- #1
topito2
- 37
- 1
I have to participate in a debate about whether motion has cause or not. Do you know of any book or website I could check to get prepared for my debate?
Of course it does. Unless you want to go back to the Big Bang or something, and then yes, Newton's Laws would not apply for a while after the Big Bang.topito2 said:...but Newton's Law would not explain why that something had a straight line motion with a velocity of 3 m/s at the beggining.
Ah, that explains why the return trip to your couch is such hard work; you are working against an entire planet...Danger said:That's getting pretty tricky, because to itself, nothing has any motion. ie: It's at rest within its own reference frame and everything else is moving. If I go to the fridge for a wobbly-pop, for instance, I'm not actually moving. The movement of the planet is bringing my beer to me. That's quite handy, since I'm too lazy to do it myself.
Make it simple: god, design.topito2 said:Thanks for your replies.
The type of motion I'm talking about is regular motion as things rolling or falling. Newton's Laws do not give a cause for motion. They explain how something gained the motion it has, but not the cause of motion itself.
masudr said:Motion? easy.
Choose your object's position. Choose your position. Define some co-ordinates. Do a first-derivative of the co-ordinates of your object with respect to one of your co-ordinates. If it's not zero, then you've got motion.
What on Earth are you saying? Leave the theology out of it; this is a serious science forum. There is no question that isn't sensible to ask, because the asking is what engenders answers. If scientists had your attitude, everyone would still think that the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around it. Putting your head in the sand doesn't work around here.cliowa said:Make it simple: god, design.
Be honest: You don't know, and nobody does.
But don't you feel that somehow it's not a sensible thing to ask?
Clearly in general I agree that there is no question you shouldn't ask. What I wanted to illustrate is that this question, profound as it may seem, is rather philosophical, not scientifical. Don't you see that the "cause argument" never ends? When you found "the" cause for the motion, you're going to ask: What's its cause? You'll end up nowhere.Danger said:What on Earth are you saying? Leave the theology out of it; this is a serious science forum. There is no question that isn't sensible to ask, because the asking is what engenders answers.
Now, that is quite untrue. In the history of science one important thing has been the existence of people who know what kind of explanation they are looking for. Galileo observed and described, he did not explain. Kepler got his laws out of observations, it was a purely statistical thing (guided by some great intuition, of course). For Newton everything was a god-given puzzle he was to solve. So when he had made up his theory of universal gravitation, lots of people did not like it, for the obvious lack of an explanation. Nobody knew why on Earth there was something like this spooky force at a distance. Newton knew very well of this and attributed it to the divine.Danger said:If scientists had your attitude, everyone would still think that the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around it.
That's not what it is. Do you know what I'm saying?Danger said:Putting your head in the sand doesn't work around here.
Now that you've explained your position, I agree completely... with one critical exception. To me, the word 'cause' references how, not why. That leaves it to scientists, not philosophers. Had the OP said 'reason' or 'purpose' or something similar, I would have recommended that it be moved to the Philosophy section.cliowa said:Do you know what I'm saying?
topito2 said:Thanks for your replies.
The type of motion I'm talking about is regular motion as things rolling or falling. Newton's Laws do not give a cause for motion. They explain how something gained the motion it has, but not the cause of motion itself.
Forces are not the cause of motion, but forces cause "a change" in motion. I mean, if something has a straight line motion with a velocity of 3 m/s and a second later it has a velocity of 5 m/s, Newton's Laws would say a force interacted with that someting, changing its motion status, but Newton's Law would not explain why that something had a straight line motion with a velocity of 3 m/s at the beggining.
-Job- said:... Similarly, if you try to describe addition as some function f(x), it will be hard to avoid using addition itself in such an f(x) (or some operation that is itself reducible to addition).
A debate on motion's cause aims to explore the underlying factors that lead to a particular event or phenomenon. It allows for a deeper understanding of the causes and effects of various motions, and can help inform decision-making processes.
To prepare for a debate on motion's cause, one should thoroughly research the topic and gather evidence from reliable sources. It is also important to consider different perspectives and anticipate counterarguments. Practicing and refining arguments and rebuttals can also enhance preparation.
Some common strategies for presenting arguments in a debate on motion's cause include using logical reasoning, providing evidence and examples, and appealing to emotions. It is also important to structure arguments in a clear and organized manner and to use persuasive language.
To effectively refute counterarguments in a debate on motion's cause, one should listen carefully to the opposing arguments and address them directly. Using evidence and reasoning to discredit the counterarguments can strengthen one's own position. It is also important to remain calm and respectful in the debate.
Some tips for engaging in a productive debate on motion's cause include actively listening to others, respectfully considering different perspectives, and avoiding personal attacks. It can also be helpful to focus on the facts and evidence rather than emotions, and to maintain a balanced and open-minded approach.