Relativity of Motion discussion from “What is Time”

[Boerseun]

Our dear Earth will not be speeding up and slowing down (in either revolution or orbit) as our clocks fluctuate in rate of time keeping.

Depends on your perspective. If you're Earthbound and your clocks slow down (and here's the important bit:) - you will not be aware of that fact. Because whatever goes on in the human mind that makes the individual aware of time passing, will slow down as well. So, before we can answer your question, you have to tell us from what vantage point you're observing the Earth. Because from the Earth's inertial frame, you will not be aware of anything awry as far as timekeeping is concerned. If the clocks on Earth do slow down, however, it can only slow down with regards to some other point outside of Earth's inertial frame - in other words, Earth would have to accelerate with regards to that particular vantage point.

...assuming his superiority over everyone here...

BTW, wanna compare IQ s? I've been there and it is an obscene display of whose is biggest, but your waving your supposed intellectual superiority around here is just as obscene. I really don't know how many points I'd have to lose to "lower myself to your level," but I always tell the truth and I'll let you know if you have the guts to share your numbers.

Mike. Buddy. Pal. We've been through this. Having a high IQ does not guarantee immediate insight into any particular matter. Myself, I have a high IQ. I know absolutely nothing, and I mean zip, nada, zilch, about chemistry - apart from the basics. And I don't pretend otherwise. It would be foolish to do so. Why would I know more about chemistry than somebody with half my IQ, who actually studied it? This seem to be the malaise you're suffering from regarding time, space, and relativity in general. Because I'm the biggest literature genius the world has ever seen (Shakespear's got nuttin' on me, mate), I'm supposed to be your math superior? Because you're the world's best plumber, you're gonna tell me how to fly a jumbo jet?

 

Your intelligence quotient is merely an indicator of ability, Mike. Understanding is a wholly different matter, and includes such unsavory tasks as actually reading up on the stuff you want to discuss.

 

Do yourself a favor (and I mean it in the kindest way possible) and go read up some. Really.

[coldcreation]

My most concise statement of said philosophy:

"Cosmos exists independent of human observation, measurement, or definition."...the philosophy stated yet again above in a nutshell.

 

"even the hollowest nut wants to be cracked"

(Friedrich Nietzsche)

 

 

CC

[Boerseun]

...so the professional physics position (and that of Erasmus and modest) that “there is no such thing as a preferred coordinate system” is out and out misrepresentation of the circumstance: pure baloney!

Good luck with that one mate! :(

[modest]

Doctordick knows well that motion relative to a preferred reference frame is still relative motion. Motion needs at least two things to be compared for the concept to have meaning and if someone cares to call one of those things "preferred" even if the laws of physics do not prefer it then that's fine with me. This is supported here:

 

The question that may be raised in philosophical cosmology is whether or not this cosmic time constitutes an “absolute time” in the sense that Einstein rejected in his special theory of relativity. “Absolute time” and “relative time” may be defined in terms of the relation of simultaneity. If time is absolute, then this relation is two-termed, and is expressed by sentences of the form “x is simultaneous with y.” If time is relative, then the simultaneity relation is three-termed and is expressed by “x is simultaneous with y relative to z,” where z is the reference frame relative to which x and y are simultaneous. This suggests that the cosmic time posited by big bang cosmology is not absolute time, since the time measurements are made relative to the privileged reference frame. For example, the assertion that the age of the universe is about [13.7] billion years old is elliptical for the statement “relative to the privileged reference frame, the universe is [13.7] billion years old.”

 

Encyclopedia of time by Samuel L. Macey p.145

 

Also,

 

The known universe (the elements of the universe they don't choose to ignore) can get as small as the laboratory they are working in. In fact, the presumption that physical phenomena don't depend upon what is ignored can be used to deduce the standard relativistic relationships (except for the rotation thing; as Newton pointed out, that just can't be ignored).

 

Will already pointed out that in gtr rotating the universe around an object is a valid set of coordinates which produces a gravitational force indistinguishable from Newton's pseudo forces. This is supported here:

 

In asserting the equality of coordinate systems as a matter of principle it is not said that every coordinate system is equally convenient for examining a certain physical system; we see this in classical mechanics also. For example, strictly speaking one cannot say that the Earth moves in an ellipse around the Sun, because that statement presupposes a coordinate system in which the Sun is at rest, while classical mechanics also allows systems relative to which the Sun rectilinearly and uniformly moves. In examining the motion of the Earth nobody will decide to use a coordinate system of the last kind, and neither will anyone decide from considering this example that the coordinate system, whose origin is co-moving with the center of mass of the considered mechanical system, is in principle privileged over other coordinate systems. It is the same in the example you mentioned. Nobody will use a coordinate system that is at rest relative to the planet Earth, because that would be impractical. However as a matter of principle such a theory of relativity is equally valid as any other. The situation, that the fixed stars are circling with tremendous velocities, when one bases an examination on such a coordinate system, does not constitute an argument against the admissibility, but merely against the efficiency of this choice of coordinates, nor does the complicated form of the relative to this coordinate system acting gravitational field, which for example would also have the components that correspond to the centrifugal force.

Twin Paradox

 

The earth rotates relative to the rest of the mass of the universe and the rest of the mass of the universe rotates relative to the earth. They are different explanations of the same underlying ontological situation and a form of physics which can handle them both is all the better for it.

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

The way to measure absolute motion is by doing an energy balance. An energy balances reduces the number of consistent references, since some relative references will come up with the wrong energy.

 

For example, you are sitting in a car moving at 100KM/sec. This takes X amount of energy, which we add to the car. If you look out the window, it looks like the mountains in the background are moving at 100km/sec. If we ignore the energy balance, both reference appears relative. If we say, we only added X energy, then only one reference is logically consistent as moving using this energy.

 

Say we had a comet and gave it Y energy, so it reached kinetic energy Z, and the universe disappeared, and there is conservation of energy within the comet. Relative references can add more or less energy. But there is one reference that will not create or destroy energy. Once we find the reference where the comet kinetic energy adds to Z, even without any universe to gauge ourself, we are at a reality reference.

 

Conceptually, we could also find a relative reference in the empty universe that would give the comet a velocity, so it seems to have as much energy as a star. As we wait for the energy dense comet to vaporize, it will be a long wait, since all we really added was Z energy.

 

Without an energy balance, the vaporize idea sort of looks correct. The illusion can trick the eyes. With the energy balance, one would conclude most of this energy in the comet has to be an illusion, and is due to the motion of our own reference. Therefore we need to slow down until the comet energy adds to Z and then we can see reality without extra or less energy.

 

Conversely, say we didn't know Z of the comet to be able to find the sweet reference where we can see reality. If we pick any relative reference we can create perpetual motion. But since perpetual motion can not exist, we are creating something that does not exist, yet we would have no way to tell the difference. We may have to go with what the eyes appear to see due to no good way to assure an energy balance.

[Michael Mooney]

Michael, I cannot answer your question until you define what you mean by motion: please define, in the most rigorous way you can, what you mean by motion, and I will then answer whether not the comet "is moving" or "has motion" if the rest of the universe disappears.

 

If you actually understood my perspective/philosophy... that the dynamic (not static) cosmos exists and is always "in motion" (dynamic) "all by itself" (as a whole and in all parts) independent of human observation/measurement/ definitions and relative frames of reference... (That is my *premise*)...

Then you could "get" that it doesn't not require much "rigor" to assert that anything that moves (and that is everything and the whole "thing") can be said to "have motion."

 

So, if everything else disappeared, the comet would be, as its was (sans orbit around the sun) still "moving"... beyond all measures and frames of reference, obviously.

 

Tho this may seem a circular argument, the cosmos, from this perspective as presented in this philosophy is, in its intrinsic nature ("in and of itself") not only existing but already/always "moving."

 

So "motion/movement" is not dependent on "for and relative to observer A" (or point A) as a "frame of reference" as the philosophy of "everything is relative" absolutely requires.

 

This is as clear as I can make it.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

"even the hollowest nut wants to be cracked"

(Friedrich Nietzsche)

 

 

CC

Like dick, if you have nothing of substance to say in the realm of intelligent criticism of points I've made...

just resort, yet again, to insults.

 

This degrades not only you but the forum.

Michael

[modest]

...anything that moves... can be said to "have motion."

 

Can you define "move" or "motion"?

 

Also, can you explain what you think a definition is in your own words? For example, could you explain why or why not "reddish house" is a definition of "red"?

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

AnssiH,

First, nice dodge of my "agree or disagree?" questions.

Second, you say:

Just pointing out that we are not really communicating. You are talking about your personal philosophy, i.e. your excess beliefs regarding the ontological form of reality.

 

Total agreement on first sentence. (Btw, it takes both listening and talking between two of us to be "communication.' I've seen none of the former on your part or DD's.

 

It is not just "my personal philosophy." Most folks "believe" that cosmos and all its "stuff" exists and moves as an *ontological reality or realities* independent of (the litany of relativity) observation, measurement, definitions, frames f reference, and subjective perception of "patterns we define as objects", as per constructionism. As I said, you are so committed to the latter that you can not even hear what I just said, yet again.

 

"Excess beliefs" is your judgment from your embedded perspective, (that constructionism is the only valid perspective,) and the latter is and will always remain subjective.... that we can know nothing of the ontological existence of cosmos or any of its *moving parts.* (Period.)

You go on to say:

Furthermore, once those different versions are all shown to be tied to the same underlying data ordering mechanisms, I think the discussion becomes even more moot.

 

Translation from my perspective:

The ontology of the cosmos is irrelevant, cuz absolutely everything is dependent on subjective perception, and we all have different ones, i.e., again, constructionism is the only valid "philosophy of science."

 

This ignores the whole realm of what we do know as coherent bodies of knowledge built over millennia of human experience, especially, case in point here, "modern science" as a body of knowledge. Yes, there is "really" a sun, and there are actual planets, stars, galaxies, as there were before humans and constructionism, and they will remain after we are long gone. (And stuff will still be *moving* even without our witness and scientific tool kit applied.)

 

And still about your personal philosophy, as many people have tried to point out, it is not really sufficient explanation to reality, once you get down to the details (I'm referring to your explanation of what causes time dilation).

 

Again, not "my personal philosophy" but one shared by all but the various forms of subjective idealism, including Berkelian, Kant's transcendental idealism, constructionism, and all forms of absolute belief that there is nothing "in and of itself" independent of human perception and all it's kit of measurements and calculations.

 

BTW, I have never offered and "explanation of time dilation, " as I have always challenged the very ontological existence of time. (See again my post 584, p.59.) Yet you and mainstream science assert it as a given, leaving only the question of what "causes *it*."

 

"It" (time) is just "event duration" and the event is selected by an observer and measured for a specifically chosen duration. The dilation part refers to differences in our clocks rate of "time keeping" under different conditions, such that when one slows down *relative to another" "time" is said to "dilate" *for one relative to the other.*

 

But my post referenced yet again above is an ontological statement about time, and that whole field is irrelevant to your philosophy.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Boerseun:

Mike. Buddy. Pal. We've been through this. Having a high IQ does not guarantee immediate insight into any particular matter. Myself, I have a high IQ. I know absolutely nothing, and I mean zip, nada, zilch, about chemistry - apart from the basics. And I don't pretend otherwise. It would be foolish to do so. Why would I know more about chemistry than somebody with half my IQ, who actually studied it? This seem to be the malaise you're suffering from regarding time, space, and relativity in general. Because I'm the biggest literature genius the world has ever seen (Shakespear's got nuttin' on me, mate), I'm supposed to be your math superior? Because you're the world's best plumber, you're gonna tell me how to fly a jumbo jet?

 

Your intelligence quotient is merely an indicator of ability, Mike. Understanding is a wholly different matter, and includes such unsavory tasks as actually reading up on the stuff you want to discuss.

 

Do yourself a favor (and I mean it in the kindest way possible) and go read up some. Really.

 

Boer, my boy, my favorite character assassin... buddy;),

I was addressing doctordunk very specifically, and for the very specific reason that he constantly assumes intellectual superiority over everyone here and uses me as an example of the lowest level of intelligence here... without ever actually engaging in intelligent debate with me.

So I "threw down" and will embarrass him in the above way, as he well deserves, if he accepts the challenge, which I am quite sure he will not.

I've been over and over this thing about my not being strong in math, but realizing that math is the technical tool of logical reasoning, which I am very good at, and that the concepts (and premises leading to conclusions) are the primary context of meaning, for which math is merely the expedient means. You really don't seem to understand this.

 

I have studied relativity (Its concepts and their meanings) since quite young, and the fact that I disagree with you does not mean that I do not not understand and need remedial reading and catch-up math and physics. Yet it is impossible for you to believe this, and I couldn't care less.

Yes, a "polymath" will often have deficiencies in some areas (math, computer skills, and many others in my case), but understanding *the principles of relativity* is not one of them.

mik

[AnssiH]

AnssiH,

First, nice dodge of my "agree or disagree?" questions.

 

Look, I know exactly why you are asking that question about the comet. You want to get to the point that "whatever the ontological form or state of the comet, it is unaffected by the disappearance of the rest of the universe."

 

What you are thinking in your head is that the comet is moving in relation to the rest of the universe, and when everything else is snatched away, in ontological sense the comet will remain in exactly the state it was in.

 

But in order to get there, very many things had to be defined. For instance, you had to separate the "comet" from the "rest of the universe", and to do so is to define what constitutes that comet, and you come to define conservation of momentum / inertial frames and many other things.

 

In brief, you first defined a rest frame of the entire universe, then defined a subset of the universe in such a way that it is in motion against that rest frame, and then you took out everything that defined the inital rest frame, but kept the frame itself.

 

In other words, the components of your thought experiment were specifically defined in a particular form, for you to get to the result you wanted. Once you've done that, does your result tell you something about reality?

 

Note that if you take the comet to be the "entire universe" at the get-go, then your argument is exactly the same as arguing that the "entire known universe" is in motion to some direction as we speak. Certainly no one can disprove that idea, but it is also completely meaningless. There's just no explanatory function to that kind of idea.

 

The ontology of the cosmos is irrelevant, cuz absolutely everything is dependent on subjective perception, and we all have different ones, i.e., again, constructionism is the only valid "philosophy of science."

 

Not really talking about philosophy, but of logical consequences of the existence of unknown aspects of reality.

 

BTW, I have never offered and "explanation of time dilation, " as I have always challenged the very ontological existence of time.

 

I was referring to your comments that acceleration effects explain it.

 

Yet you and mainstream science assert it as a given, leaving only the question of what "causes *it*."

 

Nope, I don't take it as "time" dilation. All the comments I've made are referring to the (purely logical) reasons why relativistic time relationships must be a feature of your explanation of reality (that thing which also defines what is meant by "a star" or "a planet"), and those reasons have got nothing to do with any assumption about ontologically real spacetime or ideas of "malleable time" of any sort.

 

Like I've said before, I know exactly why you are complaining about relativistic ontology. And like I've said before, if you were to follow the "analytical metaphysical take on relativity", you would find it quite reasonable and quite "mundane" (for the lack of a better word). It is not a "rearrangement of relativity" as people seem to take it. It is an explanation about the epistemological reasons for relativistic time relationships. It is an exact scientific explanation of relativity arising from underlying definitions, not a suggestion about ontology.

 

And btw, I did take an IQ test once, because I had to. Unfortunately, I never even bothered to go and check the final result myself, as it was completely irrelevant to me. It was obvious to me that the challenges they gave in there were only measuring my ability to do IQ tests... :eek_big:

 

There are very many different kinds of mental excercises that have got nothing to do with the challenges they gave me at the IQ test, and most importantly when it comes to understanding some complex subject well, that requires patience more than anything. (I am of the opinion that just about anyone can become fluent with just about anything, given enough patience to work it in)

 

In fact I don't expect to find a thoughtful person who would honestly think that high IQ could indicate who is correct in an argument. You seem to imply that it does, which makes me think that perhaps you do rank high in an IQ test, due to having a natural ability to solve exactly those kinds of problems? I can tell you that an analytical investigation of complex relationships, with mathematical tools, is a different problem domain entirely. At least it did not appear in the test I did.

 

-Anssi

 

ps, Modest, about "rotating the universe" comments in #960, if you look at DD's post that you quoted more carefully, you can see he was basically referring to Mach's principle himself. I.e. about the frame where the angular momentum of the entire universe vanishes, and the inability to ignore the "rest of the universe" in terms of rotation when choosing coordinate system for a small sub-set of the universe... Be it the rest of the universe or the subset that is taken to be in rotation, the rest of the universe is not to be ignored. I thought I'd comment because I don't expect DD to bother :I

[Erasmus00]

If you actually understood my perspective/philosophy... that the dynamic (not static) cosmos exists and is always "in motion" (dynamic) "all by itself" (as a whole and in all parts) independent of human observation/measurement/ definitions and relative frames of reference... (That is my *premise*)...

Then you could "get" that it doesn't not require much "rigor" to assert that anything that moves (and that is everything and the whole "thing") can be said to "have motion."

 

All I want is for you to answer: what does it mean to have motion? Define motion- words have no meaning independent of their human definition, so what is your definition of motion?

 

So "motion/movement" is not dependent on "for and relative to observer A" (or point A) as a "frame of reference" as the philosophy of "everything is relative" absolutely requires.

 

This is as clear as I can make it.

 

This is not a definition- you are telling me what motion is NOT. Please- what is your definition of motion, what is the meaning of the word (not just a few properties, the actual definition).

-Will

[modest]

ps, Modest, about "rotating the universe" comments in #960, if you look at DD's post that you quoted more carefully, you can see he was basically referring to Mach's principle himself. I.e. about the frame where the angular momentum of the entire universe vanishes, and the inability to ignore the "rest of the universe" in terms of rotation when choosing coordinate system for a small sub-set of the universe... Be it the rest of the universe or the subset that is taken to be in rotation, the rest of the universe is not to be ignored.

 

Yes, that was obvious. Allow me to elaborate.

 

Consider, in the frame of the background stars a ship is accelerating while the universe is at rest—such is our chosen coordinate system. This creates a Newtonian pseudo field in the ship because it is a non-inertial frame and it feels non-inertial forces.

 

In the frame of the accelerating ship the mass of the universe is accelerating relative to the ship which is at rest in this coordinate choice. Accelerating a mass causes a gravitational field (think of gravitational waves when moving a star back and forth). The combined mass of the universe accelerating comes with a homogeneous gravitational field pointing in the direction of acceleration.

 

The ship is at rest in this pseudo gravitational field causing the ship to feel inertial forces (being at rest in a gravitational field causes the feeling of acceleration). The accelerating mass of the universe is an inertial frame freefalling in the field and hence feels no acceleration despite the fact that it most certainly is accelerating in this coordinate choice.

 

From either perspective one must consider the combined mass of the universe. The inertia causing Newton's pseudo forces is an effect of all that mass, so even if we consider the ship to be accelerating (consider the coordinate choice where the background stars are at rest) it is the bulk mass of the universe that lets the ship know it's accelerating. Likewise, if the background stars are accelerating (in our other coordinate choice) then clearly we have to consider them. The real difference between frames that makes the situation non-reciprocal is the amount of mass accelerating in each case. A ship accelerating relative to a universe does create a gravitational field, but far too small to be detected. The combined mass of the universe accelerating relative to a small ship creates a significant and easily detected field.

 

Now then to the point, from the ship's perspective (where it is at rest) the slower the background stars accelerate the less detectable the pseudo gravitational field. As the acceleration approaches zero (and the universe has constant velocity relative to the ship) the homogeneous gravitational field pointing in the direction of acceleration approaches zero. Hence, when the ship has constant velocity relative to the background stars it can ignore that mass as a very reasonable approximation. It is at that point, where the relative velocity between the ship and the background stars is constant, that the ship could close itself off to the rest of the universe and not know the background stars are there.

 

The same situation would repeat itself with the centrifugal force. A rotating planet relative to the background stars or a planet at rest relative to the background stars rotating around it has the pseudo forces and pseudo gravitational fields go to zero at the point rotation stops.

 

So, yes, indeed, you can ignore the rest of the universe if your velocity relative to it does not change and you don't rotate relative to it. But, doing those things requires the consideration. I find this philosophically satisfying because it allows us to describe wildly different perspectives with exactly the same physics giving exactly the same answers—describing the same underlying situation regardless of something that I don't think should matter: coordinate choice. Coordinates aren't real so choosing them shouldn't affect the answers.

 

It is also compelling for explaining why inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass and it gives an elegant solution to the twin paradox. In special relativity you cannot give the traveling twin a single reference frame—it must be at least two, but I would demand it be valid for the traveling twin to consider himself at rest relative to himself the whole trip in a single frame. That is certainly a valid worldview and a good explanation of reality should give good answers from that premise.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus:

All I want is for you to answer: what does it mean to have motion? Define motion- words have no meaning independent of their human definition, so what is your definition of motion?

 

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

In physics, motion means a change in the location of a body. Change in motion is the result of applied force. Motion is typically described in terms of velocity, acceleration, displacement, and time.[1] An object's velocity cannot change unless it is acted upon by a force, as described by Newton's first law also known as Inertia. An object's momentum is directly related to the object's mass and velocity, and the total momentum of all objects in a closed system (one not affected by external forces) does not change with time, as described by the law of conservation of momentum.

A body which does not move is said to be at rest, motionless, immobile, stationary, or to have constant (time-invariant) position.

Motion is always observed and measured relative to a frame of reference. As there is no absolute reference frame, absolute motion cannot be determined; this is emphasised by the term relative motion.[2] A body which is motionless relative to a given reference frame, moves relative to infinitely many other frames. Thus, everything in the universe is moving.[3]

 

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

[Boerseun]

Mike - if you insist on not understanding it, basic logic and all, there's not much I can do for you.

 

Consider your idea regarding Halley's Comet.

 

Sure - it's in motion. Relative to the sun, the Earth, and every other point in the Solar System - or universe, for that matter. But when you propose that everything else were to disappear, what would Halley's Comet be orbiting? Will it continue in a straight line? With regards to what? In space? 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.

 

Let's say Halley's Comet is in a point in its orbit where it's travelling at 1,000km/h (this, of course, will be relative to the sun, seeing as we're talking about its orbit, now). Let's introduce another comet (or any body of your choice) which is travelling right in front of Halley, but at 999km/h. From that perspective, Halley is approaching at 1km/h. No more, and no less. If the two bodies were to collide, the kinetic energy that Halley can impart on the other body (if coming from behind) will be easily calculated by discarding the motion relative to the sun, and figuring Halley to be moving at only 1km/h. No more, no less. It's relative. Halley doesn't have the kinetic energy of 1,000km/h when gently slamming into the other body. It will, however, impart that kinetic energy on another body at rest with respect to Halley's orbit - like the sun. Now - if you were to remove all objects from the equation, from where will you calculate Halley's motion? From the sun? Why not from the galactic centre? Why not from Earth? Or why not from the vantage point of the imagined second comet, travelling at 1km/h with respect to Halley? You can't - because everything disappeared. It's not there anymore. It's only Halley. And Halley, with respect to itself, is standing perfectly still.

 

You claim to be hot on logic, mik i el (is that dyslexic for Michael?). Logically, you should grok the wrongness of your proposition.:eek_big:

 

If you want to agree to disagree, good on you. But this will be like agreeing to disagree that 1+1=2. You do this at your own peril.

[watcher]

For example, you are sitting in a car moving at 100KM/sec. This takes X amount of energy, which we add to the car. If you look out the window, it looks like the mountains in the background are moving at 100km/sec. If we ignore the energy balance, both reference appears relative. If we say, we only added X energy, then only one reference is logically consistent as moving using this energy.

 

great analysis. relative motion is actually energy exchanges.

most people have already an assumption that they knew motion, thus never asked themselves "how the heck do objects move"?

[watcher]

so what is your definition of motion?

 

“Motion consists merely in the occupation of different places at different times"

- Bertrand Russell

 

if anyone wants to analyze motion vis a vis time, this can be done by having three assumption about instants of time and see whats is logically coherent.

 

first - time is durationless indivisible instants

2. time is infintely divisible instants

3. finite duration instants

 

 

.