Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Hmm lets see if I can dumb this down to layman level.


in other words you want to make it easy for me to understand
because Im not as stupid as you are?

Quote:
I think you agreed in the end you can't detect constant motion


no , I didnt.

Quote:
you haven't offered us the legendary motion compass you sort of suggested exists.


no , you are the one who suggested it , not me.

Quote:
Detect motion or not detect motion makes no difference you need to be able to distinguish one state from the other to get a zero reference.


why would I need a reference , you are the one who required
zero motion in the universe.

and with zero motion there would be zero energy.

you set the stage and the actors and then you and your
obviously less than layman level , can I say less than
grade school level of intelligence now require a reference?

Quote:
well you are equating energy >> directly and only << to motion


that is exactly right , dumbo , if you had a tiny amount of
intelligence then you would realize that you cannot have
energy without motion , if you think I am wrong then please
show your high level of intelligence that you have hidden so
well and so often here on SAGG by telling us what you know of
that does have energy and at the same time is not in motion.

that should be so easy for you to do orac , simply because
you are such a self proclaimed brilliant non layman type scientist. laugh

this is why I truly believe that you quack pots should first
be forced to study normal physics before you are allowed to study the abnormal physics.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul
in other words you want to make it easy for me to understand because Im not as stupid as you are?

Hmmm right you are a mental genius .. I am always in awe of it laugh

Originally Posted By: paul
no , I didnt.

So lets just stick with one point at a time rather than everything.

So apparently Paul can detect constant motion.

So please show us poor science mortals how great guru wise one?

There you go one point and one point only to deal with because science can't manage what you can smile

Last edited by Orac; 07/12/14 10:02 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
So lets just stick with one point at a time rather than everything.

So apparently Paul can detect constant motion.

So please show us poor science mortals how great guru wise one?

There you go one point and one point only to deal with because science can't manage what you can


an idiot is someone who cannot learn.

either you are an idiot , or you were not capable of understanding when I have previously told you several times that you are the one who suggested that , not me.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Lets see the issue you are suggesting I made was about a device I was referring directly to these two statements.

Orac: I think you agreed in the end you can't detect constant motion

Paul: no , I didnt.


Well if you didn't agree you can't detect constant motion I thought that meant you think you can detect constant motion. Maybe I was confused by the guru's answer or perhaps starstruck and in my total awe for which I apologize.

So lets try once more to clear any confusion:

Paul can you detect constant motion or not .. this is the key point?

It's a yes or no answer, surely that is not beyond your massive intelligence to answer.

Last edited by Orac; 07/12/14 01:32 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
orac , you have truncated this thread enough with your idiotic
method of discussion that you alone created in order to sway
attention away from your stupidity.

here is where you began your revelation.

Originally Posted By: orac
There is also no device you can make that will tell you that you are moving at constant speed in space.


you are the one who suggested that I was moving at a constant speed.

when you stated the following...

Quote:
you are moving at constant speed


all you are doing is trying to hide your ignorance by insisting
that I know of a device that can detect constant motion because I pointed out your ignorance when I said the following
about your ignorant statement.

Originally Posted By: paul
1) you cant define energy , but I have.

2) you didnt know that there would be no energy if everything in the universe stopped.

3) I never have moved at a constant speed , nor have you.

4) you cant win.


since you were the one who first mentioned constant speed then
doesn't that reveal that you would be the one who has knowledge of a device that can measure constant speed?


I would call this a clear example of someone who is complaining
about the color of their red barn to the paint salesman as the paint salesman loads more red paint into oracs truck.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
If it makes you happy the confusion is all my fault and I am not complaining this is the bit that causes me trouble with your argument so I just want it settled. It has massive implications.

So do we get an answer or not here lets do multiple choice for you select A or B

A) I believe you can't detect constant motion
B) I believe you can detect constant motion

Why do you keep avoiding the question I am really interested in your answer?

For the record I choose A it's not hard even someone as stupid as me and not in your intelligence guru status can do it.

So which is it Guru A or B?

Last edited by Orac; 07/12/14 02:13 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
orac

Quote:

A) I believe you can't detect constant motion
B) I believe you can detect constant motion

Why do you keep avoiding the question I am really interested in your answer?

For the record orac has chosen A


now before I give you my answer lets make sure that we
understand what you actually mean by "constant motion"


what do you mean by constant motion?

the reason Im questioning you , orac

is that you were formerly concerned with constant speed which
is different from constant motion.

to recap , here is what I said in an earlier post to you , orac.

Quote:
I am on a planet that rotates each 24 hour period.
I am on a planet that orbits around a sun each 365 day period.
that sun is located in a arm of a galaxy that is orbiting round its center.
that galaxy is traveling through the universe.


I have never been in constant linear motion.
I have never been in constant angular motion.
I have never moved at a constant speed in one direction.

therefore

I have never moved at a constant speed.







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Constant linear motion and lets define how we determine that shall we

Rotation is easy to detect with any gyro-compass device because of the centripetal acceleration. A gyro compass for example easily picks up earths movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrocompass)

The modern version of this is a laser device which uses Sagnac effect and will pick up any rotation at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect)

So can you detect any constant motion when a gyro-compass or sagnac device remains at zero, most spacecraft are flown and guided that way ... technical enough or do you need it further refined.

You can easily detect acceleration and deceleration as well if you don't know but I assume you would know that from driving a ca, so constant would mean neither accelerating or decelerating.

The technical term for the whole lot is called an Inertial navigation system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system)

Quote:
An inertial navigation system (INS) is a navigation aid that uses a computer, motion sensors (accelerometers) and rotation sensors (gyroscopes) to continuously calculate via dead reckoning the position, orientation, and velocity (direction and speed of movement) of a moving object without the need for external references.


So if an INS says you are moving in a constant linear motion can you detect it any way?

Last edited by Orac; 07/12/14 02:41 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Constant linear motion and lets define how we determine that shall we

Rotation is easy to detect with any gyro-compass device because of the centripetal acceleration. A gyro compass for example easily picks up earths movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrocompass)

The modern version of this is a laser device which uses Sagnac effect and will pick up any rotation at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect)

So can you detect any constant motion when a gyro-compass or sagnac device remains at zero, most spacecraft are flown and guided that way ... technical enough or do you need it further refined.

You can easily detect acceleration and deceleration as well if you don't know but I assume you would know that from driving a car.



so you are saying that the "constant motion" in your question above is referencing "constant linear motion" , but you
want to use detection equipment that is used to detect "rotation" .... ?

ok , orac , I will be right back.


I know this is important to you , but I have to go and find
someplace to contemplate your reply.

laugh


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul it's that inversion thing again ... you really struggle with it don't you smile

If you can detect rotation then you also know when you aren't rotating. If you can detect acceleration and deceleration then you can also know when you aren't.

So smooth linear motion would be define by science as

A) Not rotating
B) Not accelerating or decelerating

Given you can detect all those, if your devices are reading zero then you are going in what science describes as a linear constant motion.

This really shouldn't be hard for someone of your mental genius.

It is after all how every spaceship has been guided thru space so this is not some theory it is a practical implementation in the real universe.

Last edited by Orac; 07/12/14 03:04 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
orac

Quote:
A) I believe you can't detect constant motion
B) I believe you can detect constant motion

Why do you keep avoiding the question I am really interested in your answer?

For the record I ( orac ) choose A it's not hard even someone as stupid as me and not in your intelligence guru status can do it.

So which is it Guru A or B?



can we now revise your above with whats below?

A) I believe you can't detect constant linear motion
B) I believe you can detect constant linear motion

Why do you keep avoiding the question I am really interested in your answer?

For the record I ( orac ) choose A it's not hard even someone as stupid as me and not in your intelligence guru status can do it.

So which is it Guru A or B?


can we?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Sure guru no problems

Definitions:

"Constant linear motion" is now defined as the motion when an inertial navigation system reads zero on all rotations and acceleration and deceleration instruments on a vessel, spaceship or vehicle that is moving

"detect" means by use of local device or setup and may not use external reference. On a spaceship external reference would be stars etc.

So Paul the choice is now A or B

A) I believe you can't detect "Constant linear motion" as defined
B) I believe you can detect "Constant linear motion" as defined

Again I take firmly take A as the answer.

Last edited by Orac; 07/12/14 04:11 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
did you mean constant linear motion ?

and you didn't supply your answer , but you changed the
multiple choice answers.

also , Im certain that I cannot agree with your definition
of constant linear motion below.

Quote:
"Constant linear motion" is now defined as the motion when an inertial navigation system reads zero on all rotations and acceleration and deceleration instruments on a vessel, spaceship or vehicle that is moving


if you could remove the vessel and vehicle in the definition
above then your definition would be acceptable to me as a vessel could implicate a ship on a ocean and a vehicle could implicate a car on a highway.

so that the definition reads as follows.

Quote:
"Constant linear motion" is now defined as the motion when an inertial navigation system reads zero on all rotations and acceleration and deceleration instruments on a
spaceship that is moving in space.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
That is fine none of that changes anything.

It doesn't even matter if you don't want to call it linear call it whatever you like the kicker isn't in any of the descriptions.

As this wasn't intended as something to have a go at you and you seem to be overly cautious I will give you a heads up of the problem it throws up for science.

The problem for science is when the spaceship or whatever is moving in such a manner it isn't what the movement looks like or how you want to define or describe it. The problem is that it can not detect the movement in any way !!!!! That means the spaceship could literally be doing any speed from stationary up to the speed of light (if you accept that is the upper limit).

Fine you say you can just look out the window an see if you are moving by looking at a star. The problem is you don't know that star is stationary and in fact as you know it is most likely moving as well. The end point of the problem for science is there is no point or object or anything else it can isolate in the universe that is stationary. All we can really measure is motions relative to us.

There is a slightly funny ending to that situation which won't be immediately be obvious until I give you a situation to consider.

Anyhow that is what happens when you choose A which I have.

Last edited by Orac; 07/12/14 04:55 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
This is really getting ridiculous. I have no idea what this thread has devolved to. I cannot follow what either Paul or Orac is talking about. It's time to forget this 2nd grade squabble and discuss something that actually means something.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I totally agree.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
It's the most basic motion and universe problem there exists and unless you can resolve it nothing else makes sense.

So failure to understand the choices and the implications probably explains a great many things smile

Last edited by Orac; 07/12/14 05:27 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Orac,

"The end point of the problem for science is there is no point or object or anything else it can isolate in the universe that is stationary. All we can really measure is motions relative to us."

So you're saying without a fixed reference point all motion is relative.

1) Is there a theory about this.

2) Doesn't this mean Marosz is wrong.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
orac

Quote:
I will give you a heads up of the problem it throws up for science.


it may throw up a problem for fake science , but for real science there are no problems.

there is only the lack of a device for measuring.

and who knows whats on the horizon there may be a device
in the making , maybe not.

but you have made a broad statement stating that constant
motion can not be detected.

Im certain that a device or method of detecting linear and angular motion in the universe will be achieved as soon as we determine where we are located in the universe.

Im not sure where you were intending to go with this as you
flip flopped from post to post , and my belief that you were
simply trying to cover up your mistakes was made evident in your attempt.

this all started when I described energy as anything that
has motion , in effect motion is energy , I firmly stand on that ground while you dance around with a bottle of fake science snake oil trying to sell it to whomever will be
gullible enough to buy it.

many years ago Sir Isaac Newton explained that a body will travel in a right line
( meaning a straight , not a curved line )
until impressed
( meaning by an added force in a different direction )
to change its direction.

that may not be the exact wording/translation but its pretty close and it carries the same meaning.

so , and this is my kicker to you , constant linear motion
is most definitely not a problem to real science and if you
would have taken the time to first study real science before
you began your journey down fantasy lane you would have already known that.









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: pokey
So you're saying without a fixed reference point all motion is relative.

1) Is there a theory about this.

2) Doesn't this mean Marosz is wrong.


Yes science believes in general and special relativity and this is the start point. There is no zero reference frame that being defined as one you can detect all motions from. So your answer to point 1 from you is the fact two of the most important theories in science based on this.

Marosz at least understands the start point and for all his faults the most glaring of which is to not accept anything that falsies his view. The fact you can falsify his idea was done over a century ago and makes the idea falsified. However science being science we do cut some slack that stuff can always be tested so I have no issue with Marosz testing it. The issue is if he finds something his theory will not be accepted there must be some other theory that explains both the current science theory and his new observation. We could never install his theory because we already know it fails quite a few tests the ones GR and SR pass. So he is only wrong in thinking his theory would ever be accepted and why everyone ignores him.

I thought Bill believed in GR and SR as well and so would be interested in this but either he doesn't or this is one of those strange examples of his help. So here I am as the QM crazy having to defend this stuff while the GR in box man goes for the hill .... interesting.

Last edited by Orac; 07/13/14 02:36 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5