction, assuming the object has any rotation relative to spacetime, would create barely detectable effects on the object. I'd assume that after 10^99 years or so, the slight effect upon the object may be noticeable.

Do you object? Do you object?

Show

seriously, can't you just alter the inflection of the preceding statements without a fricken hint

They will argue that the friction was a result of the rotation and doesn't show that it was moving in a direction since there were no other objects.

 

[none]

What made it stop moving? It's not moving relative to the other objects, but we're not discussing it's movement to other objects. We're discussing whether or not it's moving.

the distance value being zero, nothing measured as distance for a given time means it is not moving.
and if the object were the only thing, and that being singularity, the speed would be undefined...

 

[steve_bnk]

Once again, you measure accelerationand then compute a change in velocity and a change in position.. isthat not clear, no visual references are needed.

What you are missing is Newton's lawsof motion. Do you understand the relationship between distance,velocity, and acceleration?

You are in the back of a truck with no wndows and sound proofed. You wake up and at that point you have noidea if the truck is at rest to the ground or moving at a constantvelocity. The driver pushes down the gas pedal and you feel yourself go back as the truck accelerates. That is acceleration, a change in speed. The acceleration can be measured by a device called an accelerometer.

Acceleration is [Velocity1 – Velocity2]. As we can never know Velocity1, what we get is the change invelocity.

You stand at rest on the surface of theEarth, but the Earth goes around the Sun, Sun around the galaxy,galaxies moving relative to each other. There is no knowable universe frame that is at rest to everything else.

Physically all we can do is measurerelative distance and relative speed in our 3D universe.

Consider that when you think you are standing still you are actually moving through the universe. Take one step forward and then back. You are in the same spot on the Earth'ssurface, but that spot has moved through the universe.

Consider that in an infinite universe there is no reference point, any point you pick is no better than any other.

If you measure zero change in distanceover time between you and other objects it means all those objectsare at rest to each other. There is no way to know if those objectsare all moving at the same speed or if they are at rest to some thirdimagined universal rest frame.

The definition of speed itself isrelative and not absolute. Two cars, one at rest on Earth's surface and one on Mars. Each car accelerates to 10km/hour. Ignoring rotation an Earthbound observer the car on Mars has a velocity of Mars plus 10km/hour.

 

[beero1000]

Once again, you measure accelerationand then compute a change in velocity and a change in position.. isthat not clear, no visual references are needed.

What you are missing is Newton's lawsof motion. Do you understand the relationship between distance,velocity, and acceleration?

You are in the back of a truck with no wndows and sound proofed. You wake up and at that point you have noidea if the truck is at rest to the ground or moving at a constantvelocity. The driver pushes down the gas pedal and you feel yourself go back as the truck accelerates. That is acceleration, a change in speed. The acceleration can be measured by a device called an accelerometer.

Acceleration is [Velocity1 – Velocity2]. As we can never know Velocity1, what we get is the change invelocity.

You stand at rest on the surface of theEarth, but the Earth goes around the Sun, Sun around the galaxy,galaxies moving relative to each other. There is no knowable universe frame that is at rest to everything else.

Physically all we can do is measurerelative distance and relative speed in our 3D universe.

Consider that when you think you are standing still you are actually moving through the universe. Take one step forward and then back. You are in the same spot on the Earth'ssurface, but that spot has moved through the universe.

Consider that in an infinite universe there is no reference point, any point you pick is no better than any other.

If you measure zero change in distanceover time between you and other objects it means all those objectsare at rest to each other. There is no way to know if those objectsare all moving at the same speed or if they are at rest to some thirdimagined universal rest frame.

The definition of speed itself isrelative and not absolute. Two cars, one at rest on Earth's surface and one on Mars. Each car accelerates to 10km/hour. Ignoring rotation an Earthbound observer the car on Mars has a velocity of Mars plus 10km/hour.

With no visual reference, how does your accelerometer measure acceleration during free fall? What does it read in a truck sitting motionless relative to the ground?

I don't think you have thought this through enough. Read about  proper acceleration, and the  equivalence principle.

 

[Kharakov]

Well, the warping of spacetime due to motion in a specific direction, assuming the object has any rotation relative to spacetime, would create barely detectable effects on the object. I'd assume that after 10^99 years or so, the slight effect upon the object may be noticeable.

Do you object? Do you object?

Show

seriously, can't you just alter the inflection of the preceding statements without a fricken hint

They will argue that the friction was a result of the rotation and doesn't show that it was moving in a direction since there were no other objects.

Not friction. Frame dragging, and assuming spacetime is an object that objects exist within (by necessity spacetime exists for an object to exist within). If an object has inertia relative to spacetime, say it is traveling in some direction through spacetime, it would effect spacetime and be effected by spacetime, especially with frame dragging if it was rotating at the same time as it was traveling in a specific direction through spacetime.

Well, in fact, one side of the object, if it was rotating, would always be moving relative to the other side of the object, in which case it would experience the effects of relativity (even slight gravitational effects), which could do something over an eternity...


Of course, one could even make several assumptions about spacetime.

1) that there are infinite amounts of differing spacetimes that the object could exist within
2) that there is some form of waveform collapse, in which a certain set of the infinite numbers of spacetimes contain the object.
3) so in certain spacetimes, the object has inertia in certain directions, in others, other directions.
4) the object, by effecting one spacetime in certain ways, and others in other ways, causes change, and when you change something that you are within, you might experience the effects of that change.

 

[steve_bnk]

Once again, you measure accelerationand then compute a change in velocity and a change in position.. isthat not clear, no visual references are needed.

What you are missing is Newton's lawsof motion. Do you understand the relationship between distance,velocity, and acceleration?

You are in the back of a truck with no wndows and sound proofed. You wake up and at that point you have noidea if the truck is at rest to the ground or moving at a constantvelocity. The driver pushes down the gas pedal and you feel yourself go back as the truck accelerates. That is acceleration, a change in speed. The acceleration can be measured by a device called an accelerometer.

Acceleration is [Velocity1 – Velocity2]. As we can never know Velocity1, what we get is the change invelocity.

You stand at rest on the surface of theEarth, but the Earth goes around the Sun, Sun around the galaxy,galaxies moving relative to each other. There is no knowable universe frame that is at rest to everything else.

Physically all we can do is measurerelative distance and relative speed in our 3D universe.

Consider that when you think you are standing still you are actually moving through the universe. Take one step forward and then back. You are in the same spot on the Earth'ssurface, but that spot has moved through the universe.

Consider that in an infinite universe there is no reference point, any point you pick is no better than any other.

If you measure zero change in distanceover time between you and other objects it means all those objectsare at rest to each other. There is no way to know if those objectsare all moving at the same speed or if they are at rest to some thirdimagined universal rest frame.

The definition of speed itself isrelative and not absolute. Two cars, one at rest on Earth's surface and one on Mars. Each car accelerates to 10km/hour. Ignoring rotation an Earthbound observer the car on Mars has a velocity of Mars plus 10km/hour.

With no visual reference, how does your accelerometer measure acceleration during free fall? What does it read in a truck sitting motionless relative to the ground?

I don't think you have thought this through enough. Read about  proper acceleration, and the  equivalence principle.

A man drops from a high altitude balloon.


Acceleration can be measured in the man's inertial frame. An accelerometer attached to the man is at rest to the man's inertial frame. To be accurate the accelerometer has three orthogonal axis.


In thin air with little resistance the velocity continuously increases proportional to g. An accelerometercarried by the man will show an acceleration close to g, or dv/dt. Asdenser air is encountered the man eventually reaches terminal velocity. Speed is constant and acceleration goes to zero in theman's inertial frame.


Given a known starting drop coordinatewithout any external re-fences the man can calculate distance fromthe drop coordinate at any time t.


First year physics and calculus.


S = distance
velocity v = ds/dt
acceleration a = dv/dt


Given measured acceleration integrate twice to get a change in distance. It is called inertial navigation.I used accelerometers in a video panel design to detect if the panel was stowed in an airplane seat or up and extended. It is how handheld gadgets figure out how to adjust video orientation as you movethe display in three space.


http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/ADXL325BCPZ-RL7/ADXL325BCPZ-RL7TR-ND/2043339


One of Einstein's 'Thought Experiments'and inertial equivalence.


You are in a closed box in free fall tothe Earth ignoring air resistance, or you in a closed box in deepspace being accelerated at 1 g by a rocket. From within the boxes youan not tell the difference.


http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle

Modern solid state accelerometersmeasure the deflection of tiny silicon cantilevers using tiny straingauges. The first accelerometers used a simple spring and mass.


A man is at rest to the ground at thetop of the atmosphere. Attached to his head vertically in front ofhiface are two plates. A small mass is suspended between the platesby springs.


The man falls. As he falls the masswill compress a spring. As he approaches terminal velocity the masswill return to its equilibrium 1g position.


Note that with solid stateaccelerometers as in the link g has to be calibrated out, it appearsas a fixed offset.

If not then submarine inertial navigation would not work.