It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A question of spin.

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I have a question that has been bugging me lately...a sort of paradox that maybe some here can help explain to me better than I have been able to do so far myself.

When an object is spinning on its own axis...or even orbiting...it is moving in two opposing directions simultaneously.

For example a wheel or even sphere spinning in a 3 dimensional space can be perceived/measured and concluded to be moving either clockwise...or counter clockwise...toward or away based on the perspective from which the measurement/observation was taken.

Since there is no objectively "valid" orientation to a "thing" how could one conclude in the truest objective sense which direction something is really moving? The only answer that makes sense to me is that even though we want to say its this or that...its really both.

Which is a weird objective conclusion to make because it implies that all things moving are moving in two opposing directions simultaneously.

We could invert the proposed direction of all things and still be correct....

we could say that Venus rotates clockwise and the rest of the planets rotate counter-clockwise and be just as correct in that conclusion as the current one we use...

We could invert all of our cardinal points and still be objectively correct...we could invert negative and positive (they are interchangeable) and still be correct...

We standardized the perspective to these things for clear communication but....that standard isn't more valid than its inverse...

How can something/anything that is moving in two completely opposite directions be moving at all?




posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Things are relative to each other; language is a medium to attempt to describe such things through speeds of such as "air" or instead artificial electronic signals.

If you mean the room moving instead of the object - yea, the chance is low, but you cannot exclude it.
edit on 15-12-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: oneoneone
If you mean the room moving instead of the object - yea, the chance is low, but you cannot exclude it.


Thats another interpretive thing as well...what exactly is moving and what exactly isnt? Yes its all relativity but when two contradictory interpretations are both valid...how can there be a "true" interpretation?



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sly1one

To me the flaw lies in language with improper definitions and partial multiple meanings.
While without words you can see a copy of reality and possibilities in front of you, a pure word thought can find 2 logics which both seem true, yet can't both be.

In the end you would just come to the fundamental question of how things can exist.
If everything are just movements of nothing or the infinite detail it would make sense to me, though.. "3 dimensional", even if other "dimensional" things wouldn't make sense still isn't properly make sense to me to be logical as why we have this. Perhaps it's my lacking mind of a worker nowadays

Good night for now.
edit on 15-12-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
If you invert a car will it go in reverse when you try to drive forward? What would an inverted car even look like?



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
it seems the only objectively true statement about movement is that everything is moving that way....("THAT" being completely subjective)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Of course there IS a valid, objective description (correct me if I am wrong), this would be that the movement happens according (and relative) to an initial force.

Say, when I push a ball in one direction, or if a rocket booster creates trust and drives a rocket forward. It can be clearly described in physics. And this is the only relationship which counts, everything else how you look at it is of course subjective.

Or: Let's say I push a ball into a direction. One observer sees the ball going to the left, the other to the right. For a third, the ball might come right towards them. But what stays the same is the direction/movement of the ball in relation to the direction of the push.


Your example (and fallacy in thinking, sorry to say so)..is a nice example how in olden times etc. subjective looking at things created a false perception of the world. The earth is NOT flat because it appears so, the sun does NOT revolve around the earth...etc...etc.... and this is where science/physics comes in which actually takes out this subjectivity and tries to find what's really happening : )
edit on 12/15/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
It can't be both because it is going one way and not the opposite way from the same relative perspective.

While the earth is spinning, it is also orbiting the sun which is orbiting the galactic center oscillating back and forth through the galactic plain, the galaxy is moving with a galactic cluster away from other galactic clusters which the clusters may or may not be oscillating in a wavelike pattern also.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Actually I wasn't looking at it subjectively...I was looking at it objectively. In the wheel example I used where its spinning in a room the subjective measurement/observation/interpretation IS the conclusion of which direction it is spinning...clockwise or counterclockwise?? If you answer one or the other...you can be proven to be absolutely wrong from the opposing perspective...and THIS is what im struggling to understand is that which perspective is MORE valid than the other?

You spin a tire from one side and say see....its moving clockwise...while at the same time your buddy on the other side of the tire say no...its turning counter-clockwise...WHO is wrong? WHO is right? Which direction is the tire truly spinning? Does it even matter?

I find it really hard to believe that any particular point in space to view a physical object from is more valid than any other...If this is false...then I would like to see someone try and prove that there is a "correct" orientation...what is the correct way to view the solar system? Above? Below? to the side? at 45 degrees?...their all valid and can all be explained mathematically.

I don't see how you could even argue this...and as far as "initiating" force goes...what initiated the spin of earth??? and does it matter?? Cuz it is still spinning in two opposing directions...Coriolis effect is proof of this.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sly1one
I have a question that has been bugging me lately...a sort of paradox that maybe some here can help explain to me better than I have been able to do so far myself.

When an object is spinning on its own axis...or even orbiting...it is moving in two opposing directions simultaneously.

For example a wheel or even sphere spinning in a 3 dimensional space can be perceived/measured and concluded to be moving either clockwise...or counter clockwise...toward or away based on the perspective from which the measurement/observation was taken.

Heck -- we could make the mechanisms of analog clocks go the other direction, and call that direction "clockwise".

But it's all just semantics/how motion is described in words. Which artificial words we use top describe motion has nothing to do with the actual motion.



How can something/anything that is moving in two completely opposite directions be moving at all?

Because even in your examples, the things are NOT moving in two completely directions. They are only moving in one direction at any given time to any given observer -- but depending on the relative point of view of the observer, they may use different artificial made-up words to describe the motion.


edit on 12/15/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
It can't be both because it is going one way and not the opposite way from the same relative perspective.


Yea from the same relative perspective...but that perspective is subjective because its completely ignoring its equally valid counter perspective that it is indeed also going counter-clockwise.



While the earth is spinning, it is also orbiting the sun which is orbiting the galactic center oscillating back and forth through the galactic plain, the galaxy is moving with a galactic cluster away from other galactic clusters which the clusters may or may not be oscillating in a wavelike pattern also.


Yes and the direction of this oscillation is dependent completely on a limited perspective in relation to the entire picture...the subjective conclusions of movement are based entirely on a limited perspective from which we measure/observe the physical world/universe.

Illusions are a product of limited perspective...ask any decent magician.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sly1one

Oh man, that ain't NOTHIN.

en.wikipedia.org...

Prepare to have your mind blown.

Achiral spinning is truly mind blowing.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Sly1one
I have a question that has been bugging me lately...a sort of paradox that maybe some here can help explain to me better than I have been able to do so far myself.

When an object is spinning on its own axis...or even orbiting...it is moving in two opposing directions simultaneously.

For example a wheel or even sphere spinning in a 3 dimensional space can be perceived/measured and concluded to be moving either clockwise...or counter clockwise...toward or away based on the perspective from which the measurement/observation was taken.

Heck -- we could make the mechanisms of analog clocks go the other direction, and call that direction "clockwise".

But it's all just semantics/how motion is described in words. Which artificial words we use top describe motion has nothing to do with the actual motion.



How can something/anything that is moving in two completely opposite directions be moving at all?

Because even in your examples, the things are NOT moving in two completely directions. They are only moving in one direction at any given time to any given observer -- but depending on the relative point of view of the observer, they may use different artificial made-up words to describe the motion.



Yea its a matter of semantics but whether you call it this or that...north or south...positive or negative...there are two opposing forces that are interchangeable...the proof is in their relationship to one another...not in the language we use to describe them...but they are indeed opposing. Spin is no different in the sense that were comparing opposing observations of a thing...you can't say the tire is only spinning in one direction and be considering the whole picture.

Maybe I'm wrong...I'm always open to that.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sly1one

Consider the math that can show that a spinning top or anything rotating has at its exact center no motion if you allow the "moving in two directions at once" hypothesis.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sly1one

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
It can't be both because it is going one way and not the opposite way from the same relative perspective.


Yea from the same relative perspective...but that perspective is subjective because its completely ignoring its equally valid counter perspective that it is indeed also going counter-clockwise.
You can call the initial assignment of clockwise versus counter-clockwise arbitrary and in some cases it is, but even so it's only one direction. There is even an example where it's not really arbitrary, the rotation of the planets. We can say that the rotation of planets on their axes is either in the same direction as the direction of their orbits, or in the opposite direction. Since this is expressed in relative terms your perspective is irrelevant, since the same will be true if you are "above" or "below" the planet or the "plane" of the solar system. Venus happens to be the only planet that spins in the opposite direction of its orbit:

Retrograde Rotation of Venus

Of all the planets in the Solar System, Venus has a unique rotation. Seen from above, all of the planets rotate in a counter-clockwise direction. And this is what you would expect if all the planets formed from the same planetary nebular billions of years ago.

And yet, the rotation of Venus is clockwise, what astronomers call “retrograde”. Venus rotates backwards.
If you're above the solar system plane, Venus rotates backwards relative to its own orbit and all the other planets. Change your perspective to below the solar system plane, and it still rotates backward from its own orbit and those of all the other planets.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Sly1one

Why just spin and rotation? Why not "up" and "down"?

A cannonball that I see as being shot straight up may be said to be moving straight down to a person who is standing on their head. Heck, a person who was riding the cannonball would say the ball is standing still in mid air, but the rest of the world was whooshing past them.

It's all a matter of relativity.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Sly1one

I don't think you're actually picturing the situation correctly.

The object is rotating clock wise or counter clock wise, no matter what part you are looking at.

HOWEVER, when spinning clockwise the 'top' will going towards the right and the 'bottom' will be going to the left. This is the behavior you're talking about. But it's clockwise in both spots.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Movement of any kind can only be observed between two objects in relation to each other. If I cut loose and drop an elevator from a 100 story building and it contains a man with a dog. All will be falling together towards the center of the earth. Inside the elevator movement will not be perceived as in relation between the man and the dog. There is indeed movement, but it is only observed when the rate of it differs between one object and another.

If I stand and take one step forward, the question would be, "Did I move, or did the universe move?" Then the larger question remains, do I ever move at all? What if I only perceive to move from point A to B because it is the desired outcome, and what if nothing were to exist just beyond my sight of vision but only comes into existence because it is the desired outcome.

If we were not physical but non-physical and everything comes into existence for the purpose of relating to other life entities, the physical would simply be the canvass upon which we interact. Therefore could it mean that in the real sense there is never any movement at all.





edit on 16-12-2014 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: framedragged
a reply to: Sly1one

I don't think you're actually picturing the situation correctly.

The object is rotating clock wise or counter clock wise, no matter what part you are looking at.


Coriolis effect implies that its not "OR"...but rather "AND".
Its rotating clockwise AND counter clockwise.

Our limited inferior ability to view a 3D object from all sides simultaneously makes us think its clockwise OR counter....but its BOTH. The idea its OR would be silly if we tried to argue that a coin is either heads OR tails...but not both.


HOWEVER, when spinning clockwise the 'top' will going towards the right and the 'bottom' will be going to the left. This is the behavior you're talking about. But it's clockwise in both spots.


clockwise is a description of direction and counterclockwise is a description of a direction opposite of clockwise...they define each other by relation.

call them left or right...up or down...positive or negative...doesn't matter opposing directions or forces...polarities of a thing. Yin Yang....whatever.

it cannot be clockwise in both spots...because the direction is relative and clockwise REQUIRES counterclockwise to be define to even make sense. IF it was clockwise in both spots the Coriolis effect wouldn't exist.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Sly1one

Why just spin and rotation? Why not "up" and "down"?

A cannonball that I see as being shot straight up may be said to be moving straight down to a person who is standing on their head. Heck, a person who was riding the cannonball would say the ball is standing still in mid air, but the rest of the world was whooshing past them.

It's all a matter of relativity.



Exactly its all relativity...and because of this...what is the "correct" orientation TO a thing? What is the correct orientation OF a thing objectively? The only possible way to measure this is by comparing things with relativity...the question is what is the correct way to look at something to measure it? Our perspectives are subjective. What would an objective perspective toward a thing look like? Would anything be moving at all?

Someone once argued with me that "direction" doesn't matter because all things are relative. IF direction doesn't matter...then I could take something like the numbers 4 and 5 and subtract them both ways and get equal values...but I don't....I get completely opposite values that when added together will always = 0....nothing.

When I think of direction of spin I think of how we describe "quarks"...and quantum entanglement....which the entangled particles are exhibiting the exact thing I'm talking about. The relationship between the entangled particles is opposing...but when a direction is changed in one....the other will change its direction accordingly...never matching...always opposing.

Its like seeing both sides of a spinning object at once...but instead of being directly connected or layered on top of each other" they have distance or (space) between them. So it appears weird because we see them as separate particles....but they are connected by something were unable to measure.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join