Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 Newton's second law of motion can be formally stated as follows: The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object. Yeah, so? What's your point? That's just another way of saying that an object will not accelerate unless it is subjected to a force. Are you trying to somehow deny that you were mistaken in your earlier claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 Besides, velocity and acceleration are only derivatives apart. To think they are not dynamically related is a terrible, erroneous assumption. Tell it the the SR advocates, eh? It makes no sense to say that uniform motion is relative but that accelerated motion is absolute. Both motions are absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelm Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 Well yes, we might be ''made of light'' but we are not by definition, made of light... because while matter may be a form of light, it is not light itself. It is a phase of trapped or condensed light. The only reason we can seriously consider matter being a trapped form of light comes from the experimental evidence of antimatter-matter collisions. As most know, these interactions always reduce back to two pairs of photon particles each exhibiting a conservation of energy. It's actually known, as the most fundamental decay known. It is very likely all matter transmutated from an early bath of radiation from which everything came from, and the so-called ''spontaneous symmetry breaking'' was nothing more than light undergoing a very special phase transition of the universe.I thought I was made of stardust. That was why I shine so brightly. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelm Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 You can never go faster than the speed of light. There is no exceptions in our theories. The furthest galaxies are receding faster than light because the metric is changing in regards to the flow of the material. They move faster than light relative to our frame, but because of these relativistic effects, in their frame of reference, they are moving at subluminal speeds. It has also been stated, the Alcubierre drive provides a solution in which we can move faster than light. This is also not true, and rightly so, because if you could move at velocities above lightspeed, you would surely fry to a crisp by passing through electromagnetic radiation in the vacuum. Thankfully, devices like the Alcubierre drive attempt to manipulate spacetime around you, so technically you are ''not moving anywhere.'' Even tachyons exist in nature, but they only reside in special environments we create in which the medium greatly reduces the resistance of the motion of electrons, so much in fact, they exceed the speed of light and start projecting Cherenkov radiation (which is the equivalent of the Larmor radiation for accelerated charges). I totally disagree with what you say but I will '''''''. You know the rest from Voltaire? Besides, I don't know all that much about what is way out there. No competition from me. I simply fail to see what photons bringing us "reports" of what happened two million years ago has to do with any body, earthly of heavenly moving across space. Before you answer ---- "there are no dumb questions ......" :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 what are you talking about? We already know motion is absolute. There is no such a system in a universe that is not in motion relative to something else. You don't even know it, but by making that claim you are completely repudiating special relativity, which you have always insisted is 100% correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 No, you don't seem to understand this law. It states that an object in acceleration remains in acceleration. So if a universe has enough acceleration to break out of its own gravitational interaction, then it will remain as so. No, it doesn't say that. And you want to tell me that *I* should learn physics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelm Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 No, if I think scientists (a few of them) have been right, you are brighter than that! You are made of universe-stuff, you're just a by-product of star-stuff. And all matter in existence, is very likely, just condensed forms of energy, inasmuch, matter is a diffused form of energy.Well, one thing I am not is a condensed - or uncondensed forum of energy -- and most certainly not today when 90 may become 100 any minute. Whew! Seriously, though. Star dust? A collection of all the elements which make up all matter. And, oh yes, stir in some gases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelm Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 Yes... matter... energy... you are even made of space and time. :)As in "spacey"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 Relativity already predicts everything is in motion with everything else. No, it doesn't. Certainly not special relativity. And GR is not a theory of motion, it is a theory of gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 yes it does. An object in motion remains in motion, is the basic terminology. Is acceleration ''a motion'' by definition? As I've already pointed out, Newton's law of inertia is only talking about uniform motion. You can deny that 10,000 times (as you generally do), if you want, but it still won't make you right. Acceleration requires a force. The second law merely tells you how to quantify that force when something has accelerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 Don't contradict me. Go read. Go find out if relativity has a true rest notion. Instead of challenging people on well established idea's in physics, would serve you better to actually learn some stuff. I'm not contradicting you. SR is. You just don't understand it. SR does not say that nothing has a "true rest motion." It merely claims that such a frame would be undetectable. Funny that, in SR, every object is deemed to be in a state of complete and utter motionless, eh? So, given that, you would think that even the claim that absolute rest can't be detected is wrong. But SR is full of such self-contradictions, so what else is new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 Do you know what uniform motion is? I don't think you do, it means a constant velocity. And uniform motion is not a correct terminology, it is simply motion, since an accelerated object in space remains accelerated. Again... go learn some physics. Maybe you should learn the language, eh? "Accelerated" motion is not accelerating motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) If an object under acceleration would not remain as such, would mean there would be a resistance in space. There is no such drag, and in fact, we rely on this so that objects can be catapulted out of the star system at an ever increasing velocity (or acceleration). You don't need an "ever increasing velocity" to escape the solar system. You can do it by moving at a uniform speed. It's just that your speed would have to exceed the "escape velocity." You continue to demonstrate that you are extremely confused. Edited June 18, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) Accelerated, or accelerated motion, all the same thing. Don't start this crap, I mean it. Like I said, maybe you should try first learning the language before you try to use it to pronounce "the truth." Just sayin.... If I am driving down the road at a steady clip of 10 mph, you could say that I am in "accelerated" motion (compared to the road). However I would not be acceleratING. Get it? Your post was made in response to this one of mine: Maybe you should learn the language, eh? "Accelerated" motion is not accelerating motion. Edited June 18, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) Do you know what uniform motion is? I don't think you do, it means a constant velocity. Exactly. And that's exactly what "acceleration" is NOT. If you are accelerating you are NOT moving at a constant speed. On the contrary you are constantly changing speed (and/or direction). Edited June 18, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) Right... I said this anyway... so? No that's not what your initial claim said. You said: Some attribute acceleration to dark energy, I personally think the acceleration is a result of Newtons law. A system in acceleration, remains in acceleration unless acted by some outside (or inside) force. "Newton's law" says that only uniform motion will be maintained without the application of a force. The distant galaxies are accelerating, not moving uniformly. Yet you are trying to say it's a result of "Newton's law." Newton's law says that ONLY uniform motion will maintain itself. Acceleration requires the application of a force, according to Newton. Edited June 18, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) No it doesn't just apply to uniform motion it applies to [all forms of motion]. When will this sink into your brain? NEVER, because it's 100% wrong, according to Newton. An accelerating object will NOT just keep accelerating indefinitely UNLESS you (continue to) apply an external force to it. It will, however, continue to maintain a uniform speed if no external forces are exerted on it. Edited June 18, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts