The phrase "a true motion" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to legal or formal discussions, particularly when referring to a motion that is genuine or valid.
Example: "The judge ruled that the defendant's request was indeed a true motion and warranted further consideration."
Alternatives: "a valid motion" or "a genuine motion".
"proprietary and cutting-edge patent-pending ultrasonic technology to provide a true motion capture gaming experience.
Once one has found a true motion, one can then ask what caused that motion (for Newton, as we will see, it is forces that are understood to cause motions).
We assume that a true motion vector may be very different from some of its neighbouring motion vectors, but it must be similar to at least one of its neighbouring motion vectors.
However, I grant that there is a difference between an absolute true motion of a body and a mere relative change …" (LV.53).
Van Fraassen proposes formulating mechanics as 'Newton's Laws hold in some frame', so that the form of the laws and the contingent relative motions of bodies — not absolute space or a connection, or even any instantaneous relations — pick out a standard of true motion, namely with respect to such an 'inertial frame'.
Since any acceleration is a true motion although not all true motions are accelerations, since a so-called inertial motion is not this case indicates that we can detect a body's true motion even though space itself is imperceptible.
Under certain circumstances, we can detect a body's true motion by detecting its acceleration.
In Kant's Phenomenology, the three Newtonian laws define a concept of true motion: the true motions of bodies just are those that obey the dynamical laws.
Newton was perfectly well aware that the notion of absolute space is not unproblematic.[15] For instance, if a body's true motion just is its absolute motion, its motion with respect to space itself, then the imperceptibility of space would appear to render any detection of true motion difficult, if not hopeless.
The second point is that however we should understand Leibniz, the folk reading simply does not and cannot take account of his clearly and repeatedly stated view that what is real in motion is force not relative motion, for the folk reading allows Leibniz only relative motion (and of course additionally, motion in the sense of force is a variety of true motion, again contrary to the folk reading).
The figures mentioned above all deemed that motion relative to other bodies is a necessary condition for true motion, although not, by itself, a sufficient condition.
