Michael Mooney

Buffy: Yes. Sorry, I mis-read "temporally." I consider "spacetime" a "fabrication" in service to the metric or matrix overlaid or imposed on the real cosmos by relativity... a very useful fabrication at that, but not *ontologically* an existing entity, medium, etc. (As per the whole long tedius "spacetime" thread.) No! My comet exercise was not "still based on the notion of movement relative to the now "missing" sun. It was intended to remove everything but the comet from the universe to illustrate that with nothing to stop it, the comet would continue to move through empty space, relative to nothing... intrinsic motion... as I have called it in disagreement with the common notion, as quoted from Wiki (twice now) as follows: First, my exercise has no observer and no "frame of reference." If you accept the terms of the exercise, there is no force acting upon the comet anymore, so it would continue to move at the same speed, with the same inertia/momentum as it had with the universe intact. The straight line trajectory was just an aside, as, obviously it would no longer be in orbit around the non-existing sun. Simple as that! I agreed with Wiki that: One can assign a virtual point *in now empty space* marking the locus of the comet at the time everything else disappeared (leaving only empty space... not an "entity" btw) and then "measure" its continued velocity from that virtual point as it continues to move through empty space... But, its continued motion is not dependent on this measurement!... which is why I call it intrinsic motion, not "relative" (necessarily) to anything else. The above references to inertia and momentum apply to my argument that the comet's motion continues as it was ( but without an orbit.) Unless you understand the above, we are going nowhere... fast!:eek: I have defined motion as above as independent of measurement, tho measurement is still possible, as from its virtual locus before the disappearing act. Btw, ontology is not only about categories and relationships of things that exist. Quoting Wiki, it is also the Ontologically, the comet, now the only thing in the universe, still exists and is still moving... through empty space, relative to nothing... tho the virtual point of departure, as above is optional for relativity theorists who simply must measure things and have "two points" to even allow "movement." Ontologically, the comet, as the only thing left still exists and is still moving. (Am I repeating myself... very well... I'll skip most of the rest rather than continue such repetition.) Philosophically, I think the existence of only one thing is still existence, and it is still moving... if you accept the exercise on the terms it was presented. I hope the above does so. There it is, in the mind's eye only... still a lonely little ball of ice and dirt still moving through empty space... now without a tail, poor thing!:( If you get what I said above, you will see that the only contradiction is in your misunderstanding of my basic philosophy, stated here many times. The cosmos and all its moving parts exist and move around totally independently of measurement. The latter is the job of science, but measurement does not create that which is measured, including motion. And each "part" is moving regardless of the consideration "relative to what?" Yes! This is the perspective I have presented many times as transcending the locality arena of relativity... which is *cosmos as a whole* for which "it is always now, everywhere" transcending measurement of selected events being clocked for specific durations. Also this perspective doesn't give a hoot about the constant speed of light and what local perspectives can see what and when relative to each other. Cosmos exists all by itself whether a coordinate system and measurements are applied or not. And, yes, the lonely comet is still moving through empty space... velocity to be measured from virtual point of "departure" (from orbit) or not. That was the whole point of the exercise, all references to inertia and momentum, etc... *through empty space* with nothing else left! No. The sun disappeared. It's locus could still be used as a *reference point* for its continued motion, as could its point of departure from orbit, but non of this is required for the comet to continue to exist and move all by its lonely self. Gotta go. back soon to see what I've not yet addressed. Michael

Not "temporarily." The exercise removed all but the comet... period. The illustration was then to demonstrate that the comet would still be in motion, with nothing to change its previous speed and only its path (now a straight line trajectory in lieu of sun's gravity) changed, and that movement intrinsic, in and of itself, not "relative to" anything else, as nothing else then exists. "Observe" what? No observers left! And I answered this already. How to say it differently?? Comet still moving with same momentum/inertia (relative to nothing!!) with the altered trajectory now explained many times. I've answered this many times. Everything is in motion. Comparing the motion of one thing or point to another is not,ontologically required for each thing's movement to be real "all by itself"... the whole point of the comet exercise. Of course, in the real cosmos, gravity is the mysterious cosmic glue by which all masses effect all other masses (no "matter" of how massive or far away... according to the universal law of gravitation.) So all movement effects all other movement in the real cosmos. But that certainly does not mean that there is no movement without that it is compared to other bodies in motion. So what of the exercise, Buffy? Must the comet freeze... no motion... after all else is gone? What stops it? Can anyone here understand this point... and this post in total ? Michael

Please respond to my formal request: Is this not a requirement of participation in this forum... or is that rule just about demanding"references" and not applicable to requests to show me in your own words where you think I am wrong when so (repeatedly) accused? Michael

Yes. No. What is the problem for you in "a space that is empty" being "emptiness" or "void" devoid of "properties" assigned by scientific metrics like "position, size, and orientation," ... all "properties" of things/stuff/bodies/etc existing *in* space as defined above? "Infinite volume" has no "size." Size is defined (made finite) by boundaries like one size being bigger or smaller than another size. There can be no end to space, as I have argued many times. Emptiness without end. What "end" could there possibly be to space? If you can conceive of such an end, please let me know, and I will ask what such an end is composed of and then what lies beyond it. See what I mean? To be clear, space is that emptiness in which nothing exists, as between and beyond things that do exist. OK? Michael

As per CC's prompt, this is a cut and past from the time thread: If space is defined as emptiness, void, infinite volume, the no-thing-ness between and beyond existing "things"... as I do, then: Space is nothing... no "it"... the infinite nothingness *in which* all "things" exist... what's left (nothing) if everything (cosmos) disappeared. "Empty space" is synonymous with absence of any/all things. No "it" to exist. No belief at all. Those who can not conceive of space as emptiness (lack of anything) insist that "it" (void) can not be void but must be some kind of medium, and so they find names for "it" like "aether", etc. Michael

Actually, I don't believe, with the whole non-Euclidean fabrication of curved space, that there are no straight lines. And Earth is not a player in the exercise. When sun vanishes, so does the comet's orbit, hence it continues in a straight line (with no moving "points")... no manifest "line" at all but just a description of its new vector, no longer in a curved orbit. There is *nothing left to observe* "from the perspective of the comet"... not even a "line" through *now empty* (but for the comet) space. "...no way around relative motion...?" I know that relativity theory is very *absolute* about this, but I disagree, as in a previous post (which I will not repeat) quoting wiki on the physics of motion.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics) In a previous post I spoke of thinking "beyond the frame" (of reference) which is a basic axiom of relativity, denying what I call "intrinsic motion"... which the comet exercise was meant to illustrate. My comet exercise did not reduce it to a point, and it would be the only mass. As per Minkowski "spacetime" I did my best to debunk that as a malleable medium throughout my "spacetime" thread. Have you ever read the book, ""Minkowski Space-time: A Glorious Nonentity"? (I have not, but quite an interesting title!) Are you familiar with the several annual conferences on "The Ontology of Spacetime?" It is not an established "given" as you suppose. And finally, (a point which Modest has been avoiding... for good reason), I will never be convinced that distances between bodies in space change with relative perspective or that spinning and orbiting planets fluctuate (speeding up and slowing down) with science's fluctuating instruments of measure (clocks), or as measured from different frames of reference, etc. Michael

You assert the assumption that my thinking is in error without evidence or argument in the context of the points made in my last few posts. I formally request that you present this evidence and/or argument which shows, without a doubt that my thinking is in error. BTW, "because everything is relative" is not such an argument. You are just saying, like the fictional "Borg" (Star Trek), "Resistance is futile;... You will be assimilated!" Michael

Post moved to "relativity of motion... " thread, as per CC's prompt below. M

Sorry for the delay... I was not able to post for a couple of days due to a glitch of unknown origin. Maybe my last post to Modest answered you. My thought experiment took the comet, already moving in its natural orbit around the sun, and removed the sun and everything else but the comet. Since there would be nothing left to exert force on the comet, it would continue to move with the same momentum/inertia it had before but with no sun-gravity, its trajectory would be a line (not a point) tangent to the curve of its previous orbit, now just a "virtual" orbit. This is "knowing" it would be continuing to move by reason that nothing is left to stop it. Michael

DD: I gave it my best shot in post 584, p. 59. What did you find unintelligent about my answer to "What is time?" Btw, I agree with jedaisoul as follows with one reservation: Without the physical world and change there would be only empty space. (Infinite, unbounded space/emptiness.) Michael

Modest: I will first restate the points from my last post which you did not address. You: Me: Now to your last post: You: I say, not "absolute space" but empty space, everywhere not occupied by cosmic "stuff" on all scales. Not a medium that is contractible/expandable. My disagreement with relativity in this regard does not make me wrong and malleable "spacetime" right. Likewise my assertion that "it" is always now everywhere, not dependent on the principles of relativity. (See again my often repeated "signature post" on the ontology of time: p.59, post 584.) You: I do not question the constant speed of light. But it travels through empty space, like between sun and earth, which can be "measured" or not. It is the same "distance" (ignoring out-of-round orbit for the moment) no matter what "units of distance" are applied. This is what I mean by cosmos as-is or in and of itself regardless of relative perspective. You: I never said that "a single point has an absolute distance." Quite the contrary. I said that a point is a locus with no dimension at all. If this is a conversation, listening on your part is required. I said that your electron would be the same distance from the locus where Earth was (after its disappearance) as with the Earth still occupying that locus. So that locus (a virtual point with no Earth there anymore) and your electron still define the distance *between those two points.* And again: If you (all) simply can not see the ontology of... cosmos as-is existing "all by itself" regardless of all relative perspectives, then there is really nothing left for me to say. Michael

Modest, You are unable to comprehend the possibility that cosmos and all its *moving parts* (everything is moving) exist independently of any particular point or points of view/reference. That is why you and all relativity theorists insist that there can be no motion without said reference point or points. You continue to refuse to address this ontological question as challenged in my last post to you, as follows: Make that, as above "independent of any particular point or points of view/reference." I know the difference, but the reality challenge is the same in either way of saying it. And you didn't answer my repeated distance question. If you actually believe that distances (earth to moon, earth to sun, etc. to all planets and beyond) vary with point of view, then you deny an objectively existing solar system and cosmos with all its movement still moving regardless of perspective, i.e., what is moving *relative to what else." If you simply can not see the ontology of such a cosmos as-is existing "all by itself" regardless of all relative perspectives, then there is really nothing left for me to say. It is not the relative perspective of motion. It posits that motion happens regardless of relative perspectives. Removing relative points of view from "the equation" leaves cosmos as it is and as it was before relativity and all its "equations", and as it will be long after all human analysis. I obviously disagree. My little exercise was simply an illustration that Haley's comet was in orbit around the sun, as in your original proposition, and then the sun magically disappeared (and everything else) but the comet, with no new forces acting on it simply continues to move in a trajectory tangent to what is orbit was... this through empty space with no other reference points. You have repeatedly demonstrated you inability to even conceive of such a thought experiment. I was using the normal scenario with cosmos as is in contrast to the lonely comet scenario simply to show the continuity of motion (sans any new intervening force to slow it down or speed it up) with only its trajectory changed with no sun-gravity to hold it in an orbit anymore. The comets new straight line trajectory is tangent to the orbit it *had* (past tense)... "previous orbit" before the rest of the cosmos disappeared. (Thought experiment, remember.) It is now an imaginary orbital path without the comet *in that orbit* any longer. Same as the *now only virtual* orbit. Even if earth disappeared the location of where it was is still a locus or point even with nothing materially there. Basic geometry. ... And my "light seconds" comment was meant to affirm that lightspeed is universal regardless of what units of time are used, so even if there were no "meters" as a human convention, light always travels the same distance in any designated unit of time... a good standard of distance measure. Do you think that all the solar system distances given in astronomical websites are accurate, objective, etc. or does the *actual distance*, say moon to earth, change with velocity of "frame of reference? Same deal as earth's spin and orbit slowing down and speeding up with fluctuations in "clocking them." Do you get this ontological distinction, which violates your absolute belief that "everything is relative. Nature's cycles and bodies in space have a "life of their own" without the fluctuating concepts of "time dilation" space/distance contraction/expansion. Finally, your belabored exercise: ...is simply more of the litany of relativity oblivious to all I have presented on the ontology of cosmos (and all its moving parts) in and of itself/themselves. Tedious, ain't it? Michael

Modest, See post to Boerseun immediately above, so I will not keep repeating. You say: No, not "two kinds of motion" but rather, ontologically speaking (see my often repeated philosophy in this regard) everything exists and moves regardless of relative perspective, tho science can designate motion of one thing relative to another or others. True, but that doesn't mean, as you suppose, that nothing can move without being witnessed/measured by human-centric awareness or from an "outside" point of view. Same principle as last comment applies. Our comet was moving, and could be said to have motion relative everything else and an orbit around the sun... until... it all disappeared but the comet. Then it would "intrinsically" move in a geometrically straight line in a direction tangent to the orbit it had. Of course there will be no directional designation relative to Earth's cardinal directions, and the "straight line" *is now* in the tangential direction as above, now repeated several times, tho you are clearly incapable of comprehending it without your absolutely required "references points." Geometrically a point is not "material," being a locus with no dimension, let alone a length/distance factor. That requires the first geometric dimension, a line, but even that need not have "end points" but could be infinite in "length" as merely the "direction/vector" of our comet going in a straight line now... with "no end in sight." The electron is still "100,000 kilometers" from the previous locus of Earth, tho of course kilometers are now meaningless and that distance would better be stated in light seconds (or nanoseconds) as a universal standard of distance. Btw, I'm glad you brought up distance again. Do you still believe that the distances between all bodies in space varies with relativity of points of observation? Is there no cosmos, for you, independent of relative points of observation/measurement? Never mind... I know your answer. Just cop to subjective idealism, or "constructionism" or whatever flavor you like of, "There is no objective cosmos independent of human observation/measurement"... and I can continue to disagree, and we can quit going around and around over and over about it. Michael

First an aside on your attitude toward my name(s): It's Michael for formal or mik for short, as I have clearly communicated as my preference. You continue your intentional disrespect... as also in, "mik i el (is that dyslexic for Michael?)" Michael: name given by my parents. mikIel name given by the Source you can only ridicule out of ignorance... on the day of my "liberation", which you also ridicule out of ignorance. ("I" in the midst of mikIel in honor of that one Source/Identity in all.) Next, If you refuse to address my comet thought experiment on the terms I have presented it... Oh well... and at this point it is impossible for me to care any less. See... it was "in motion....Relative to the sun, the Earth, and every other point in the Solar System - or universe, for that matter"... as Modest presented it to make his point about motion (as impossible without the "relative to other points/objects" clause.) So it had motion already and then I disappeared everything else to make the point that its motion would continue, now through empty space (which you can not comprehend), only now in a geometrically straight line tangent to its previous orbit around the sun (*relative to nothing now,* which you can not comprehend)... because, logically, no force then existed to change that already existing motion. So then you say: " Space is, after all, the distance between two objects - without another object to compare and measure against, you cannot be said to be in motion"... expressing said inability to comprehend empty space with nothing but the comet there "to compare and measure against"... and unable to get that logically "no force then existed to change that already existing motion. So you totally missed the whole point of the exercise, as above. Then the rest of your post continues with other proposed objects to illustrate the mandatory "motion relative to..." principle, continuing to negate the basic terms of my exercise... because it is incomprehensible for the absolute doctrine/belief that "all is relative." (Blah blah blah... "It's relative.") . Considering that you are obviously incapable grokking my exercise, now repeated several times, I will consider the source here judging me wrong as always and not go tail between legs slinking off in shame for how wrong I am.:hihi: Frankly this gives me a good chuckle. You have always thought that my disagreement with you and the "all is relative" dictum indicates ignorance. There is no communication here, and I have no reason to hope that will change for all you "all is relative" dogmatists. I'll go formal for closure cuz we really are not chums enough to use casual/diminutive nicknames. Michael

Erasmus: There is no need for me to invent a new definition of motion. I will quote wiki and agree with the first paragraph and then say why I disagree with the second paragraph. (the sentence in the middle is obvious.) Motion (physics) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I disagree with the last paragraph for reasons obvious to anyone who has been following my thought experiment on Haley's comet as the only thing left after the rest of the universe is terminated from existence. What parts of that do you need me to repeat?... That it was moving before the miraculous disappearance of everything else, so the part of the first paragraph on momentum and inertia applies to its continued motion ( albeit without previous orbit?) ... That there are no frames of reference in the experiment... to the point of deleting the absolute nature of the first sentence of second paragraph?... That in absence of an "absolute frame of reference," this experiment has no frame of reference at all, intentionally so to illustrate that the comet's intrinsic continued movement continues without any frame of reference? That the above renders the assertion: "absolute motion cannot be determined; this is emphasized by the term relative motion" nonsense? (Absolute motion= intrinsic motion in what I have presented, and it doesn't matter whether it's velocity "can be determined" in the same sense as "relative motion." (In the absence of any new forces on it, its speed stays the same, tangent to its previous orbit.) If you disagree that there is any such thing as said intrinsic motion of a thing in and of itself... that all reality depends on human observation and measurement... especially "motion" which absolutely must depend on being relative to... whatever, then you disagree with the possibility of the concept of things existing and moving in and of themselves. Fine. I happen to disagree with you and all other relativity theorists who absolutely insist that "everything is relative." Will that suffice for an answer and an end to this philosophical brow beating and shoving of the philosophy that "everything is relative" down my throat? Michael