"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
(Daniel Weston) wrote in message
...
The present statement of AllYou's hypothesis, suffers from a fatal
ambiguity.
He vacillates between the various concepts related to motion. This is
most evident when he tries to tell us that he will measure "motion"
using the earth as a unit of measurement. He also says that the unit of
the meter can be use to measure motion.

Motion, at the very least, contains 3 elements; 1) distance, 2)
direction, 3) speed. It also involves change of position during the
motion. If I am told that a helicopter has moved 1 mile, the other
aspects of the motion have not been revealed; at what speed did the
helicopter move?, what was the direction of the movement?, what was the
change of the position in altitude, longitude, and latitude.

To say that the spinning earth can be used as a unit of measuring
motion, is meaningless. I traveled from Paris to London; please
describe my motion in terms of the spinning earth.
It is of vital consequence that AllYou define with specification which
aspect of motion he is referencing, or the hypothesis becomes
incomprehensible.

Question: What is the scientific definition of motion?

Motion is, at its simplest, the change of position of an object
(either matter of particle energy) in time. Motion can be conceived of
as either absolute or relative.

Why does it have to be *in time*? Why not just a change in position at some speed?






Absolute motion means motion with respect to some absolute space,
usually a unique space. Relative motion is motion relative to some
other piece of matter, such as a physical reference frame. A physical
reference frame is always needed to measure motion.

There are three main models of objects that can be "in motion."

1) point mass particle,
2) rigid body,
3) non-rigid body.

All three allow for translations and rotations. Translation is the
motion of a body in a straight line, ignoring any other form of motion
compounding it. Rotation is the rigid motion of the body about one
point of the body. Rotation about a point outside the body is called
revolution (though the distinction is not maintained fastiduously and,
depending on the shape of the object, the difference in meaning can
get lost, such as the case of a toroid). When non-rigid bodies undergo
rotation they distort somewhat due to centrifugal forces, viewed in
the Newtonian sense.

A third form of motion is a relative motion of one part of a body with
respect to some other part of the body, such as an oscillating
(vibrating) motion of a pair of subobjects that have a stability point
at a finite distance between them. A special case of this kind of
motion is orbital motion, where one body is treated as "fixed."
Another way to interpret this is as a system of bodies.

A fourth kind of motion is expansion-contraction, such as happens to
objects under change of temperature.

Motion can be conceived of classically as either inertial or
noninertial. In the former case, Newton used this as a means of
defining zero-force, where force is an agent external to an object
that "explains" its straight line or nonstraight line motion.

Patrick

"AllYou!" wrote in message ...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
(Daniel Weston) wrote in message
...
The present statement of AllYou's hypothesis, suffers from a fatal
ambiguity.
He vacillates between the various concepts related to motion. This is
most evident when he tries to tell us that he will measure "motion"
using the earth as a unit of measurement. He also says that the unit of
the meter can be use to measure motion.

Motion, at the very least, contains 3 elements; 1) distance, 2)
direction, 3) speed. It also involves change of position during the
motion. If I am told that a helicopter has moved 1 mile, the other
aspects of the motion have not been revealed; at what speed did the
helicopter move?, what was the direction of the movement?, what was the
change of the position in altitude, longitude, and latitude.

To say that the spinning earth can be used as a unit of measuring
motion, is meaningless. I traveled from Paris to London; please
describe my motion in terms of the spinning earth.
It is of vital consequence that AllYou define with specification which
aspect of motion he is referencing, or the hypothesis becomes
incomprehensible.

Question: What is the scientific definition of motion?

Motion is, at its simplest, the change of position of an object
(either matter of particle energy) in time. Motion can be conceived of
as either absolute or relative.

Why does it have to be *in time*? Why not just a change in position at some speed?

Show us the details of how you would do that cogently. What would
become of d = vt, for example, for the constant-speed model of motion?

Patrick

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"AllYou!" wrote in message
...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
(Daniel Weston) wrote in message
...
The present statement of AllYou's hypothesis, suffers from a fatal
ambiguity.
He vacillates between the various concepts related to motion. This is
most evident when he tries to tell us that he will measure "motion"
using the earth as a unit of measurement. He also says that the unit of
the meter can be use to measure motion.

Motion, at the very least, contains 3 elements; 1) distance, 2)
direction, 3) speed. It also involves change of position during the
motion. If I am told that a helicopter has moved 1 mile, the other
aspects of the motion have not been revealed; at what speed did the
helicopter move?, what was the direction of the movement?, what was the
change of the position in altitude, longitude, and latitude.

To say that the spinning earth can be used as a unit of measuring
motion, is meaningless. I traveled from Paris to London; please
describe my motion in terms of the spinning earth.
It is of vital consequence that AllYou define with specification which
aspect of motion he is referencing, or the hypothesis becomes
incomprehensible.

Question: What is the scientific definition of motion?

Motion is, at its simplest, the change of position of an object
(either matter of particle energy) in time. Motion can be conceived of
as either absolute or relative.

Why does it have to be *in time*? Why not just a change in position at some speed?

Show us the details of how you would do that cogently. What would
become of d = vt, for example, for the constant-speed model of motion?

d = vm where m is motion (not mass). However, where motion is fundamental and so is
distance, the preferred expression would me v=d/m.

"AllYou!" wrote in message ...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
[snip]

Show us the details of how you would do that cogently. What would
become of d = vt, for example, for the constant-speed model of motion?

d = vm where m is motion (not mass). However, where motion is fundamental and so is
distance, the preferred expression would me v=d/m.

Please tell us how you would use this equation in physics. What is it
used to measure or predict? How is this m different from time? How is
m measured? How do you write an equation for the position of an object
in time if you believe that the concept of time is disallowed in
physics?

Patrick

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"AllYou!" wrote in message
...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
[snip]

Show us the details of how you would do that cogently. What would
become of d = vt, for example, for the constant-speed model of motion?

d = vm where m is motion (not mass). However, where motion is fundamental and so is
distance, the preferred expression would me v=d/m.

Please tell us how you would use this equation in physics. What is it
used to measure or predict?

Much the same as you use time now. My argument is that skipping over the fact that our
notion of time is really just motion serves to fill voids in scientific thought that we'd
be forced to examine otherwise. It's a crutch and a mask. It's not that what we do now
would not be done, it's that we'd be forced to do more.

How is this m different from time?

m is observable and a part of the physical realm. t is just an abstraction.

How is m measured?

How do you measure distance? Take a quantity, label it, and make sure everyone uses the
same units in order to compare to other quantities of it and express those quantities in
terms of those units. Same answer for motion.

How do you write an equation for the position of an object
in time if you believe that the concept of time is disallowed in
physics?

Replace it with motion. I just did that in the post to which you responded. Also, in a
coordinate system, use distance as one axis and motion, not time, as the other.

"AllYou!" wrote in message ...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"AllYou!" wrote in message
...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
[snip]

Show us the details of how you would do that cogently. What would
become of d = vt, for example, for the constant-speed model of motion?

d = vm where m is motion (not mass). However, where motion is fundamental and so is
distance, the preferred expression would me v=d/m.

Please tell us how you would use this equation in physics. What is it
used to measure or predict?

Much the same as you use time now. My argument is that skipping over the fact that our
notion of time is really just motion serves to fill voids in scientific thought that we'd
be forced to examine otherwise. It's a crutch and a mask. It's not that what we do now
would not be done, it's that we'd be forced to do more.

How is this m different from time?

m is observable and a part of the physical realm. t is just an abstraction.


All physical variables are abstractions. They all take their physical
meaning only by how they are defined ultimately in terms of
operational definitions or on calculations using other variables which
themselves are based on operational definitions.

Operational definitions are arbitrary ways to turn event pairs into
numbers.


How is m measured?

How do you measure distance? Take a quantity, label it, and make sure everyone uses the
same units in order to compare to other quantities of it and express those quantities in
terms of those units. Same answer for motion.

How do you write an equation for the position of an object
in time if you believe that the concept of time is disallowed in
physics?

Replace it with motion. I just did that in the post to which you responded. Also, in a
coordinate system, use distance as one axis and motion, not time, as the other.

You sound like you're treating time as a distance in much the same way
as Minkowski geometry treats time as a distance in spacetime.

Patrick

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"AllYou!" wrote in message
...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"AllYou!" wrote in message
...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
[snip]

Show us the details of how you would do that cogently. What would
become of d = vt, for example, for the constant-speed model of motion?

d = vm where m is motion (not mass). However, where motion is fundamental and so
is
distance, the preferred expression would me v=d/m.

Please tell us how you would use this equation in physics. What is it
used to measure or predict?

Much the same as you use time now. My argument is that skipping over the fact that
our
notion of time is really just motion serves to fill voids in scientific thought that
we'd
be forced to examine otherwise. It's a crutch and a mask. It's not that what we do
now
would not be done, it's that we'd be forced to do more.

How is this m different from time?

m is observable and a part of the physical realm. t is just an abstraction.


All physical variables are abstractions. They all take their physical
meaning only by how they are defined ultimately in terms of
operational definitions or on calculations using other variables which
themselves are based on operational definitions.

Operational definitions are arbitrary ways to turn event pairs into
numbers.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. It's simply not acceptable to make **** up in science, and
that's all the notion of time really is. We made it up because it was easier to order the
events of history that way and then we got so used to it and so reliant upon it that we
gave it a priority in science equivalent to that of mass and distance and gravity and the
like. Physics is basically defined as the study of matter and energy and the relationship
between the two. It's also been defined as the study of the physical world. So tell me,
is time matter? Is time energy? Is time physical in any way? Your characterization
might be correct as far as it goes, but to use time in order to fill the voids in our
mathematical model of how the universe operates which we would otherwise have difficulty
filling might make the model work just fine, but all that does is create the illusion that
we've solved anything.

Tell me...........if the point of science is to build models based upon what we've already
observed, than is science just a puzzle used to amuse us like crosswords? Is there no
other benefit? Of course there is. We build models based upon observations in order to
predict and possibly even project what the physical realm is all about. We use such
models as an aid for learning and reasoning. When we lose sight of this and just build
models which work no matter how we get them to work, even if it means making **** up, then
we've lost sight of the point.

How is m measured?

How do you measure distance? Take a quantity, label it, and make sure everyone uses
the
same units in order to compare to other quantities of it and express those quantities
in
terms of those units. Same answer for motion.

How do you write an equation for the position of an object
in time if you believe that the concept of time is disallowed in
physics?

Replace it with motion. I just did that in the post to which you responded. Also, in
a
coordinate system, use distance as one axis and motion, not time, as the other.

You sound like you're treating time as a distance in much the same way
as Minkowski geometry treats time as a distance in spacetime.

Not at all. Distance is a physical and tangible property of nature, and time is an
illusion. There is no spacetime but there is spacemotion.

AllYou: I wanted you to rephrase my three statements in accordance with
your hypothesis so I could demonstrate that your hypothesis is
unworkable, or at the best unwieldy. I think you saw the problem and
cleverly declined to address the inquiry.

You have not persuaded anybody that your hypothesis would solve any
problems or give any benefits to anybody. It has no demonstrated
utilitarian value.

If everybody adopted your hypothesis, what would we do with our clocks
and watches? Throw them away? What, if anything, would we replace them
with?
If you chose to clearly answer these questions, I believe you will see
the futility of your hypothesis. The burden of proof is upon you.

"Daniel Weston" wrote in message
...
AllYou: I wanted you to rephrase my three statements in accordance with
your hypothesis so I could demonstrate that your hypothesis is
unworkable, or at the best unwieldy. I think you saw the problem and
cleverly declined to address the inquiry.

Not a chance, Dickhead. All you kept doing was failing to see that you were so tied to a
concept that it was beyond your ability to discuss it. That's how intellectually limited
you are.

You have not persuaded anybody that your hypothesis would solve any
problems or give any benefits to anybody. It has no demonstrated
utilitarian value.

So science is a ****ing democracy now? You've not been able to demonstrate one flaw in my
reasoning, so now you resort to your opinion of the opinion of others? That's one of the
primary symptoms of a failed argument. Go ahead, point to even one flaw and I'll show you
how stupid and moronic you are.

That's why you follow me all over this NG from thread to thread. You know that
discontinuity and obfuscation is your only hope. You're an imbecile.

If everybody adopted your hypothesis, what would we do with our clocks
and watches? Throw them away? What, if anything, would we replace them
with?

You idiot! You've not understood a thing I've said. I'm not saying that mechanisms which
produce a regular series of events would be abandoned you dumb ****. I'm disputing what
it is you purport they measure.

You really are as numb as a pound of cum.

If you chose to clearly answer these questions, I believe you will see
the futility of your hypothesis.

That's because you're a ****ing arrogant moron.

"AllYou!" wrote in message ...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"AllYou!" wrote in message
...
[snip]

How is this m different from time?

m is observable and a part of the physical realm. t is just an abstraction.


All physical variables are abstractions. They all take their physical
meaning only by how they are defined ultimately in terms of
operational definitions or on calculations using other variables which
themselves are based on operational definitions.

Operational definitions are arbitrary ways to turn event pairs into
numbers.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. It's simply not acceptable to make **** up in science, and
that's all the notion of time really is. We made it up because it was easier to order the
events of history that way and then we got so used to it and so reliant upon it that we
gave it a priority in science equivalent to that of mass and distance and gravity and the
like. Physics is basically defined as the study of matter and energy and the relationship
between the two. It's also been defined as the study of the physical world. So tell me,
is time matter? Is time energy? Is time physical in any way?

Is distance absolutely physical? No! In physics, anyway, as opposed to
commonsense, distance receives its "physical" status for precisely one
reason only: It is used formally in a physical theory having an
operational definition to "measure" distance by a human-invented rule.

Physics is a collection of highly abstract concepts (including what
matter is!) which are provided meanings by the use of operational
definitions.

Tell me, since you hold that "Physics is basically defined as the
study of matter and energy and the relationship between the two," in
what useful way can you characterize relationships between matter and
energy without EVER ordering events (i.e., without ever making use of
any notion of time, the ordering of events)? How do you have cause and
effect without time? Now, I know that you claim to have removed time
from physics. I counterclaim that all you have really done is to have
provided an operatinal definition for the measuring of time.


Your characterization
might be correct as far as it goes, but to use time in order to fill the voids in our
mathematical model of how the universe operates which we would otherwise have difficulty
filling might make the model work just fine, but all that does is create the illusion that
we've solved anything.

Tell me...........if the point of science is to build models based upon what we've already
observed, than is science just a puzzle used to amuse us like crosswords?

From the viewpoint of purpose:

Physics is the invention of a minimal set of rules by which the
behavior of the inanimate macroscopic realm can be completely
described.

Thus, from the viewpoint of purpose, I don't deal with the issue of
psychologcal value of physics. That is, I don't care whether people
find this pursuit of a minimal set of descriptives rules to be amusing
or not.


Is there no
other benefit? Of course there is. We build models based upon observations in order to
predict and possibly even project what the physical realm is all about. We use such
models as an aid for learning and reasoning. When we lose sight of this and just build
models which work no matter how we get them to work, even if it means making **** up,

The problem with your viewpoint is, who among us is godlike enought to
declare for everyone else what is "****" in physics and what isn't?
You, perhaps?

[snip]
You sound like you're treating time as a distance in much the same way
as Minkowski geometry treats time as a distance in spacetime.

Not at all. Distance is a physical and tangible property of nature, and time

Distance is NOT tangible. You can't hold a piece of distance in your
hand and feel its weight. Distance is no more than a number assigned
to an event pair according to an arbitrary rule.

Patrick