Re: Have you ever wondered.....

"AllYou!" <idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:PeqdnZx1Sar51OLfRVn-1g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Kees Roos" <croos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:427e6850$0$50180$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "AllYou!" <idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
>> news:SsadndrwSOViyebfRVn-sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> [snip]
>
>> >
>> > Positions don't change, locations do.
>> >
>> OK, rephrase:
>> -If we compare two states, all we can compare is locations
>> of objects, which we have seen.
>> If these locations have changed we call that change motion.
>> This concept 'motion' is purely a result of the intellectual
>> process which compares the *seen* positions.
>
> You're terribly confused. Motion occurs naturally. Whether it's observed
> or not, motion
> is a natural phenomenon.
>
Yes.
Only, when we observe it, all we see is different locations at
different states.
So, when we practice physics and study locations we note
that sometimes we see that objects have changed their
positions between states. We have not seen them 'doing
the change', all we have seen is the locations, and our
intellectual process yields the result that between states
the locations changed.
The conclusion is that a process exists which results in
change of locations. We don't see that process, all we see
is the locations involved. We give this process the name
'motion'. The conclusion that the process exists is a purely
intellectual process which compares the *seen* locations.

So, motion exists, the process of detecting it is an intellectual
process, comparing locations.

>> >
>> > Motion is not the result of an intellectual process. Motion is a
>> > physical
>> > process the
>> > observation of which requires an intellectual process.
>> >
>> That's what I say.
>
> No, you said that motion is a concept, and you also say that it's purely
> the result of an
> intellectual process.
>
The concept, yes.

> Here's your claim: "This concept 'motion' is purely
> a result of the
> intellectual process..........." Your complete misuse of terms is what
> leads to the
> fantastic notion that motion is not observable. Tell me, is motion a
> natural phenomenon
> or not? Is motion physical?
>
I don't know how you define 'natural'.
However, I tell you that motion is a physical phenomenon.
(Don't know of any nonphysical phenomena.)

>>We see locations of objects and compare
>> these locations afterwards. If the locations have changed
>> we call such changes of locations 'motion'.
>> Motion happens, only all we see is states.
>
> Therefore, despite your utter confusion about what constitutes
> observation, motion is
> physical, is that correct?
>
Motion is physical, as is any process.

> BTW, you won't find one credible scientist to agree that the natural
> phenomenon of motion
> is not observable.
>
>>
>> >> We don't *see* the motion, we *see* locations.
>> >
>> > We see states, we observe motion.
>> >
>> That's what I say. The data we use out of the
>> seen states is the locations of the object.
>
> No, you said that we don't see motion. I say that motion is observable.
>
The two don't exlude each other. We see locations, not motion.
According to your definition of 'observation', we observe
motion.

Your definition of 'observation' differs from mine.
According to my definition, we observe locations
and infer motion.

>>
>> >> Motion is an emerging concept, it is not *seen*.
>> >
>> > No, it's observed.
>> >
>> Right. What we see is locations. The intellectual process
>> finishes the observation and concludes that there has been
>> motion, according to yur defintion of 'observe'.
>
> OK, so what's your point? Is motion physical or not? Yes or no?
>
Motion is physical. Yes.

>>
>> >> You want to call all of the process, from 'see positions'
>> >> to 'have processed the seen states' observation.
>> >
>> > You're the one who keeps using variations of the word *see* to try to
>> > sqeeze your argument
>> > into words that work.
>> >
>> I think you misunderstand what I say. I don't try to
>> contradict you, I merely try to summarize what you
>> say. You seem to have the notion that anything I say
>> should be refuted at once.
>
> And you do it wrongly. Stop wasting energy on this semantical
> rediculousness and just
> answer the question......is motion physical or not?
>
Motion is physical.

[snip]
>> > I asked you a simple question whcih you've chosen to snip. Simply put,
>> > is
>> > motion a
>> > physical process, yes or no?
>> >
>> If we apply your definition of 'physical', i.e. 'observable',
>> and if we apply your definition of 'observe', i.e.
>> 'conclusion after application of a deductive intellectual
>> process on collected data on phenomena', then motion
>> is a physical process.
>> (my definitions differ, but my conclusion is the same:
>> motion is a process. According to my definitions any
>> process is physical, so motion is a physical process.)
>
> Not an answer. In your opinion, according to your definitions, is motion
> physical or not?
> Yes or no?
>
According to my definitions motion is a process, i.e.
change over time.
According to my definitions a process, any process
is physical, i.e. present in the universe.
So, according to my definitions motion is physical.
Yes!

>>
>> Also, if we apply your definitions of 'physical' and
>> 'observe', then time is physical according to your own
>> definitions:
>
> Not at all. We infer time. We create it out of an observation of a
> process.
>
Just like we 'create' motion out of the observation of locations,
a process which you define as 'observation'.

> The
> observation of motion is the intellectual comparison of two states. The
> inference of time
> is no such thing.
>
Right. Time is not observed (observed according to your definition)
by observing and comparing locations of objects.
If it were, it would be motion.

Time is observed (observed according to your definition) by
studying processes, and the intellectual process of noting
that states which describe the progression of a process are
ordered.
We call that ordering 'time'.

> The inference of time is the observation of motion
>
....or any other process...

>and
> the simple
> assertion of the notion of time.
>
.... and the conclusion that during the process, any process,
not just motion, there is an ordering of states. That ordering
exists, it is observed(according to yor definition).
It is customary to give phenomena in physics a name.
The name of the ordering of states is 'time'.

>> we apply a deductive intellectual process on collected
>> data on the progression of a process, and conclude that
>> there is ordering in the states, which we call time.
>
> You can call it splat rays from Mars for all I care, but it's the
> observation of the
> physical process of motion, or a physical process equivalent to motion.
>
Time is not an observation, because then it would be called
'observation'.
It is the ordering of states.
--
Regards, Kees Roos




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Deep Impact" predictions
    ... considered by physics. ... that the laws of gravity do not apply to quantum particles such as in ... the same 3-space motions - but definitely not by geometry alone. ... Geometry has no cause that can initiate motion. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: "Deep Impact" predictions
    ... considered by physics. ... that the laws of gravity do not apply to quantum particles such as in ... the same 3-space motions - but definitely not by geometry alone. ... Geometry has no cause that can initiate motion. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... >> -If we compare two states, all we can compare is positions, ... >> If these positions have changed we call that change motion. ... > Motion is not the result of an intellectual process. ... process on collected data on phenomena', ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr>Reality!
    ... >>>independent state of motion. ... LET, which is viable as far as present day science allows, shows us that there really could be absolute motion in our reality. ... Your assumed problem exists in simple Newtonian physics. ... Definitely there are differences in these four basic forces, but they all do seem to interact with particles that have charge. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OT: Grand unified theory
    ... He's the PDQ Bach of theoretical physics, ... Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity. ... history people have used the sun's apparent motion crossing the sky to ... example, if you add 10 meters per second to 25 meters per second, then ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)