You are here:

# Physics/help

Question
Hello sir

Sir the change of position of an object with respect to its immideate surroundings is called motion. How sir if it not changes is position with respect to its immidiate surroundings , but is is moving any part of it, then it is not called as motion. Why there should be  change with respct to its immidiate surroundings.

Sir I my mind is not accepting what is motion. PlEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, THEN ONLY I CAN ACCEPT THE MEANING OF MOTION.

Thankyou

Hello Apsara,

There seem to be some typographical errors in your question. Two are in locations that are critical to my being able to understand what you are asking. In order for me to give an answer, I need to be certain that I am responding to what you were trying to ask. Therefore I will re-write the sentence containing the 2 words of your question that I suspect you mistyped and change those 2 words. To help you see what I changed, I will use all capitals for the 2 words that I change:

How sir if it not changes ITS position with respect to its immidiate surroundings , but IT is moving any part of it, then it is not called as motion.

So I will assume that is what you meant to ask.

Imagine that you are reporting to headquarters about a strange mechanical object that you discovered in the garden.
(To help you understand the point I am trying to make by this example, assume the object is like the Mars Rover. Open this webpage and look at the photo of the Rover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover))
Headquarters asks if it is in motion. If the object is still in the original location and still facing in the original direction, I would decide that the answer is no.

Notice that the Rover has a camera - Mast Camera (MastCam). If the Mast Camera is rotating, I think you could say that a part of it is moving. Because that part has changed position with respect to its immediate surroundings - which means with respect to the other parts of the Rover and the landscape the Rover is sitting on.

So I think the requirement to consider whether some thing has undergone Motion is - did it change its location or orientation? If it is still in the same location and orientation, then I would say no. If a part of it is moving, like the Mast Camera, you could report that a part of it is in motion. The whole object has not changed location, so the object has not moved, but a part of it has moved.

I hope this helps,
Steve

Physics

Volunteer

#### Steve Johnson

##### Expertise

I would be delighted to help with questions up through the first year of college Physics. Particularly Electricity, Electronics and Newtonian Mechanics (motion, acceleration etc.). I decline questions on relativity and Atomic Physics. I also could discuss the Space Shuttle and space flight in general.

##### Experience

I have a BS in Physics and an MS in Electrical Engineering. I am retired now. My professional career was in Electrical Engineering with considerable time spent working with accelerometers, gyroscopes and flight dynamics (Physics related topics) while working on the Space Shuttle. I gave formal classroom lessons to technical co-workers periodically over a several year period.

Education/Credentials
BS Physics, North Dakota State University
MS Electrical Engineering, North Dakota State University