Talk:Motion

Intro - Motion, momentum, etc.

There were a few flaws in the introduction section.

  • "motion is the result of applied force" is 99% correct, but it could be misunderstood as that sustained motion required sustained applied force (as was wrongly believed in ancient times). Basically, applied force results in change in motion. Linear motion is the result of absent (resulting) force).
  • "Constant motion is the natural state of anything in the universe"‽ Give me a break! That's something you can tell your kids when they are 3. But it's just too wrong for an encyclopedia. Please don't believe everything that some kind of professor said... There is no notion of a "natural state" in physics. And most motion is definitely not constant!
  • Laws in physics (or in any other science) are not responsible for anything, they do not cause anything. They are describe the nature. (Think about that!)

Tang Wenlong (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job in improving clarity and brevity of the intro. Earthdirt (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


MOTION is 1st cause, and last effect possible. Motion is creator/maker of all using energy potential states it changes. MOTION is teacher that magic and supernatural do not exist by it being the example of no mind no brain yet able to do all. MOTION in form teach the key to everything is based in concentric circles and spheres.

My name is Peter...i am teaching you this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.70.228 (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing ERIKA

hi, i'm removing some stuff is hard to make sense of in terms of modern physics, and i'm pasting it here in case someone can rescue it. Boud 15:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

relative space and relative time result in relative motion, which means that the unit values of space and time can change for observers moving at high speeds relative to each other.

Kinds of motion

all kinds of motion are- 1.rotatory motion, 2.rectilinear motion, 3.translatory motion, 4.curvelinear motion, 5.oscilatory motion, 6.vibratory motion, 7.periodic motion, 8.non-periodic motion, 9.uniform motion, 10.non-uniform motion.

According to rate

1) uniform motion

2) (uniformly) accelerated motion 3) (uniformly) deceleretated

--Ionn-Korr 21:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion defined by time = speed, yes?

I think we have the definition of motion wrong. If you put time into the definition, doesn't that become a measurement of speed? Hmmm?


Ye mi too (am JAZ 4rm Nig)no at all.

I could argue otherwise. If time equals speed, then speed wouldn't neccessarily exist. You see, all of time, every impossibly small fraction of a second, contains an impossibly large amount of moments. To measure speed, you would need some kind of motion, even 0.0(repeating)1x10-99999(repeating) fm. However, an instant, a nothingth of a second, can have no movement. Therefore, even if multiplied infinitely, the 0 speed of an object in an instant would be 0. Now some would argue that 0 time has 0 speed, and x time would have y speed, so it isn't of any effect. However, if this moment in question doesn't matter, neither would any other. What would happen if you didn't have a single instant ever? There would be no time. There just isn't motion in a moment, so that means that if you don't have any of something in an increment, it wouldn't be in any larger incriments. By using time=speed, I could argue that motion is an illusion and all motion is stroboscopic. ChristopherEdwards 17:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

motion

There are four main types of motion.There's rotational, linear, reciprocating and also oscillating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.117.131.130 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]


that is a good point, but there is also another way of looking at it, namely continuous and discrete or alternating motion, with starts and stops. Why lok at the one half or one quarter of cycle only? And what is reciprocating motion? What about spiral motion?

Don 't you find that you perceive motion through the trace that a moving object leaves behind?

Genezistan (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

i do not understand any of this info!!!!YOLO!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.212.28 (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just need too look at it the right way and use other articles, and you can understand. :) BlueKing360 (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newton and Motion

Those aren't Newton's Laws of Motion. Those are a modern rephrasing of Newton's Laws of Motion (and not all that accurate, defining force to be mass times acceleration!). Also, as far as defining motion is concerned, if this article has anything to do with Newton, you should look to how Newton defines "quantity of motion." It isn't merely an object's change in position with respect to time, which would be speed.

Further, the article needs a history section. There was a long line of thoughts about motion before Newton, going back to the ancient Greeks: pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle. JKeck (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its wrong Shagun sindhia (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Reference Frame

The article says, "As there is no absolute frame of reference, absolute motion cannot be determined; this is emphasized by the term relative motion." As written, this is wrong.

There is an absolute standard of rest: it's that of the co-moving observers in the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, and we can tell how fast we're moving with respect to it by looking at the cosmic microwave background radiation. Perhaps what the article means to say is that there are no locally detectable reference frames. In other words, if we were sealed in a (small enough) box that allowed no access to the outside world, we couldn't detect our absolute motion. But we can know our absolute motion with respect to the cosmos's origin.

In any event, the article should be corrected. JKeck (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC

Poor definition of motion

Motion is the change of place of an object - but not with respect to time, but with respect to its former place. Hence motion is the distance that a object covers in a span of space which at the same time is a span of time. If you take that distance as one unit, and the corresponding unit of time also as one, then the question is what is speed? Since we know that both the unit of time and the unit of length is an arbitrary measure, I wonder how this is sorted out?

Section on kinematics

The brief section on kinematics seems to state only that there are two types of motion uniform and non-uniform. This seems obvious and not very helpful. I think revisions are needed. Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced this section with a discussion of planar, spherical and spatial motion of machine systems.Prof McCarthy (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the lead

The lead to this article talks about "change in action," momentum and forces more than it introduces motion. Prof McCarthy (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal change

I am not sure that motion is best understood to mean: "More generally, the term motion signifies any temporal change in a physical system." An increase in temperature, elongation under load, or a chemical change could correctly be viewed as motion at an atomic level, but "motion" is not the first thing that comes to mind in these physical processes. So this seems an awkward way of describing motion. In addition, I realize there is a desire to include motions of quantum particles, but I do not believe it is correct to say that "the concept of position does not apply." The specific position that a sub-atomic particle can occupy with a prescribed probability is well-defined in quantum mechanics. Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

motion is the changing in distance of an object to a reference point. you other people made that concept way to complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.153.61 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Light??? And the definition of motion seems to be wrong...

The Light section in this article seems irrelevant. I really don't get how light came into this subject on motion.

Motion is not the change in position of an object with reference to time, but just with its initial reference point.... Motion is just the change in position of an object...


A_Random_Person (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point BlueKing360 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees of freedom

The article does not mention degrees of freedom (physics). It is not good, because the motion degrees of freedom pertain to any particle and have the same description (save for peculiarities of massless particles), whereas internal degrees of freedom do not have a uniform description, both classical and quantum. Also, the article should explicitly name and distinguish translational motion and its standard descriptions (velocity and wave function respectively), and rotational motion and its descriptions (angular velocity and angular momentum operator respectively). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's laws in motion

 1: A is steady, when
 2: B acts on A, then
 3: A reacts to B, end. 

--KYPark (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith addition by Varshit1234 cut&pasted here

The material above was added 13 March 2016 at 14:25 (UTC) by User:Varshit1234. Some of it may be useful in the article. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition in lead seems to exclude rotation

As I understand it , a position vector only includes information about location w.r.t. a reference point, without specifying the attitude or orientation of the object. A quick reading of the lead paragraph offers no hint that rotation may also be described as motion. (There are other issues with clarity and quality of sourcing, but this may be enough to open discussion with...) Just plain Bill (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT IS A MIRROR WORLD ?

IT IS A BELIEF OF SOME SCIENTISTS LIKE EINSTIEN THAT THERE EXISTS A OTHER WORLD AND THIS WORLD IS ITS COPY . IT IS GIVEN AS PER THE THEORY OF "MANY WORLDS" BY EINSTEIN Aabina shah (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Motion (physics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

I think you should give a little more about the motion because it will help us to understand it briefly Sarajit roy 678 (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]



– Obviously the primary topic. Previously moved a decade ago to make room for a disambiguation page. That's not needed, many articles with motion in the title are referring to this, some are much less important, and we have other physical primary topics like Velocity. wumbolo ^^^ 10:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Classical Mechanics

The entire section titled "Classical Mechanics" is just a different (and slightly expanded) version of the preceding text. Be it the significance of classical mechanics to the laws of motion to what classical mechanics describes; it's the same thing. Emdosis (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: PHY 381 History of Modern Physics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 24 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zaustin801 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Janyahmercedes (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ListSorter

I'm undoing Special:Diff/1131381527 "(Sorted bullet lists using ListSorter)" since it broke the formatting. It moved most, but not all, of a long reference from the text into the "See also" section, leaving the <ref> behind, and moved bulleted items from the "Types of motion" section up to where the reference used to be. This looks odd and was certainly not a minor edit. I believe the following two edits were only trying to fix up the problems caused by the first edit, so I'm going to restore the version before the first edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.