# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?  (Read 12095 times)

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #50 on: 08/06/2015 18:56:08 »
No sidestep. In a universe containing more than one particle, each particle remains in a state of uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. That uniform motion can have any scalar value from 0 (Newton) to a bit less than c (Einstein).

This law seems to adequately describe the motion of everything we have ever observed.

Hello Alan , and what describes things that are not observed but we logically know with some what axiom values?

Each particle remains in a state of uniform motion unless acted upon by a force and remains in motion relative to the observed ''stationary'' position of space.

''In mathematics, particularly in calculus, a stationary point or critical point of a differentiable function of one variable is a point of the domain of the function where the derivative is zero (equivalently, the slope of the graph at that point is zero).''

edit - In mathematics, particularly in calculus, a zero point of space or critical point of a differentiable function of one variable is a point of the domain of the function where the derivative is zero (equivalently, the slope of the graph at that point is zero).

added    .³∞  that is zero point space cubed times infinite.

because zero , 0=.........

« Last Edit: 08/06/2015 19:12:17 by Thebox »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4492
• Thanked: 137 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #51 on: 08/06/2015 20:02:07 »

Hello Alan , and what describes things that are not observed but we logically know with some what axiom values?

Faith. Wonderful stuff - doesn't require any proof or logic, it just explains everything.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1797
• Thanked: 11 times
##### Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #52 on: 08/06/2015 20:55:09 »
Quote from: Alan
No sidestep. In a universe containing more than one particle, each particle remains in a state of uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. That uniform motion can have any scalar value from 0 (Newton) to a bit less than c (Einstein).

This law seems to adequately describe the motion of everything we have ever observed.

As you rightly pointed out: “The model under discussion here is of a void containing only one particle.”

So, “In a universe containing more than one particle, each particle remains in a state of uniform motion unless acted upon by a force” is still not answering the question.

In an infinite void containing just one particle; were you saying that movement is undetectable, that it is impossible or just meaningless as a concept?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4492
• Thanked: 137 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #53 on: 09/06/2015 00:05:03 »
Both! In order to define or detect movement your universe will have to include a reference point and some means of measurement, but you have stated that it doesn't.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1797
• Thanked: 11 times
##### Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #54 on: 09/06/2015 00:17:39 »
Quote from: Alan
Both! In order to define or detect movement your universe will have to include a reference point and some means of measurement, but you have stated that it doesn't.

There were three choices; can I safely assume that by “Both!” you mean that movement is undetectable and impossible?

I apologise if I seem to be labouring this point, but it always seems difficult to get a clear response from experts.  I tend to assume that this is because they see some complication that eludes me, and I want to know what it is.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #55 on: 09/06/2015 17:33:08 »
Both! In order to define or detect movement your universe will have to include a reference point and some means of measurement, but you have stated that it doesn't.

I do not do faith, I only do logic and conclusions that are of axiom values.

red-correct, in my opinion with no reference points a single particle would not be able to determine if it was moving. There is nobody there to detect it moving, you have to be the particle, observer x to imagine this, and in simple logical proof it would be absolute dark, and a simple reality explanation, close your eyes and simply imagine that  only you exist and you can see but you can't see because our void has no photons.

Your Universe as a single particle in a void is a ''closed space'' start to emit ''light'' from the single particle adding energy to the dormant particle, and the particles Universe expands from nothing to an isotropic light radius distance.

BUT - just because the particle does not know if it is moving or not moving, this does not mean it is not moving, motion still can exist without observation.

Green - measurement?   an observation point to gain perspective view. A background or foreground point.

When Einstein mentions two observers, and one would look like they are moving while one looked like they were standing still , and vice versus, he did not consider light, and red shift and blueshift. Because to observe, we need light.

« Last Edit: 09/06/2015 17:49:11 by Thebox »

#### chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1830
• Thanked: 137 times
##### Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #56 on: 09/06/2015 18:04:12 »

I do not do faith, I only do logic and conclusions that are of axiom values.

You must have faith in the axioms...  "axiom, noun: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true." There is no way to prove an axiom, it must be assumed as true (therefore you must have faith in the veracity of an axiom).

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #57 on: 09/06/2015 18:30:19 »

I do not do faith, I only do logic and conclusions that are of axiom values.

You must have faith in the axioms...  "axiom, noun: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true." There is no way to prove an axiom, it must be assumed as true (therefore you must have faith in the veracity of an axiom).

Not faith, I consider an axiom is something that is self evidentially true, true=axiom.   i.e an object falls to the ground in our atmosphere.  A truth that we all must agree on.

There is no faith in Physics, it is about what happens.

advice from a nobody, take two boxes, in one box place all the knowledge of what happens, in the second box place all the ''theories'', box 1 is reality, box 2 is named thoughts.

added- an infinite void has no left and right distance increase or decrease, distance is only relative to matter.

(∞d/∞t)....M>>>>5m(d/t)<<<<M....(∞d/∞t)

where M is mass and <> is direction/distance apart

and infinite would be isotropic. 4/3πr³∞ expanding dependent to every observer.

added - you could travel a 1000 light years away and you would still be at the center of infinite.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2015 19:02:21 by Thebox »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4492
• Thanked: 137 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #58 on: 09/06/2015 20:59:28 »
Quote from: Alan
Both! In order to define or detect movement your universe will have to include a reference point and some means of measurement, but you have stated that it doesn't.

There were three choices; can I safely assume that by “Both!” you mean that movement is undetectable and impossible?

I apologise if I seem to be labouring this point, but it always seems difficult to get a clear response from experts.  I tend to assume that this is because they see some complication that eludes me, and I want to know what it is.

Sorry! Undetectable by definition, and meaningless by definition.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1797
• Thanked: 11 times
##### Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #59 on: 10/06/2015 14:02:41 »
Quote from: Alan
Sorry! Undetectable by definition, and meaningless by definition.

Finally, I hope, why did you omit "impossible"?

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #60 on: 10/06/2015 17:37:02 »
Quote from: Alan
Both! In order to define or detect movement your universe will have to include a reference point and some means of measurement, but you have stated that it doesn't.

There were three choices; can I safely assume that by “Both!” you mean that movement is undetectable and impossible?

I apologise if I seem to be labouring this point, but it always seems difficult to get a clear response from experts.  I tend to assume that this is because they see some complication that eludes me, and I want to know what it is.

Sorry! Undetectable by definition, and meaningless by definition.

Apologies to all who is reading this thread, I am really tired from work and I am finding it hard to concentrate on what I am writing at the moment. My last day tomorrow thank ''god'', of working 2 and half hours travel each way . away from home.
When I am rested , I will go over what I wrote, and go back to topic. My apologies again for posting gibberish in the main forum.

Alan - it depends who is defining it, anything can never be meaningless because everything means something. If it exists in logic, it is something. A particle moving through an infinite void that could also be relatively stationary relative to the particle, is logically possible.  Although the particle may not be aware it is moving by having no reference points, , logically it could be moving.
Detection of movement is irrelevant, just because it can not be detected as moving that is not to say that it is not moving, the particle could either be stationary or moving, and I personally think this is what Aristotle was saying.  A paradox.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Is the natural state of a particle to be at rest?
« Reply #60 on: 10/06/2015 17:37:02 »