Registrierung Mitgliederliste Administratoren und Moderatoren Suche Häufig gestellte Fragen Zur Startseite  

Forum Wissenschaft und moralische Verantwortung » Forum Wissenschaft und moralische Verantwortung » Links zur Wissenschaftskritik und Erkenntnistheorie » Theory of Natural Motion - Uniform Motion and Acceleration » Hallo Gast [anmelden|registrieren]
Druckvorschau | An Freund senden | Thema zu Favoriten hinzufügen
Neues Thema erstellen Antwort erstellen
Autor
Beitrag « Vorheriges Thema | Nächstes Thema »
Ekkehard Friebe Ekkehard Friebe ist männlich
Moderator




Dabei seit: 23.11.2005
Beiträge: 1154

Theory of Natural Motion - Uniform Motion and Acceleration Zitatantwort auf diesen Beitrag erstellen Diesen Beitrag editieren/löschen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden       IP Information Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Auf folgende, zukunftsweisende Arbeit von Joseph A. Rybczyk m?chte ich besonders hinweisen:

?Theory of Natural Motion - Uniform Motion and Acceleration?
http://www.mrelativity.net/NMotion/NaturalMotion.htm


Nachfolgend zitiere ich die Zusammenfassung vom Schlu? der Arbeit:


Zitat:

13. Conclusion

The Theory of Natural Motion is for the most part based on principles of such simple origin as to be self-evident. The astute reader will realize, however, that the underlying subtleties have a profound effect on the way motion is viewed. Most if not all related behavioral mathematical functions still apply but our rationale regarding that behavior must change. For example, the mathematics that describes the energy needed to propel an object to a given velocity is still valid. But we did not launch the object into motion, we simply modified its preceding state of motion, or more accurately, changed its natural state. The mathematics that describes the inertia of the object should it strike another, still applies but we did not store energy in the object by launching it into motion.

The inertia is a function of the object's mass and the degree of acceleration (deceleration if you like) encountered at the moment of impact. This in turn is affected by the mass and natural state of the second object as well, and is, in a manner of speaking, independent of anything we did. What we did is simply the last thing that happened to the object we launched. The state the object is in at the time of collision is a result of everything that has happened to it previously, not just our contribution. And of course, similar is true for the second object as well. The mathematics describes the conditions as they are at the time of collision and is not concerned with how the conditions were arrived at. Remember, we don't even know which direction these objects are moving in, we only know what they are doing relative to each other.

It is important here to emphasize the point that inertia, as shown in the preceding diagram, is always in opposition to acceleration. Textbooks often erroneously teach us that an object has inertia in the direction of its travel. In fact, we never know the direction of travel; we only know the relative motion between the objects. When two objects collide it is impossible to know if they collided head on or if one object was struck from behind, for example, by another object that was moving faster than it. What we do know is that each object will undergo acceleration in a direction opposite the direction in which the other object is located. And the inertia will be in opposition to that acceleration. To put it simply, the laws of motion are much more concise than previously thought. There is only one form of motion, uniform motion. Likewise, there is only one form of acceleration and it will always be in the direction of the applied force regardless if that force is of the nature of propulsion, collision or otherwise. And finally, there is only one form of inertia and it will always be in opposition to the applied force.

Besides natural motion there is a second lesson to be learned here. The laws of Nature are simple, predictable and few. The truth lies inward, not outward. When we discover a truth, by necessity we extrapolate its meaning outward to learn more about Nature. As we do, however, we often modify our original truth to agree with newly discovered behavior. This can be a terrible mistake. Sooner or later we will run into a new principle of Nature and find ourselves trying to make our original truth conform to it. We are then at an impasse, because it won't. We must be quick to recognize when this happens and then, rather than modify our original truth, we must focus inward on the new principle and discover its underlying truth. Or soon we will find ourselves warping space to make it agree with something else we believe to be true.

Although much more could be said in support of the theory presented here, it is unfortunately beyond the scope of this paper. At this point a better purpose can be served by discussing the underlying motives that led to the development of the theory to begin with.

In the United States alone, billions of dollars are spent every year in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. Vast resources are brought to bear in the form of radio telescopes, particle accelerators and the like, all for the purpose of technological advancement. The direction in which these resources are aimed is in turn governed by the prevailing body of knowledge. If this knowledge is flawed to any significant degree, the next breakthrough is a long time coming. Even worse, a tremendous waste of national resources results.

As stated earlier, it was the author's inability to accept certain premises of the Theory of Relativity, primarily the Special Theory of Relativity, that led him to explore the phenomena of motion in the first place. The resulting Theory of Natural Motion provides a new way of perceiving motion that is not full of contradictions. As for the Special Theory of Relativity, that is another matter; everything in Nature seems to contradict it, yet it is the most widely accepted theory of the times. And it is this theory that governs the direction of the kinds of research that are alluded to in the preceding paragraph. Is the speed of light really constant relative to the observer? Do photons really not have mass? Does space really warp in the presence of large masses? Is it really not possible to exceed the speed of light? And, are time and mass really affected if we did?

These are questions that need to be answered. With the resources now available and the advancements that have been made, it is no longer necessary to accept these premises based mostly on faith. It should be possible with existing technology and perhaps only the evaluation of currently available data to answer these questions to the satisfaction of all. When we look at the astronomical cost of conducting research on a global scale, it is hard to justify anything less than our best efforts to assure that at least our fundamentals are in order.
(Zitatende)




Lesen Sie bitte weiter unter:

?Theory of Natural Motion - Uniform Motion and Acceleration?
http://www.mrelativity.net/NMotion/NaturalMotion.htm



Beste Gr??e Ekkehard Friebe

16.06.2007 13:07 Ekkehard Friebe ist offline Email an Ekkehard Friebe senden Homepage von Ekkehard Friebe Beiträge von Ekkehard Friebe suchen Nehmen Sie Ekkehard Friebe in Ihre Freundesliste auf
 
Neues Thema erstellen Antwort erstellen
Gehe zu:

Powered by Burning Board Lite 1.0.2 © 2001-2004 WoltLab GmbH