traveler

I'll take that to mean that you can't give me an example of an object that "stands still." That's what I thought.

Can you give me an example of an object that "stands still?"

The universe is mass, distance, and time (motion). Mass is concentrations of distance. Distance is inevitable. Time is a standard of duration that allows a means of comparison for all motion to be measured against.

What do you mean they don't move?? The term "move" means that the object being measured using the standards of distance (meter), and time (second) traveled a distance in a time period (d/t). That IS MOTION. That IS what "move" means. Of course they "moved," every object constantly "moves."

Not predetermined, it's the past examined as measured, with error.

What problems? I already explained that in my previous post with reverse acceleration.

Getting lost sounds like a personal problem. Lack of information is no excuse to make stuff up. That's no different than bible thumpers saying "God must have done it because what else could it be?"

--->10 m/s <--Reverse thrust. When the velocity reaches 0 m/s and the direction changes, with a fixed power thrust system, the "changeover" point is a fixed point for the measurements to be calculated against, at which point the entire event can be calculated and graphed.

If you had thrusters you could reverse thrust until a change of direction of travel occurred, and graph the entire event with accelerometers so that you had a printout of velocity and accelerations, and which direction of travel at all durations of the event desired to be measured. All measures of motion are of the past because the time has to have elapsed in order to complete the distance traveled per time interval measurements. You can't measure the future.

Immaterial according to who?

I agree, it's impossible to say, but that doesn't mean there isn't a truth of the reality. Compare those objects to other objects, and their velocities and accelerations, geometrically in all directions, and there is a reality which could never be known or calculated, because time never began and will never end. If one of the balls impacts another object of known velocity and mass, which reaction occurs? If one ball's frame of reference is assumed to be zero velocity, surely if that ball is impacted upon by another object, the reconfiguration of mass, distance and time will concur as to if the ball actually had a zero velocity? NO, it won't, because there is no object in this universe that is motionless (an object with a zero velocity).

No object has a zero velocity, PERIOD!

No, just accurate.

In reality, no object has a velocity of zero.

What's a reference frame, the point of view of an observer?

You can't imagine which is moving, but that doesn't mean there isn't a reality of the situation. Every object has a velocity and direction. Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't change the reality.

Nothing "stands still." That is an illusion.

It really boils down to merely distance and ideas. Distance is inevitable, are ideas?

That's the problem with defining objects as points, though, that "defined border" is a distance away from its center. That creates a bunch of problems of which include a point must also be defined, and in order to define a point it has to have a dimension, which can be halved, which makes another point a distance away form the original "point." You can't even define the point let alone define an "edge." It also creates a torque problem, because the distance changes, and torque=force times distance. Mass has force, so changing the distance changes the torque, which changes the power, as power=work/time. Another problem is that the mass at the "edge" is not at the center "point," so what do you call the sun-earth object?

Why thank you, Mooeypoo. BTW, why do we consider the mass of the Earth as a point with a radius to a chosen "edge" of the object (Earth), but we stop there at the "edge" as to what is included in that object? 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 It's all a system.

There is mass, there is distance, and there is time. Measure away to your little heart's content, your measuring devices will always fall short, hence there will always be something left to "prove." Mass, distance, and time!

12 HP@500 RPM is 126 lb-ft of torque. So you need at least 126 lb-ft at the final output at 500 RPM? So divide that torque by the gear ratio, of say 7:1, and a motor operating at 3500 RPM, using a 7:1 ratio must have at least 18 lb-ft of torque at 3500 RPM, which is 3500*18/5252=12 HP.

Power=work/time HP=torque*RPM/5252 A 12 HP motor at 500 RPM has 12*5252/500=126 lb-ft of torque on the shaft. A 2 HP motor at 3500 RPM has 2*5252/3500=3 lb-ft of torque. A 7:1 gear ratio will give you 500 RPM at the final output shaft, but will only have 21 lb-ft of torque. See what I'm getting at? Power=WORK/time No, you can't increase the "strength" of the motor by switching gears. How do you figure a gear will change a motor?

D H, Can you at least humor me and calculate the time it would have taken the Earth to reach this point from the sun, according to your calculations? How about the the formula, still working on it?

They will.