The Earth came from the Sun!

[James R]

The rocks are but motion.

In what sense?

I understand "motion" as something that happens to a rock. If the rock is moving from point A to point B then it is in motion. If the rock is just sitting still, then it is not in motion.

How can a rock be motion? It's like saying Motor Daddy is but sneezing, in the sense that Motor Daddy is the same as the process of sneezing.

Motion is not perpetual, there is a cost, regardless of the amount of time it takes, the rock can not exist forever. As time goes by the rock's mass is converted to energy. There is no free ride.

Step me through the processes that lead to the rock's mass eventually being converted to energy.

Are you proposing that a rock will remain a rock indefinitely, as a perpetual motion??

Only in so far as I'm proposing that Motor Daddy will remain the process of sneezing forever.

 

[Motor Daddy]

In what sense?

I understand "motion" as something that happens to a rock. If the rock is moving from point A to point B then it is in motion. If the rock is just sitting still, then it is not in motion.

How can a rock be motion? It's like saying Motor Daddy is but sneezing, in the sense that Motor Daddy is the same as the process of sneezing.

Motion is not just what happens to the rock. The rock IS motion. You are choosing the idea that a rock is a single object, as a single entity. That simply isn't the case. A rock is comprised of smaller elements in motion, which are also comprised of smaller elements in motion, etc... The bottom line is that the rock is motion, cut and dry!

BTW, how do you understand motion as something that happens to a rock? Motion compared to what? You can't even define motion, and yet you are saying it's what happens to rocks. Sitting still???? Compared to what? I have an absolute reference, you don't, remember?

Step me through the processes that lead to the rock's mass eventually being converted to energy.

Mass is motion. Motion is not perpetual, so mass loses mass as a cost of motion. Mass loses mass, to the point of becoming less dense, to the point of simply being space. The rock basically consumes itself because motion has a price.

You didn't answer my question. You seem to believe that a rock can perpetually exist forever? Is that the case, James? Do you believe in perpetual motion? Do you actually believe that?

Only in so far as I'm proposing that Motor Daddy will remain the process of sneezing forever.

Motor Daddy is but motion, at every level of my being. Motor Daddy is not a single entity, Motor Daddy is a composition of matter, which is motion.

 

[Kennyc]

This sounds more and more like the comic "Atom" where the guy could shrink or grow by changing the "spacing" between atoms and/or particles......in other words, total fiction.

 

[James R]

You are choosing the idea that a rock is a single object, as a single entity. That simply isn't the case. A rock is comprised of smaller elements in motion, which are also comprised of smaller elements in motion, etc... The bottom line is that the rock is motion, cut and dry!

On the one hand you say the rock is motion. Now you say that the rock is comprised of smaller elements in motion. So the rock is smaller elements, not motion. Unless the smaller elements are themselves motion, of course.

Is there anything that isn't motion, in your opinion?

BTW, how do you understand motion as something that happens to a rock? Motion compared to what? You can't even define motion, and yet you are saying it's what happens to rocks. Sitting still???? Compared to what? I have an absolute reference, you don't, remember?

Like I said before, motion involves movement from one place to another. It's a process, not stuff. It's an action, not a substance.

I can define motion precisely and quantitatively. In contrast, your definition seems to be "motion=substance=everything".

You don't have an absolute reference. We settled that one previously and at length, and I have disengaged with you on that matter after finding progress impossible. Now that I find that you can't even distinguish substance from action I am even less surprised that you can't grasp the idea of a reference frame.

For a reminder, we left our conversation of reference frames here:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2670432&postcount=887

Re-reading my final post to you in that thread, I don't expect that we'll make much progress in the current conversation here either. It turned out last time that you preferred a fantasy world of your own making to the real world, and wouldn't be swayed when told the facts. I'm guessing the current discussion will go the same way.

Mass is motion.

No it isn't. Mass is substance. Motion is an action.

Motion is not perpetual, so mass loses mass as a cost of motion.

How?

The rock basically consumes itself because motion has a price.

Give me the details. What happens to the rock internally as it consumes itself and somehow converts to energy? What's the conversion process? How does it work?

You didn't answer my question. You seem to believe that a rock can perpetually exist forever? Is that the case, James? Do you believe in perpetual motion? Do you actually believe that?

What is "forever"? Certainly, there are billions upon billions of lumps of inert rock just sitting out there in space whiling away the millenia. Left to their own devices there's no reason for any change.

As to the more general question of perpetual motion, you'll need to define your terms. Using standard physics terminology from thermodynamics, I can tell you I don't believe in perpetual motion machines that violate the laws of thermodynamics. But that is not the same as saying I don't believe in perpetual motion, per se. If you explain exactly what you mean by perpetual motion, I might be able to tell you whether I believe in it or not.

But then again, the chances that you'll be able to define perpetual motion when you can't distinguish basic motion from substance are very slim.

Motor Daddy is but motion, at every level of my being. Motor Daddy is not a single entity, Motor Daddy is a composition of matter, which is motion.

No. Motor Daddy is a composition of matter that is in motion. Big difference.

 

[Motor Daddy]

On the one hand you say the rock is motion. Now you say that the rock is comprised of smaller elements in motion. So the rock is smaller elements, not motion. Unless the smaller elements are themselves motion, of course.

Is there anything that isn't motion, in your opinion?

No, everything is motion. There is no such thing as an object that isn't comprised of motion. Even light is motion. If you think there is a substance that is not comprised of motion please name it. Please tell me which object in this universe is not in motion, or comprised of motion?

Like I said before, motion involves movement from one place to another. It's a process, not stuff. It's an action, not a substance.

Substance is motion, James. There is no such animal as a substance without motion.

I can define motion precisely and quantitatively. In contrast, your definition seems to be "motion=substance=everything".

According to your definition, a rock has no motion, for it's all other rocks that are in motion, not your rock.

You don't have an absolute reference. We settled that one previously and at length, and I have disengaged with you on that matter after finding progress impossible. Now that I find that you can't even distinguish substance from action I am even less surprised that you can't grasp the idea of a reference frame.

Yes I do, and I have some math to prove it. See the other thread. Can you dispute my math?

No it isn't. Mass is substance. Motion is an action.

So you think a rock is 1 entity which has no motion within? Exactly which object has no motion within, again?

What is "forever"? Certainly, there are billions upon billions of lumps of inert rock just sitting out there in space whiling away the millenia. Left to their own devices there's no reason for any change.

Forever is never ending. It is continuous with no end. You say a rock (or even an atom) can exist in time, continuously? Prove it! All indications say that motion isn't free! Motion happens at a cost!

As to the more general question of perpetual motion, you'll need to define your terms. Using standard physics terminology from thermodynamics, I can tell you I don't believe in perpetual motion machines that violate the laws of thermodynamics. But that is not the same as saying I don't believe in perpetual motion, per se. If you explain exactly what you mean by perpetual motion, I might be able to tell you whether I believe in it or not.

Do you believe that an object of mass (such as a rock) can exist unchanged in mass and energy value, continuously in time, infinitely?

But then again, the chances that you'll be able to define perpetual motion when you can't distinguish basic motion from substance are very slim.

Again, a substance is comprised of motion. There isn't this magical thing known as "substance" that has no internal motion. You're fooling yourself if you think there is a substance with no motion!

No. Motor Daddy is a composition of matter that is in motion. Big difference.

...and that matter that I'm comprised of that is in motion is also comprised of smaller entities that are made of motion.

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

No, everything is motion. There is no such thing as an object that isn't comprised of motion. Even light is motion. If you think there is a substance that is not comprised of motion please name it. Please tell me which object in this universe is not in motion, or comprised of motion?

"In motion" and "Being motion" are two different things. Do you think they are the same? You seem to use the terms interchangeably, as in "The moon is motion. The moon is in motion." It looks like you think those two sentences say the same thing. They don't.

As for an example, my body is not currently in motion relative to my chair.

Substance is motion, James. There is no such animal as a substance without motion.

A rock that is just sitting still is a substance without motion.

According to your definition, a rock has no motion, for it's all other rocks that are in motion, not your rock.

No. If two rocks are sitting still side-by-side, then neither one is in motion.

You don't have an absolute reference. We settled that one previously and at length, and I have disengaged with you on that matter after finding progress impossible. Now that I find that you can't even distinguish substance from action I am even less surprised that you can't grasp the idea of a reference frame.

Yes I do, and I have some math to prove it. See the other thread. Can you dispute my math?

I already dealt with your "proof" in the previous thread. See the following post and the pages immediately preceding that:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2670432&postcount=887

Maybe you've forgotten, but I haven't. Probably in the meantime, you've peddled that idea around to a few other forums like I predicted you would, so you've forgotten that I thoroughly debunked your contentions. They turned out to hinge on simple denial of reality.

So you think a rock is 1 entity which has no motion within? Exactly which object has no motion within, again?

Rocks are comprised of atoms. At room temperature the atoms in a rock vibrate. The rock as a whole doesn't move. More specifically, the centre of mass of the rock doesn't move. So the rock as a whole has no motion (unless you pick it up and throw it or something).

Forever is never ending. It is continuous with no end. You say a rock (or even an atom) can exist in time, continuously? Prove it!

If you are really in doubt, go outside and find yourself a rock. Bring it into the house and sit it on your desk in front of you. Stare at it. You may want to get a coffee and some food because you could be there for a while waiting for it to cease existing.

See how long you can hold out. I'm betting the rock lasts longer than you do.

Do you believe that mass can exist unchanged in mass and energy value, continuously in time, infinity?

What kind of mass? How are you measuring energy? Which kinds of energy are you concerned with? What kinds of changes "count" as change?

Again, a substance is comprised of motion.

Like a monkey is comprised of pole vaulting.

---

It seems to me we're now a long way off from you providing any evidence that the Earth came from the Sun, which is the actual topic of the thread.

What happened to all those calculations you said you have?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Motor Daddy:



"In motion" and "Being motion" are two different things. Do you think they are the same? You seem to use the terms interchangeably, as in "The moon is motion. The moon is in motion." It looks like you think those two sentences say the same thing. They don't.

As for an example, my body is not currently in motion relative to my chair.

Your "body" is a composition of atoms that are in motion. Do you deny that? You seem to imply that your body is a solid object, and also imply that the chair is a solid object, and that there is no motion between the two objects of motion. I got news for you. Your "body" is comprised of motion, ie, atoms that are in motion, so there is no motionlessness between you and the chair. Every level you can measure is in motion compared to the chair, which is also in motion at every level. There is no object either of the chair or the body that has no relative motion at the atomic level, or at a smaller level. You have bad eyes and you conclude there is no motion between you and the chair. Now that's funny right there, I don't care who you are!

A rock that is just sitting still is a substance without motion.

So the atoms are motionless inside the rock? Do you actually believe that?

No. If two rocks are sitting still side-by-side, then neither one is in motion.

Two rocks side by side are two objects of motion side by side. There is no two points of mass that can be said to be motionless compared to each other. It's like saying two fires can be at rest with each other.

Rocks are comprised of atoms. At room temperature the atoms in a rock vibrate. The rock as a whole doesn't move. More specifically, the centre of mass of the rock doesn't move. So the rock as a whole has no motion (unless you pick it up and throw it or something).

VIBRATE??? What is that? It sounds like motion that can be measured in distance and time? Is that what you are now saying, that atoms are motion? Is that vibration at a cost, or free? Free vibration? Cool!

If you are really in doubt, go outside and find yourself a rock. Bring it into the house and sit it on your desk in front of you. Stare at it. You may want to get a coffee and some food because you could be there for a while waiting for it to cease existing.

See how long you can hold out. I'm betting the rock lasts longer than you do.

So if I can't watch the rock evolve to space in 10 minutes then it doesn't happen, is that what you are implying? That because it doesn't happen in a short time it isn't so?

What kind of mass? How are you measuring energy? Which kinds of energy are you concerned with? What kinds of changes "count" as change?

Any mass, any unit of measure of energy you want to use. It's all motion!

 

[Stryder]

Motor Daddy,
I don't think James was suggesting that Motion doesn't exist, he was implying there is a difference in regards to the definition of Motion and it's use.

Let's identify what "Mass" actually is, Mass is a matrix of different interchangeable types of Energy, depending on what energy is more common effects the measurement of "Mass".

A Rock sitting still is going to have "Rest Mass" (even if it's parts are in motion), in fact it even has "Inertial Mass" the mass that exists without force being applied. These and potentially other various values could not be defined if the Rock was assumed to constantly be in motion. (In fact the motion and function of atoms would negate any Mass change from those values being interpreted as "in motion". I guess I'm saying a Rock of 1kg doesn't fluctuate between 0.5kg's and 2kg's because of it's parts moving.)

However if the rock is thrown, it's Mass changes because it's "in motion". After all you have the initial force of the throw that is applied as well as universal factors like gravity and worldly factors like atmospheric density.

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

Your "body" is a composition of atoms that are in motion. Do you deny that?

No.

You seem to imply that your body is a solid object, and also imply that the chair is a solid object, and that there is no motion between the two objects of motion.

Correct. My body is a solid object. So is my chair. If a chair isn't a solid object, can you give an example of a solid object? Or are you claiming that when people talk of solid objects they are talking about nothing?

A rock that is just sitting still is a substance without motion.

So the atoms are motionless inside the rock? Do you actually believe that?

I didn't mention the atoms inside the rock. They are not motionless. The rock is motionless.

Two rocks side by side are two objects of motion side by side.

No. If I pull out my ruler and measure the distance between the rocks, and that distance doesn't change, then the rocks at motionless with respect to one another.

VIBRATE??? What is that? It sounds like motion that can be measured in distance and time? Is that what you are now saying, that atoms are motion?

Yes. Nothing has changed in what I'm saying.

Is that vibration at a cost, or free? Free vibration? Cool!

It's not costing me anything to own a rock at room temperature. What do you mean by cost here?

So if I can't watch the rock evolve to space in 10 minutes then it doesn't happen, is that what you are implying? That because it doesn't happen in a short time it isn't so?

Things don't "evolve to space".

---

Look, why don't you go back and address the point I made about buoyancy and gravity? You know, the one you ignored the first time.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Correct. My body is a solid object. So is my chair. If a chair isn't a solid object, can you give an example of a solid object? Or are you claiming that when people talk of solid objects they are talking about nothing?

Your body is not a solid object, obviously. Your body consists of, for example, blood that constantly flows, a heart that constantly beats, and lungs that constantly breath. How do you consider that a solid???

I didn't mention the atoms inside the rock. They are not motionless. The rock is motionless.

The word "rock" is a term used to describe an object that's made of motion. A rock is not a solid! The term solid implies no movement. Rocks are made of atoms, and they move, therefore, rocks are not solid, they are made of motion!

No. If I pull out my ruler and measure the distance between the rocks, and that distance doesn't change, then the rocks at motionless with respect to one another.

Close but no cigar. Not on the level I am talking about. There is no point you can pick of the mass that is motionless. There is no motionless point to measure from at the subatomic level. try again.

Yes. Nothing has changed in what I'm saying.

So you agree that rocks are comprised of atoms, and atoms vibrate, therefore rocks are not solid?

It's not costing me anything to own a rock at room temperature. What do you mean by cost here?

The cost of motion. There are no free rides. There is no perpetual motion.

Things don't "evolve to space".

Yes they do. All mass evolves to space. It is the natural process of the universe. Mass evolves to space. You have much to learn, grasshopper.

---

Look, why don't you go back and address the point I made about buoyancy and gravity? You know, the one you ignored the first time.

I've already told you that gravity is not what you say it is. Gravity is the repositioning of an object to its correct position in the density order.

Gravity can force an object away from the center of the earth, just as it can force an object towards the center of the earth.

 

[AlexG]

This gives pseudoscience a bad name.

Cesspool.

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

Your body is not a solid object, obviously.

Yes it is. Obviously.

Your body consists of, for example, blood that constantly flows, a heart that constantly beats, and lungs that constantly breath. How do you consider that a solid???

My heart and lungs are both made of solid material. Blood is a liquid, as it happens. My body, while about 80% water, has a solid structure.

My body is not liquid, gas or plasma, or empty space. That only leaves solid as an option.

The word "rock" is a term used to describe an object that's made of motion.

That's how you describe it. I (and just about everybody else in the world) describe a rock as a solid object.

A rock is not a solid! The term solid implies no movement.

Has the rock you have sitting on your desk got up and walked away yet? If not, it might not be moving. Consider.

Rocks are made of atoms, and they move, therefore, rocks are not solid, they are made of motion!

Yes, rocks are made of atoms.
Rocks can move, but often do not.
Your "therefore" doesn't follow at all from what went before.
Rocks are solid.
Rocks are not made of motion. They are made of atoms.

There is no point you can pick of the mass that is motionless. There is no motionless point to measure from at the subatomic level. try again.

I already mentioned the centre of mass of a rock.

So you agree that rocks are comprised of atoms, and atoms vibrate, therefore rocks are not solid?

Your "therefore" doesn't follow in any way.

The cost of motion. There are no free rides. There is no perpetual motion.

You said that before. It remains an empty claim for reasons I explained above. Mainly, you haven't defined what you mean by perpetual motion.

Yes they do. All mass evolves to space. It is the natural process of the universe. Mass evolves to space. You have much to learn, grasshopper.

Repeating yourself doesn't make your case any stronger.

Got anything else, or are we done here?

I've already told you that gravity is not what you say it is. Gravity is the repositioning of an object to its correct position in the density order.

Yeah, but that's all wrong, and you have nothing to back it up, despite making false claims that you've done "calculations". You don't have any calculations. That was a lie, wasn't it?

Gravity can force an object away from the center of the earth, just as it can force an object towards the center of the earth.

No it can't.

---

See how this works? If you make an unsupported assertion, I can just as easily deny your assertion without any counter-argument. Claims adduced with no supporting evidence require no evidence to refute.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I guess we are done here.

I know the Earth came from the Sun. You say it was a bunch of dust that came together.

I know mass evolves to space, as is supported by the second law of thermodynamics, which is true of every physical process in the universe.

You say you can measure from a center of mass, but when you try to find the center there is nothing there. There is mass moving all around the center, and even through the center, but you can't very well say you are measuring no motion compared to a chair (which is comprised of motion itself) from a point of motion, can you? There is no mass at the center, as when you get to the point at the center (which is also impossible to get to a "center"), there is NOTHING there!

You say a body that is comprised of motion (which is mostly liquid as we know it) is a solid. With a statement like that, your science leaves MUCH to be desired. You say, if it isn't a plasma, gas, or liquid, it must be a solid. Too funny, James. You label an object comprised of motion, consisting of various states of matter as one state. Too funny!

 

[Motor Daddy]

...just one more thought on your concept of, "if it isn't a gas, liquid, or plasma, it must be a solid."

So James, I ask you, according to your logic, is the universe a gas? Is it a liquid? Is it a plasma?

No???


Then it must be a solid!

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

I know the Earth came from the Sun. You say it was a bunch of dust that came together.

Yes.

I know mass evolves to space, as is supported by the second law of thermodynamics, which is true of every physical process in the universe.

The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say about mass evolving to space. It's fundamentally about entropy, which is a technical concept that I have some doubts that you understand even a bit.

You say you can measure from a center of mass, but when you try to find the center there is nothing there.

The centre of mass of an object need not be a point of mass inside the object. In fact, the centre of mass may not be inside the material of the object at all. A simple example would be a bar bent into an L shape.

You say a body that is comprised of motion (which is mostly liquid as we know it) is a solid.

You're not getting it. No body is comprised of motion.

...just one more thought on your concept of, "if it isn't a gas, liquid, or plasma, it must be a solid."

So James, I ask you, according to your logic, is the universe a gas? Is it a liquid? Is it a plasma?

By volume, I guess its empty space, on average. By mass, it's probably a plasma on average.

My body contains substances that are solids, liquids and gases. But my body is solid in the sense that you can't move through me without breaking something. The same applies to a rock.

 

[jmpet]

This is a silly thread.

 

[AlexG]

Yep. Any thread with MD ends up being a silly thread.

 

[Motor Daddy]

The centre of mass of an object need not be a point of mass inside the object. In fact, the centre of mass may not be inside the material of the object at all. A simple example would be a bar bent into an L shape.

So you are going to measure from the center of mass of an L shaped bar to the chair to find out if the L shaped bar is in motion relative to the chair? You're gonna place the ruler somewhere outside the material of the object, and measure from there to the chair, and find out if the L shaped bar moved? You are measuring a point in space to the chair, and then gonna make claims about the motion of the L shaped bar relative to the chair?

You're not getting it. No body is comprised of motion.

No, you're not getting it. EVERY body is in motion, and consists of elements in motion. EVERY body, James.

By volume, I guess its empty space, on average. By mass, it's probably a plasma on average.

On average? So now you are making claims about the state of matter "on average?" So a solid rock isn't really all solid, it's just solid "on average?" I'd like to see those numbers, James, as the way I understand it, "on average," by volume, mass is mostly space. If by volume mass is mostly space, then "on average" mass is space, not a gas, liquid, plasma, or solid.

My body contains substances that are solids, liquids and gases. But my body is solid in the sense that you can't move through me without breaking something. The same applies to a rock.

You mean my body can't pass through your body, so your body is a solid? Is MY shape and size a factor in your state of matter? For instance, if I was so small (almost point like) and could easily pass through your body without touching anything, would that change the state of your matter to, say, a gas? So my size determines your state of matter?

 

[Rhaedas]

Exactly.

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

This conversation isn't really going anywhere useful, and we're way off the original topic, which was your claim that the Earth came from the Sun.

States of matter are reasonably well-defined.

For example, a solid tends to have closely-bonded atoms or molecules that maintain approximately the same nearest-neighbour relations over time. Solids generally exist as a "lattice" of atoms or molecules with strong bonds.

A liquid consists of atoms or molecules that are free to move around relative to one another. They can slide past each other. A liquid, left to its own devices, will take the shape of any container that is holding it. A solid will not.

A gas consists of atoms and molecules that are much more widely separated than those in a liquid. Those atoms or molecules move around a lot faster than the ones in a liquid. Intermolecular forces are far less significant than in a liquid.

---

My body contains liquids such as blood, solids such as bone and gases such as oxygen. If you put me in a container, I do not, in general, change my shape to conform to the shape of the container. Therefore, at least the outer parts of my body, which contain the liquid and gas portions, are solid.

Do you wish to take issue with any of these rather obvious facts?