motion or rest? - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

apostate87 · **motion or rest? -** 10-26-06

assuming either sustained rest or sustained motion is impossible for bodies comprised of mass and/or energy, which of the two do you find less plausible? feel free to say why, too. i'm sticking with rest being unlikely... it introduces too many problems... unless one accepts a rather imaginative idea of movement.

heraclitus all the way baby!

DeeeeShevil · 10-26-06

For rest, you would need a static force greater enough to allow the object to get in motion. It would suck having to rely on something to get you to move, don't you think? However, the minute something gets kinetic motion, then inertia gets involved and you would need a strong enough force to stop it. I can't really say. Rest and motion are connected, you would need one for the other to happen and vice versa. Nothing is ever as absolute.

apostate87 · 10-26-06

actually, the nature of my reasoning is different. just like you can't tell certain things from say force that you can from momentum, there are certain things you can tell from logic that you can't tell from pure mathematics. if an object, say a ball, has a center of mass C which does not move in any of the three spacial directions AT ALL at all points in time between T1 and T2, then if it did begin to move, it would have to have an acceleration, a jerk, and so forth and so on to infinity. it would be impossible; infinity is impossible. arbitrarily large or small, no, but infinite yes. as well as zero. so i agree there are no absolutes, although i disagree that rest exists. if rest existed, the graph of its position would be impossible to construct unless it were done by parts, and since everything continuous moves as a function of time (and i assume you can't define these motions by parts... because that means the velocity is undefined in certain places, which is absurd) rest can only exist at instants on the graph. rest cannot be sustained. motion is absolute. not absolute motion, but motion nonetheless. i believe, at the very least, everything oscillates in a sinusoidal manner. but that's just me.

DeeeeShevil · 10-26-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by apostate87

actually, the nature of my reasoning is different. just like you can't tell certain things from say force that you can from momentum, there are certain things you can tell from logic that you can't tell from pure mathematics. if an object, say a ball, has a center of mass C which does not move in any of the three spacial directions AT ALL at all points in time between T1 and T2, then if it did begin to move, it would have to have an acceleration, a jerk, and so forth and so on to infinity.

For the ball, the center mass would only be one small point, not three points. When you mention spatial directions, I think you getting into an atomic view (if that's even a word). it would be impossible; infinity is impossible. arbitrarily large or small, no, but infinite yes. as well as zero. so i agree there are no absolutes, although i disagree that rest exists. if rest existed, the graph of its position would be impossible to construct unless it were done by parts, and since everything continuous moves as a function of time (and i assume you can't define these motions by parts... because that means the velocity is undefined in certain places, which is absurd) rest can only exist at instants on the graph. rest cannot be sustained. motion is absolute. not absolute motion, but motion nonetheless. i believe, at the very least, everything oscillates in a sinusoidal manner. but that's just me.

Actually, a postion wouldn't be too difficult to graph. It depends on what kind of graph you are making and for what purpose. Position vs. time graph provides you information about the slope which would represent the velocity. Velocity vs. time graph provides you informationa bout the slope representing the acceleration and vice versa. Certain motions can be defined. There's potential (resting) and kinetic (motion). Within kinetic motion, there's rotation, harmnonic, etc

apostate87 · 10-26-06

i think you're missing my point somewhat. what i'm saying is hard to understand, and i'm bad at explaining it, but... hmmm....

1. i never said a ball had 3 points as the center of mass, just the one, C
2. T1 and T2 are points in time. sorry for the confusion.
3. i know about position vs time graphs and velocity vs time graphs, lol. my reasoning is going a bit beyond that level of play...
4. potential energy does not entail the absense of motion. at all.

ummm... all i can suggest is giving what i wrote one more try, or asking questions about the confusing parts... and why don't you vote? btw i'm not talking at the practical level, but at the level of truth.

sixxx(sic)six · 10-26-06

Motion will always exist. On a philosophical level, motion goes way far and beyond the physical realm, as well as affecting the physical realm in a non-physical way. Such as: thinking is a motion. Aging is a motion. Change is a motion. Time is a motion. Etc, etc.

apostate87 · 10-26-06

vote then! sheesh! this is a poll for a reason.

sixxx(sic)six · 10-26-06

I don't vote.

apostate87 · 10-26-06

not even for me? i'm hurt

sixxx(sic)six · 10-26-06

Well, you know which way I'm leaning, so...

DeeeeShevil · 11-02-06

[quote=apostate87;1559985]
4. potential energy does not entail the absense of motion. at all.

why don't you vote?.[/QUOTE/]

I realize that with potential energy does not entail absense of motion. Just a change in energy i.e. sound, heat, etc.

I had to think about the question for quite some time.

I'd say motion. I'm voting right now.

apostate87 · 11-02-06

well, i made it a poll to see what people thought... though i must admit i don't agree with you. still, thanks for voting. i need more people to vote...

SaturnAscends · 11-26-06

http://www.ffiends.com/Games/Nimrod.jsp

SaturnAscends · 11-26-06

fill the big ball with green and teal lines, put as many as you can in there and it will eventually lift off and levitate.

StygianEyes · 12-03-06

potential energy of an object within a system can change.

And not even an object at 'rest' is at rest on a molecular level. if you take a god bar and a silver bar, put then next to each other for X amount of time, eventually you will get a bar that is stuck together, not because they're squished but because the molecules move, they diffuse.

Another way ithought about it, all forces acting upon an object have to be equal including vectorness and it cant start off with momentum. Thats a lot of specifics. Objects are in motion, we know that the earth is moving, well to the best we got, the earth is moving : ) so when a moving object hits an object at rest that is less than its mass 2 things now move. There's a lot of options for masses and speeds here. The only time 2 things no longer move after a collision is if their momentum is equal. That's really damn specific. So in kinematic terms i believe rest is less likely, but an opinoin it is