Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #589521 > unrolled thread

What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 00:43 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 00:57 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 02:20 -0700
        Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-16 10:22 -0400
          Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:24 -0700
            Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-17 00:47 -0400
              Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-07-16 22:29 -0700
                Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 22:47 -0700
            Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-17 12:12 -0400
              Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 09:55 -0700
                Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 16:41 -0500
        Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 12:27 -0700
          Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:02 -0700
            Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 16:05 -0700
              Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 16:28 -0700
                Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 19:03 -0700
                  Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 19:09 -0700
                    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 20:49 -0700
                      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 22:33 -0700
                        Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 18:42 -0700
                          Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 19:04 -0700
                            Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 19:38 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:25 -0700
        Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 12:31 -0700
          Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:06 -0700
            Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 13:17 -0700
              Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:21 -0700
                Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 16:44 -0500
                  Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-07-17 16:28 -0600
                    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-17 16:59 -0700
                    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 17:24 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Colonel Edmund J. Burke" <burkesgurlz@t-girls.com> - 2016-07-16 06:24 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 12:44 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:00 -0500
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-16 12:04 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-17 14:10 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 23:16 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-07-17 10:04 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-17 06:19 -0400
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-07-17 11:33 +0100
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-17 22:46 +0000
        Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-07-17 18:52 -0400
          Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-18 06:24 -0400
            Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-19 00:05 +0000
              Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-07-18 20:39 -0400
                Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-07-18 20:19 -0700
                Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-19 06:19 -0400
                  Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-19 23:07 +0000
            a particle in noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 18:44 -0700
        Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 15:55 -0700
          Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 15:59 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 12:29 -0500
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 11:24 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-17 12:07 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:26 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? yanarchi@hotmail.com - 2016-07-18 21:58 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 22:03 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 09:25 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#589877

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:42:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 10:33:52 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > > So... why are you here at all?
> > 
> > I just enjoy rubbing your noses in your own shit and expose your ignorance and cluelessness.
> 
> The problem, of course, is that you have done no such thing... in fact, you have only enhanced the reality of your own ignorance and cluelessness...

Says the relativist with his nose buried in his own shit.

ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589882

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:05:04 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:42:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 10:33:52 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > > So... why are you here at all?
> > > 
> > > I just enjoy rubbing your noses in your own shit and expose your ignorance and cluelessness.
> > 
> > The problem, of course, is that you have done no such thing... in fact, you have only enhanced the reality of your own ignorance and cluelessness...
> 
> Says the relativist with his nose buried in his own shit.
> 
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

... and have enhanced them yet again...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589574

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Deep down, everything is absolute.
> 
>   Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed fixed absolute background.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

Moron. The universe does not give a rat's ass about your measurement points. Get a fucking clue.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589663

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > Deep down, everything is absolute.
> > 
> >   Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed fixed
> > absolute background.
> 
> Moron.

  Why is it that when your physics assertions are challenged, you react emotionally?

  Poor baby.

> The universe does not give a rat's ass about your measurement points.

  Either there's a fixed background you can point to, or there isn't.

  Point to it.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589667

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:31:33 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Deep down, everything is absolute.
> > > 
> > >   Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed fixed
> > > absolute background.
> > 
> > Moron.
> 
>   Why is it that when your physics assertions are challenged, you react emotionally?
> 
>   Poor baby.
> 
> > The universe does not give a rat's ass about your measurement points.
> 
>   Either there's a fixed background you can point to, or there isn't.
> 
>   Point to it.

You morons believe in non-existent backgrounds. I don't. You know what you can do with your background, don't you? That's right. Pack it up your ass.

ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589671

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:06:20 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:31:33 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Deep down, everything is absolute.
> > > > 
> > > >   Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed fixed
> > > > absolute background.
> > > 
> > > Moron.
> > 
> >   Why is it that when your physics assertions are challenged, you react
> > emotionally?
> > 
> >   Poor baby.
> > 
> > > The universe does not give a rat's ass about your measurement points.
> > 
> >   Either there's a fixed background you can point to, or there isn't.
> > 
> >   Point to it.
> 
> You morons believe in non-existent backgrounds. I don't.

  More emotional response instead of physics arguments.

  You claim that motion is "absolute". Do you even know what that means?


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589672

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:17:56 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:06:20 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:31:33 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Deep down, everything is absolute.
> > > > > 
> > > > >   Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed fixed
> > > > > absolute background.
> > > > 
> > > > Moron.
> > > 
> > >   Why is it that when your physics assertions are challenged, you react
> > > emotionally?
> > > 
> > >   Poor baby.
> > > 
> > > > The universe does not give a rat's ass about your measurement points.
> > > 
> > >   Either there's a fixed background you can point to, or there isn't.
> > > 
> > >   Point to it.
> > 
> > You morons believe in non-existent backgrounds. I don't.
> 
>   More emotional response instead of physics arguments.

You wouldn't know a physics argument if it was jammed up your ass. LOL

>   You claim that motion is "absolute". Do you even know what that means?

I know you don't. This is why you're talking about an absolute background. And you know why you cannot think of motion without thinking of a nonexistent background? It's because, like all relativists, you're a fucking moron.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589690

On 7/17/2016 3:21 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:17:56 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:06:20 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com
>> wrote:

>
> I know you don't. This is why you're talking about an absolute
> background. And you know why you cannot think of motion without
> thinking of a nonexistent background? It's because, like all
> relativists,
>
> ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...


are you trying to show laughing in your post ?

rather it comes across as a guppy with its mouth open for the Dr. 
"ahahahahahhhh"

silly pupa.


Please try again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589702

What would cause it to change its motion?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589719

SPQR wrote:
> 
> What would cause it to change its motion?



the other conveyor belt.


I mean, come on! 

Haven't you ever taken your luggage out of a conveyor belt???



This is simple physics.

Newtons first Law.
..unless it is acted upon by an force to change its motion.


Or, how does your luggage get into your car? 



What would cause it to change its motion? Newtons first Law.




I'll tell you the truth...
it is not that you cannot see
the conveyor belt..it's that
your 'science teachers' don't allow
you to see the conveyor belt.

It's against the rules.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589720

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 3:28:38 PM UTC-7, SPQR wrote:
> What would cause it to change its motion?

Newton only gave the cause of acceleration: a force. As a firm believer in causality, he knew that motion was caused, of course. And he searched for that cause all his life, only to give up and ascribe it to God whom he called the prime mover. He wrote the following in Opticks:

[start quote]
The vis inertiae [i.e., inertia] is a passive principle by which bodies persist in their motion or rest, receive motion in proportion to the force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this principle alone there never could be any motion in the world. Some other principle was necessary for putting bodies in motion; and now they are in motion, some other principle is necessary for conserving motion.
[end quote]

By the way, the cause of motion is a long standing problem in physics. It's obvious that almost all relativists are unaware that it was a problem in search of a solution. No surprise there.

If Newton had understood that the universe was discrete and that motion consisted of a series of discrete jumps each occurring over a discrete distance and lasting a discrete duration, he would have figured it out. In fact, at the fundamental level, motion consists of a series of micro acceleration/deceleration pairs. The Newtonian force gives us the cause of macro-acceleration but we need another force for micro-acceleration. Since force is always due to an interaction between two particles, it follows that we are swimming in a ocean of energy. It's a multi-dimensional lattice of energetic particles and it contains orders of magnitude more energy than the visible universe. It is responsible for all EM and gravitational phenomena. In fact, there would be no motion at all without it.

PS. This is for the record only. Relativists and the rest of the physics community can kiss my ass.

ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589529

On 7/16/2016 12:43 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm asking, not because any of you relativist bozos on sci.physics know the answer, but because I want to make to make the point that you are all a bunch of clueless morons.
>
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
>
> PS. Before any of you brain-dead relativists start asking, "inertial motion relative to what?", let me point out that a universe in which everything is relative is a self-referential universe. Not even wrong. The idea that all motions and positions are relative is the doctrine of a religion of cretins. In fact, the relative is abstract. Deep down, everything is absolute.
>
> "O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts."
>
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
>

HeeHooo!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589559

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 6:24:38 AM UTC-7, Colonel Edmund J. Burke wrote:
> On 7/16/2016 12:43 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm asking, not because any of you relativist bozos on sci.physics know the answer, but because I want to make to make the point that you are all a bunch of clueless morons.
> >
> > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> >
> > PS. Before any of you brain-dead relativists start asking, "inertial motion relative to what?", let me point out that a universe in which everything is relative is a self-referential universe. Not even wrong. The idea that all motions and positions are relative is the doctrine of a religion of cretins. In fact, the relative is abstract. Deep down, everything is absolute.
> >
> > "O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts."
> >
> > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> >
> 
> HeeHooo!

Best answer yet. Fergerson and Bodkin are complete morons. That's what relativity does to those who are foolish enough to swallow the lie. It damages the brain. Irreversibly. Not unlike the Zika virus.

ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589550

On 7/16/2016 2:43 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> In fact, the relative is abstract. Deep down, everything is absolute.

Doesn't seem to bear out in experiment. So why, tell me, do you believe 
this is true ANYWAY?

If you object in the form of "but that would make it a self-referential 
universe", then kindly explain what your problem is with that and why 
that CANNOT BE.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589555

mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> I'm asking, not because any of you relativist bozos on sci.physics know the answer, but because I want to make to make the point that you are all a bunch of clueless morons.
> 
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> 
> PS. Before any of you brain-dead relativists start asking, "inertial motion relative to what?", let me point out that a universe in which everything is relative is a self-referential universe. Not even wrong. The idea that all motions and positions are relative is the doctrine of a religion of cretins. In fact, the relative is abstract. Deep down, everything is absolute.
> 
> "O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts."
> 
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...


the particle is on a conveyor belt.

conveyor belts exist through out the universe.


the conveyor belt delivers the pariticles to it's destination.


It is how the earth found it's place in the universe.


it arrived on a...conveyor belt.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589684

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I'm asking, not because any of you relativist bozos on sci.physics know the answer, but because I want to make to make the point that you are all a bunch of clueless morons.
> >
> > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> >
> > PS. Before any of you brain-dead relativists start asking, "inertial motion relative to what?", let me point out that a universe in which everything is relative is a self-referential universe. Not even wrong. The idea that all motions and positions are relative is the doctrine of a religion of cretins. In fact, the relative is abstract. Deep down, everything is absolute.
> >
> > "O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts."
> >
> > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> 
> the particle is on a conveyor belt.
> 
> conveyor belts exist through out the universe.
> 
> the conveyor belt delivers the pariticles to it's destination.
> 
> It is how the earth found it's place in the universe.
> 
> it arrived on a...conveyor belt.
> 

Even though i'm a fuckin genuis...
my IQ is in the zillons..

I wonder why yous people
have trouble seeing the
machinery behind it..
the mechanics that run it..
the machinery

behind it.


Take your girlfriend
for example...

if you look at her naked..
she appears to be a human.

But if you take a sissor or
knife and cut her open with
a imaginary sissor or knife...
you can see the machinery
behind her.


Looks nothing like the 
lie in front of it.

The lie, the illusion...

Now, What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?


You just take a sissor...


You probably cannot see all the
conveyor belts...


You gotta be a fuckin genuis like me.


I don't need no stinky sissors.


I'm a fuckin genuis!


Does anybody doubt that????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589626

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 10:44:07 AM UTC+3, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm asking, not because any of you relativist bozos on sci.physics know the answer, but because I want to make to make the point that you are all a bunch of clueless morons.
> 
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> 
> PS. Before any of you brain-dead relativists start asking, "inertial motion relative to what?", let me point out that a universe in which everything is relative is a self-referential universe. Not even wrong. The idea that all motions and positions are relative is the doctrine of a religion of cretins. In fact, the relative is abstract. Deep down, everything is absolute.
> 
> "O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts."
> 
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

======================
are you Hanson ??
Y.P
==============================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589654

"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:a082e844-e008-4344-91b1-0a13073e9b52@googlegroups.com...
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 10:44:07 AM UTC+3, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm asking, not because any of you relativist bozos on sci.physics know 
> the answer, but because I want to make to make the point that you are all 
> a bunch of clueless morons.
>
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
>
> PS. Before any of you brain-dead relativists start asking, "inertial 
> motion relative to what?", let me point out that a universe in which 
> everything is relative is a self-referential universe. Not even wrong. The 
> idea that all motions and positions are relative is the doctrine of a 
> religion of cretins. In fact, the relative is abstract. Deep down, 
> everything is absolute.
>
> "O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts."
>
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

====== Porat wrote ========
are you Hanson ??
Y.P
==============================
>
hanson wrote:
You are lonely again Porat, aren't you. Pity.
Have your Yenta give you some maintenance
beatings which you so sorely need... LOL
>
No, Porat, ....
<mapou001@gmail.com> is Louis Savain
who lives on a Caribbean Isle, while hanson
resides on an Island in the Mid-Pacific.
Shalom & L'Chaim, Porat... ahahahahanson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589633

On 16/07/2016 3:43 AM, hanson, socked up as mapou001@gmail.com, wrote:
> What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?

According to Noether's Theorem (discovered by a personal hero of mine, 
BTW), every differentiable symmetry of the action of a non-dissipative 
physical system has a corresponding conservation law. In the case of 
spatial translation symmetry (i.e. the laws of physics are the same at 
every location) the result is conservation of linear momentum, given 
that physics as a whole is not dissipative (has conservation of energy 
-- which it does, as it has *time* translation symmetry). So the 
particle coasts along a timelike geodesic until given some kind of a 
nudge and won't ever accelerate on its own. Said nudge allows it to 
exchange some linear momentum with some other particle or particles.

More at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589634

Ken, Madedna's Hot Squeeze <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> blurted:
     
>
> [pink noise]
>
 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyBYSuqQBQ>
 
EOT
 
-- 
^Ï^.    
 
My pet rock Gordon just is.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web