Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] (no subject)



Bob Sciamanda wrote on Sun, February 27, 2011 5:53:53 PM:


I would contend that the assertions "immovable" or "unstoppable" implicitly
refer to conditions measured in a SINGLE reference frame.
Ascribing a velocity change (ie. an acceleration) to an object simply
because you get a velocity change when you remove YOURSELF to a new
reference frame flies in the face of all logic, physics and even semantic
word play!


Bob, I do not see why. I understood the word "unmovable" as unmovable in
principle (otherwise there would be nothing new to discuss). Physically, the
only possible candidate for unmovable object in a frame A can be an object with
infinite mass. If we are to discuss this at all, we want (presumably) to do it
in the framework of today's Physics. If so, I am FREE to use any RF (without
flying in the face of anything) - not to change the state of the object, of
course, but just to see better possible implications. Here is one of them: an
object unmovable in frame A, is unstoppable in frame B (and vice versa). Which
means that unstoppable (by change of velocity) object must also have an infinite
mass. (So we can discard light, which can be stopped even without absorption).
Next implication: if there can be an unmovable object in a frame A, and an
unstoppable object in a frame B, then in any frame there can exist combination
of both (which takes us back to the original initial conditions, but now we know
that possibility of one brings in the possibility of the other, and both must
have an infinite mass). In this case, as has been noted already, anything can
happen when the objects collide. Three specific possibilities are worth
mentioning: 1) Unmovable object will start moving (there will be an infinite
force applied to it!); 2) Unstoppable object may be stopped (for the same
reason); 3) There will occur the Big Bang, eventually producing beings trying
to understand it. The 3) appears simpler when observed from a frame C where the
center of mass of the whole system is at rest. I personally would jump in the
band-wagon C.

Moses Fayngold,
NJIT