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

Groups > sci.physics > #550789

Re: inertial frames of reference

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/5/2016 4:41 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd
>> Why would you assume the force is applied to the cupcar? All I told you is
>> that there is relative motion between the two vehicles. I did not specify
>> that one >of them is moving and the other one is stationary, and for that
>> matter, both of them could be moving.
>
> Odd,  you are totally odd. Your original question went something like this:
> The cup is not moving in the cupcar frame but when we switch to the
> observor frame it IS moving. Where did the force come to move the car?

Not quite what I asked.

>
> So if you say we are now in the observor frame , the cup is moving
> and where did the force on the moving cup come from then its
> logical to assume you want me to describe where it came from
> in the observor frame. !!
>
>> Under Newton, is there any physical difference between the first vehicle moving
>> and the second stationary, the second vehicle moving and the first >stationary,
>> or both of them moving? Be very careful how you answer this, because Newton DOES
>> have an answer here. Hint: The answer is either Yes or No.
>
> Presumably in the 2 frames where only one car is moving, they both have been
> accelerated to the same speed using the same net force so that should qualify
> as no difference.

Why are you presuming that?

> Unless there is a difference because they are different cars.
> Not the same car?
> But in the frame where they both move, then there is a difference,
> Because in the first two frames only one moves but in the third frame BOTH move.
> That being the difference?

Nope.

>


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

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 14:06 -0600
  Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-03 02:35 -0800
    Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 10:23 -0600
      Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-04 01:22 -0800
        Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:44 -0600
          Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-04 09:35 -0800
            Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 11:54 -0600
              Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:04 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 07:07 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:55 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 13:59 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-05 14:41 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 17:34 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-06 06:07 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 06:25 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 12:44 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-06 11:16 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-06 11:41 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:20 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 11:05 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 13:31 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-09 04:34 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 09:46 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:13 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 11:23 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 13:42 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-09 04:50 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 09:50 -0600

csiph-web