Relativity of Motion discussion from “What is Time”

[modest]

all i want is for you to answer: What does it mean to have motion?...

 

...there is no need for me to invent a new definition of motion. I will quote wiki...

in physics, motion means a change in the location of a body...

 

And there is time to kill today :hyper:

 

“Change” means “not the same from one point to another”. For example, if a person says “the traffic light changed” it means:

red light ->

change

-> green light

The state of the light changed so that its description is one thing then its description is another thing. If a person changes their mind about enjoying coffee then:

I don’t like coffee ->

change

-> I do like coffee

Change requires at least two states. It requires one thing then another thing. It cannot be said that the weather changed from raining to raining. The idea that: “I didn’t like coffee, but I changed my mind and now I don’t like coffee” would be mentally retarded.

 

 

 

Location is a description of where something exists. It is information needed to find that which exists. The location, for example, of Stonehenge is 51°10’N 1°49’W (i.e. north of the equator and west of the meridian). The location of a quote could be given as the page number in a book. The location of a cat could be given as “half way up a tree”. The location of a submarine could be said as “82 meters below the surface of the water directly on the magnetic north pole of Earth”. With location something can be located.

 

Some things are not “location”. For example, “toothpaste” is not a location, and neither is “the number 4” or “nothing”. If a person said “Shakey’s pizza is the number 4” or “Shakey’s pizza is nothing” then that is *not* a location of Shakey’s pizza.

 

 

 

Hopefully this explains “change” and “location” well enough that we can discuss “change in location”. Making a composite of the two concepts above I could say:

The cat is half way up the tree ->

change

-> The cat is three quarters of the way up the tree

According to the definition of “motion means a change in the location of a body” the cat in the above situation would have moved. What is immediately apparent to some people is that the cat was actually compared to the tree and all descriptions of motion (or change in location) are fundamentally such a 2-entity comparison (i.e. the cat doesn’t “have motion” all on its own, but rather “the cat has motion relative to the tree and the tree has motion relative to the cat”). But, this is not apparent to you, Michael so I will continue.

 

From our description of “change”, a change in location requires at least two locations (remember change required at least two states). For example, if a train changes its location then we must have at least two different descriptions (or two different pieces of information) on how to locate the train. It might be that the train is “in Paris” and 3 hours later the train is “in Luxembourg”. This is a change in location and describes the motion of the train.

 

If we propose that a single particle is the only thing in existence then there is no “change in location”. It is impossible, in other words, to give two different and meaningful locations for the particle. It is only possible to give two meaningless locations (or two non-locations) such as:

The particle is 7 ->

change

-> The particle is 8

or, it is possible to give a single ‘location’ twice:

The particle is zero meters from itself ->

change

-> The particle is zero meters from itself

But, it is not possible for the particle to change location. The reason for this is that the only meaningful thing in such a universe is this single particle. For a location to be meaningful it must be judged with respect to the particle—the only other thing it could be judged with respect to is nothing and “nothing” is not a meaningful location. The only meaningful location is then “distance from the particle” and for something to change location or “move” its distance from the particle must change. The distance between the particle and itself cannot change so there can be no meaningful change in distance and no meaningful motion.

 

You are young and life is long, and there is time to kill today :evil:

 

Sorry 'bout the long post. I've got time to kill today...

 

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."

 

So, there are two kinds of motion: intrinsic and relative. It would be straightforward to show that intrinsic speed cannot be equal to relative speed because relative speed depends on being compared to a second body. And... there is no way to determine intrinsic motion. There would be no way, for example, to build a device that measures its own intrinsic speed. I would wonder if things have an intrinsic direction too. Seriously, if there is no physical manifestation of intrinsic speed then it would make just as much sense to propose everything is 'intrinsically' moving north (or east... there's no way to determine the direction).

 

How about distance? Would you say that a single material point which is the only thing that exists has a distance? For example, an electron is 100,000 kilometers from earth then the earth and everything else disappears. Does the electron still have a distance or does the distance of one point depend on another point?

 

~modest

[watcher]

It seems mighty strange, but whatever speed two objects are travelling at relative to each other, the speed of light will measure exactly the same for both. .

 

only in non-accelerating frame of reference.

[Michael Mooney]

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.")

 

.

Logically, you should grok the wrongness of your proposition

 

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:

 

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.

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

[Michael Mooney]

Modest,

See post to Boerseun immediately above, so I will not keep repeating.

You say:

So, there are two kinds of motion: intrinsic and relative. It would be straightforward to show that intrinsic speed cannot be equal to relative speed because relative speed depends on being compared to a second body. And... there is no way to determine intrinsic motion.

 

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.

There would be no way, for example, to build a device that measures its own intrinsic speed.

 

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.

 

I would wonder if things have an intrinsic direction too. Seriously, if there is no physical manifestation of intrinsic speed then it would make just as much sense to propose everything is 'intrinsically' moving north (or east... there's no way to determine the direction).

 

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."

 

How about distance? Would you say that a single material point which is the only thing that exists has a distance? For example, an electron is 100,000 kilometers from earth then the earth and everything else disappears. Does the electron still have a distance or does the distance of one point depend on another point?

 

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

[lemit]

Michael,

 

First, I must apologize for a terrible attention span. I looked through a few pages for the original Halley's Comet question, lost focus, and decided to ask something based on the discussion I've skimmed in the last five or so pages.

 

Are you suggesting that if we rename the cosmos "Halley's Comet" it will travel in a specific direction at a specific speed? Is there something I'm missing? If Halley's Comet becomes totality instead of a speck moving through totality, won't its definition change? Aren't we all partly defined by our relationship to, uhm, Halley's Comet? Is there not a Halley's Comet-ality to all of us?

 

Or is life just a Halley's Comet-al Studios theme park ride on which we are non-paying riders?

 

--lemit

[watcher]

Michael,

 

First, I must apologize for a terrible attention span. I looked through a few pages for the original Halley's Comet question, lost focus, and decided to ask something based on the discussion I've skimmed in the last five or so pages.

 

Are you suggesting that if we rename the cosmos "Halley's Comet" it will travel in a specific direction at a specific speed? Is there something I'm missing? If Halley's Comet becomes totality instead of a speck moving through totality, won't its definition change? Aren't we all partly defined by our relationship to, uhm, Halley's Comet? Is there not a Halley's Comet-ality to all of us?

 

Or is life just a Halley's Comet-al Studios theme park ride on which we are non-paying riders?

 

--lemit

 

gee. what he was meant that the universe as one is in constant motion. relativity is only the solution for calculating relative motion by choosing a rest frame. but in reality (as a first principle) nothing is at rest.

 

but if you take the geometrical solution to GR, then nothing moves. there is only curvature. it is this "curvature" that begs for a physical meaning. imho.

 

this is also related to the question whether the spinning water in the bucket curves if you take away all the galaxies in the universe.... and the answer is .. dyaran...

[Boerseun]

Okay Mikey - for once I agree with you. This thread should be closed - it's pointless arguing the same thing over and over with you, when you're set on your view. There's an old adage about nobody being as deaf as those who refuse to listen. And it seems crystal clear that you have no interest in understanding the repeated pointing out of the error in your argument (read the last few pages again, it's not just me. EVERYONE is saying the same thing I am, using different words, examples and analogies. It's not just me, really).

 

If you refuse to understand that a point can only be in motion when it has something to have its motion measured against, then I can't help you.

 

There is no "universal now". There is no "intrinsic motion" when there is only one single object in the universe. There is no luminiferous ether, no dragons beyond the drawn map, nor any purple unicorns. The world will not experience a big universal orgasm in 2014, whatever you might believe. There are no green Martians, and no monsters in my closet.

 

If Halley's Comet is travelling through an empty universe, "where" is it going? "Where" is it coming from? "What" is it approaching? Past "what" point is it travelling so its speed can be measured? "What" can it impact in order to transfer its kinetic energy? You assume a fixed, solid structure of space through which its moving, but Michealson and Morley have disproved this position in the 1800's already.

 

Get over yourself, Mike. You're wrong.

 

But I agree with thread closure. Talking to you is like talking to a magic eight ball. It spits out opinions regarding various issues without being able to justify or support any of it, and it refuses to change its mind.

 

Unless, of course, you shake it really hard.

[watcher]

There is no "universal now".

so what's keeping the whole universe coherent and orderly and prevent it from falling apart into chaos if there in nothing to synchronize everything?

 

There is no "intrinsic motion" when there is only one single object in the universe.

there is. it's called discrete motion.

There is no luminiferous ether,

 

yeah? well einstein disagreed.

 

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. (Albert Einstein, Leiden Lecture, 1920)

 

so my friend as long as you're subscribing to field theory of relativity, ether must be implicitly assumed even though the assumption had no bearing to its math solutions.

 

If Halley's Comet is travelling through an empty universe, "where" is it going? "Where" is it coming from? "What" is it approaching? Past "what" point is it travelling so its speed can be measured? "What" can it impact in order to transfer its kinetic energy? You assume a fixed, solid structure of space through which its moving,

 

the em and gravitational fields of relativity is assumed to be a rigid force that connects and influence other matter nearby. again according to einstein.

 

when you bend a spring. you are bending the rigidity of space. why?

because a steel spring is just a lattice/matrix of point particles interconnected by space. without the rigidity of space , point particles are just like crumbling granules of sands. but of course we dont call it rigid space, we call them with a more fancy names like force fields or space-time curvatures.

 

but Michealson and Morley have disproved this position in the 1800's already.

 

a null result is actually proof that ether exists. light speed is always measured to be c. thus space contracts in the direction of motion. that is why there is no phase shift.

 

iow, without the opposing wind of the ether, there should be a phase shift since the distance along the direction of motion will contract by g (lorentz factor). but the fact that there is no phase shift will now mean that the friction from the ether cancels the supposed phase shift due to lorentz contraction.

 

ps. this is a very brief explanation with an assumption that you are familiar and thought this thing through and you are not just sloganeering. if you're just parroting an answer, you probably won't understand this.

 

.

[modest]

So, there are two kinds of motion: intrinsic and relative. It would be straightforward to show that intrinsic speed cannot be equal to relative speed because relative speed depends on being compared to a second body. And... there is no way to determine intrinsic motion.

 

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.

 

The normal and meaningful concept of motion requires that two things be compared (just as much as the concept of "distance" requires it). If your concept of motion (whatever it is) does not require two things then it is not the normal concept of motion—but is a different concept.

 

There would be no way, for example, to build a device that measures its own intrinsic speed.

 

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.

 

Nobody here is claiming that motion requires human observation. There is nothing in the concept that requires humanity. Motion is most fundamentally a difference between two things. That doesn't mean humans have to be there to witness the difference. But, it also means you can't have a difference between two things where there is only one thing. Removing humanity from the equation does not make the concept of "intrinsic motion" meaningful.

 

I would wonder if things have an intrinsic direction too.

 

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.

 

Your logic is flawed. The comet was not moving relative to everything else as you say—there are things in the solar system at rest relative to the comet. It therefore makes no more sense to say what you say above as it would to say: "the comet was at rest relative to things before everything disappeared therefore after everything disappears it remains at rest".

 

Also, the fact that you are comparing the comet to everything in the solar system even after they are taken out of existence should show clearly that the concept of motion requires at least two things in comparison. "Motion" is not a property that an entity has in and of itself. If it were then you could demonstrate that the comet is in motion without comparing it to things that disappeared or, as you did with Boerseun just now, comparing it to the nothingness of space. For you of all people to give space such substance...

 

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."

 

Not only am I incapable of comprehending how a line is tangent to something that doesn't exist, the concept is not comprehensible. Yet, you are again comparing the motion and direction of the comet to its previous orbit which confirms that motion and direction require two things to have meaning.

 

How about distance? Would you say that a single material point which is the only thing that exists has a distance?

 

...The electron is still "100,000 kilometers" from the previous locus of Earth...

 

Again, distance requires at least two points to have meaning. You compare the point of an electron (an electron is a SM point particle) to a non-existent earth. That you give two points (even though one of them doesn't exist) confirms this. It doesn't mean "everything is relative", it simply means that a single point isn't a line and therefore distance is not a property of a single point—it takes two. As speed is change in distance per change in time it follows directly that at least two points are needed for speed.

 

of course kilometers are now meaningless and that distance would better be stated in light seconds (or nanoseconds) as a universal standard of distance.

 

Light-seconds or light-nanoseconds are just as contingent on human definitions as kilometers. Neither are universal. A second probably got invented because of the rate of our human heartbeat and a meter probably because of the length of a human arm or leg.

 

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?

 

Distance is relative, but not to the "point of observation". There are an infinite number of points in an inertial frame of reference in which a given distance is equivalent. In special relativity distance is relative to velocity.

 

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.

 

I've thought of a way to convince people of what you say:

 

What has a derivative of gravitational force and is proportional to time dilation? At redshift Z=2 supernovae are half, twice, 1/3, or three times their Milky Way duration? In a gravitational field a freefalling frame of very small size approaches why kind of physics? In special relativity Alice and Bob take off in a ship away from me going 1/3 the speed of light. Alice then ejects Bob at 1/3 the speed of light in the same direction (they had an argument). Bob is traveling how fast to me? [we did this in the spacetime thread, if you recall]. How many frames are in the typical special relativity rendition of the twin paradox? On a typical spacetime diagram at what angle is light? As I accelerate toward a beacon flashing once per second, the rate at which I *observe / see* the flashes approaches what as I approach c relative to the beacon? If I am moving tangent to the same beacon the frequency of observed flashes approaches what? Two events (A and :hihi: are expected to be simultaneous relative to Bob (a different Bob than before :D). He accelerates toward the events of which A is the closer. According to SR which event does Bob now expect to happen first?

 

These are concept questions and answering them would shut everyone well up. I also do honestly think you could answer most. The understanding necessary to answer them could be found here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/3/3b/Special_relativity.pdf which is a printable document.

 

Any case, if you don't care to just say no thanks and maybe somebody else will want to give it a go.

 

~modest

[modest]

Moderation Note: The preceding posts in this thread have been moved from 3650 in favor of having their own topic of discussion here.

[Michael Mooney]

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:

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.

 

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.

 

If your concept of motion (whatever it is) does not require two things then it is not the normal concept of motion—but is a different concept.

It is not the relative perspective of motion. It posits that motion happens regardless of relative perspectives.

 

Removing humanity from the equation does not make the concept of "intrinsic motion" meaningful.

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.

 

"Motion" is not a property that an entity has in and of itself.

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.

 

Also, the fact that you are comparing the comet to everything in the solar system even after they are taken out of existence should show clearly that the concept of motion requires at least two things in comparison. "Motion" is not a property that an entity has in and of itself. If it were then you could demonstrate that the comet is in motion without comparing it to things that disappeared or, as you did with Boerseun just now, comparing it to the nothingness of space. For you of all people to give space such substance...

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.

 

Not only am I incapable of comprehending how a line is tangent to something that doesn't exist, the concept is not comprehensible. Yet, you are again comparing the motion and direction of the comet to its previous orbit which confirms that motion and direction require two things to have meaning.

 

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.

 

Again, distance requires at least two points to have meaning. You compare the point of an electron (an electron is a SM point particle) to a non-existent earth. That you give two points (even though one of them doesn't exist) confirms this.

 

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.

 

Distance is relative, but not to the "point of observation". There are an infinite number of points in an inertial frame of reference in which a given distance is equivalent. In special relativity distance is relative to velocity

 

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:

What has a derivative of gravitational force and is proportional to time dilation?

...

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

[watcher]

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,

 

yes they vary with whence you wanted to measure them. the measurements are purely subjective but that doesn't mean that the existence of the heavenly bodies depends on how we measure them.

there is no fixed measurable distance for everyone simply because the universe including the measuring tools moves a lot in all sorts of way.

 

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."

 

not knowing doesn't make something non existent. i think we can all make mistake in our interpretation of our theories.

[modest]

Finally, your belabored exercise:

What has a derivative of gravitational force and is proportional to time dilation?

...

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?

 

The exercise was neither belabored nor tedious. It took me about 2 minutes to ask the questions. It would take Erasmus, Craig, or Doctordick less than 30 seconds to answer them, and your failure to even try is useful in and of itself. This is not a matter of intelligence. If you used the time you spend criticizing relativistic spacetime toward learning about it, you would probably come to understand the concepts fairly quickly.

 

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.

 

You continue to say we don't comprehend or we're not able to comprehend. But, the issues you are expressing such as relative vs. absolute space and relative vs. universal now are ordinary stumbling blocks that we are all too well aware of. Studies have been done on how prevalent they are and the best way to help students with them.

 

This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of time in special relativity. A major purpose is to identify and characterize the conceptual and reasoning difficulties that students at all levels encounter in their study of special relativity...

 

An investigation by Saltiel and Malgrange has identified

difficulties with relative motion among eleven-year-oldchildren and first- and fourth-year university students in France.

The three groups showed little difference in error rates to written questions. Many students

tended to identify an object’s motion as intrinsic, not a quantity that is measured relative to a reference frame.

Students tended to

make a distinction between “real” motion, which has a dynamical cause, and “apparent” motion, which is “an optical illusion, devoid of any physical reality.”

 

Villani and Pacca have demonstrated that university students’ reasoning in relativistic contexts is similar to that observed by Saltiel and Malgrange in Galilean contexts. A case study by Hewson with a physics graduate student illustrated the importance of

“metaphysical beliefs” (e.g., time is absolute)

to his understanding of special relativity. The student in the study

classified certain relativistic effects (including length contraction) as distortions of perception.

Posner et al. report similar results in interviews with introductory students and their instructors.

 

O’Brien-Pride has conducted interviews and administered early versions of some of the research tasks described here in which

university students appear to believe that the order of events depends on observer location.

Her preliminary results provided impetus For the investigation detailed in this paper.

Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames

 

You've commonly conflated the relativity of simultaneity with signal delay and criticized the idea that things are relative to position in space. Those misunderstandings often accompany the absolute Newtonian worldview/philosophy. If you fail to recognize, acknowledge, or even understand the misconceptions you continually argue from and against, that doesn't mean other people do not.

 

The logical consequences of your worldview are internally inconsistent. It is impossible for a constant speed of light to accompany absolute distance and time in the way you have outlined. Again, that you fail to recognize or understand this makes it no less true.

 

Where you lost me, in that I am no longer taking you seriously, is trying to argue that a single point has an absolute distance. If you are not willing to acknowledge that distance requires two points then useful communication is impossible.

 

~modest

[Buffy]

Michael,

 

If the comet is moving in a universe with no other objects, how can you tell that it's moving?

 

That is, how is motion with one point and no others, defined?

 

E pur si muove, ;)

Buffy

[RCP/CRT/RRT]

Michael,

 

If the comet is moving in a universe with no other objects, how can you tell that it's moving?

 

That is, how is motion with one point and no others, defined?

 

E pur si muove, ;)

Buffy

 

Faith... or anything else that floats your boat...

[watcher]

That is, how is motion with one point and no others, defined?

 

when an object took a quantum leap and reappear within vicinity of the point it disappeared, the object is said to be at rest.

when an object reappeared somewhere else from the point it disappeared, the object is said to be in motion.

[modest]

That is, how is motion with one point and no others, defined?

 

when an object took a quantum leap and reappear within vicinity of the point it disappeared, the object is said to be at rest.

when an object reappeared somewhere else from the point it disappeared, the object is said to be in motion.

 

Yes, precisely. You describe 1)an object and 2)a point. These two things can move relative to one another if the distance between them increases. That is the normal definition of motion. You need two things. The "motion" of an object presupposes some point (or some thing) against which that motion is meaningful.

 

~modest