Answer #1:
Just because 2 objects are moving at the same, or a uniform speed, it does
not mean they share a uniform motion.
Since no parameters have been set, there are an infinite number of scenarios
that could be proposed, and a wide variety of environments in which to, let's
say, operate two vehicles of completely different construction, and if one had
the resources available to have several sets of vehicles, with each set
designed to operate in, lets say, Outer Space, and Under Water, and on the
surface of the earth, it would be easy to demonstrate that, by comparing the
motion involved in keeping any of these two differently designed vehicles
moving at an identical speed, which if I chose to use two land based vehicles
designed to travel over a flat hard surface on earth, (where there is sufficient
oxygen in the atmosphere to use gasoline based engines for propulsion), I
could choose one vehicle to be any ordinary car, and the other to be in the
shape of a two story tall tire, that incorporated all of the required technology
required to basically turn a tire from one of those huge dump-trucks used in
the largest scale mining operations, into a vehicle that could be operated by
remote control, if desired.
Once the vehicles had been brought up to a uniform speed, say 65 mph, the
car's relative motion would appear to be very slight, while the vehicle that was
in the shape of a tire would appear to be experiencing a great of motion,
something around 100%, since that is what would be occurring.
While it is easy to imagine two cubes of the same size, next to each other,
and both slowly rotating at the same speed and attitude while hurling through
space at 10,000 mph, as they pass through our solar system, (which is what I
initially imagined when I read the question), I noted that with no parameters
being set, or conditions being applied to these two objects, that of course, (as
I initially stated), an infinite number of possibilities exist where two objects
could be moving at the same speed, and yet be experiencing a wildly different
kind of motion.
I'm Matt at whazzup@nvbell.net
==============================================
Answer #2:
The extended treatise in Answer #1 above could have ended much sooner
if it had just worked with the definition of "uniform motion". Of course, one
has to know it in order to work with it.
'Uniform motion' means unaccelerated motion, that is, constant speed in a
straight line.
The answer to the question is: An object moving at a constant speed is not
necessarily moving with uniform motion, because its direction may be changing.
A few examples include:
-- A geosynchronous satellite in a perfetly circular orbit.
-- A car maintaining 30 mph around a bend in the highway.
-- The little roulette ball in its first few turns around the wheel.
-- Any point on the rim of a wheel that's spinning at a constant rate.
FALSE
momentum Further answer Momentum is the reason something keeps moving, it's not really what it's called. Motion or perpetual motion is more like the answer to the question.
No, it can be moving. A body is said to be in equilibrium when the forces acting on it cancel each other out, that is, the body is not accelerating. Therefore an object might be moving at a constant speed and be considered in equilibrium.
Not really. It's more like this tendency is explained with the word "inertia". This says nothing about the reason.
Of course not. A moving object has a tendency to continue moving. It won't just stop, without any good reason - i.e., without a force that stops it.
Yes. Newton's First Law of Motion: Every body continues to remain in its state of rest or uniform motion unless it is acted on by an external, unbalanced force.
FALSE
momentum Further answer Momentum is the reason something keeps moving, it's not really what it's called. Motion or perpetual motion is more like the answer to the question.
momentum Further answer Momentum is the reason something keeps moving, it's not really what it's called. Motion or perpetual motion is more like the answer to the question.
Because within circular motion, acceleration is constant
Motion with uniform velocity. * * * * * There is absolutely no reason for the velocity - or even speed - to remain constant. It is linear motion an that is all that there is to it.
No, it can be moving. A body is said to be in equilibrium when the forces acting on it cancel each other out, that is, the body is not accelerating. Therefore an object might be moving at a constant speed and be considered in equilibrium.
Kinetic energy is a form of energy that an object or a particle has by reason of its motion.
Not really. It's more like this tendency is explained with the word "inertia". This says nothing about the reason.
Because Newtons First law of motion is and object in motion stays in motion unless other outside forces are applied and and object at rest tends to stay at rest for the same reason
When the forces on an object are balanced, then they have the same effect on itas NO FORCE at all would have. That means that the object does not accelerate,and THAT means that it continues moving in a straight line, at a constant speed.If that didn't blow your mind, then please read it again. One of the things it tells usis that it doesn't take ANY FORCE to keep an object moving.
Since we are always in motion and we have reason to believe that there are many black holes in the universe, there is bound to be one in the direction that we are moving. So, yes, I am moving toward a black hole. As are you.