Replies

"All motion is relative."

No, the appearance of something moving is relative.

Reality, however, cares not a whit for appearances. Either something is moving or it isn't, regardless of how it appears in your relative frame of reference.

Either something is moving or it isn't, regardless of how it appears in your relative frame of reference.

All right, then. If what you say is true, then there might likely be some motionless object. Is anything in the universe motionless? Can you point to any single object and say with certainty, "This object is motionless in space. This object is stationary within the fixed, absolute frame of reference"?

And if what you say is true, and there are things that are moving and at least one thing that isn't, how can you tell which is which?

Man, talk about opening a can of worms.

Movement, for a long time, has been measured and based on the concept that the measurer is 'still'. This is not true.

Movement of the galaxies is based on the concept that the measurer is still. This is not true. The Earth is moving, the solar system is moving, the galaxy itself is moving. (or not moving, but we can't know which--see later argument)

You say, well, we can take all those movements and use them to actually calculate movement (such as the idea all galaxies are moving AWAY from US, making us essentially the center of the universe.)

First, if the galaxy has no edge, it has no center.
Second, the only way to calculate the movement of OUR galaxy is to have a NON MOVING spot in the UNIVERSE to base that on. Again, no such thing.

THIRD, and the hardest to understand, is that the entire UNIVERSE may not be sitting still either.

All movement is calculated relevant to another object, and there is not any object we know of that is not moving/or that we can actually determine whether it is moving or not.

ANY ARGUMENTS to my PROPOSITIONS ? I love to debate the subject as it is the most fascinating, and the most educating subject I can think of.