Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Date: 10 Oct 2016 21:09:54 GMT Organization: enemygadgets.com Lines: 86 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: individual.net v59b+1edAQPpWwX7kV4QPw7W7eAo0HlBJtpBB6J5oKC7XtbnLh Cancel-Lock: sha1:nvTxoma91YJpuP0UX8SqyaGSRpY= User-Agent: KNode/4.13.3 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:600290 Poutnik wrote: >>>> In order for it to be a property, it can only >>>> be ON or OFF. >>>> >>> In order to be a property of the object, >>> it must depend solely on the state of object. >>> >>> If there are red and blue standing cars at street, >>> there is no motion for each wrt the other. >>> >>> If the red car drives away, >>> the blue ones starts moving wrt the red one. >>> >>> Is the motion of the blue one wrt red one >>> a property of the car ? No, it is not. >> >> Fatal error of logic there is that you >> are assuming you can construct >> something out of blue or red that can >> verify the one or the other occurred. >> > Fatal error of logic is assuming > linear motion is property of an object. That is the leap that hasn't been made yet but being made by me without fatality with these assertions as posted in the original post: Linear motion as a quantum property? ------------------------------------ I don't understand any of this. I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property of matter. But now I'm really stuck. Basically it starts off by concluding linear motion reduces to a property of matter. In order for it to be a property, it can only be ON or OFF. The OFF state is anything that travel at the speed of light contrary to where I want to start :( There is no reference point to conclude you have linear motion which is why the OFF state is given to objects travelling at speed of light. Then what does ON mean? It seems to mean that when these particles combine with other object and they face each other then you get the ON state. This logic just sucks and sucks. When two objects face each other to cancel linear motion they stand still. And when they combine with more collections of such particles you get various linear motion vectors. The moment a particle has one of its linear motion particle properties reversed in a particle collision of high energy, it is possible, they just accelerate until its torn to pieces. If that is the case, then may be some day we can reverse the properties of just a few particles by just a little and hold on to it some way. A sheet of this material would then accelerate slowly assuming the force of acceleration can be evenly distributed throughout the material (otherwise it would rip itself to pieces if it is a point source). Much like a sheet of plastic can be charged up electrostatically or some materials form into magnets, this material will accelerate in the specific directions set into at the time its manufactured, and you point it in the direction you want to travel.