- #36
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,192
- 10,411
With respect to some objects, yes, with respect to other objects, no.cfrogue said:Are objects in the universe in some kind of motion?
With respect to some objects, yes, with respect to other objects, no.cfrogue said:Are objects in the universe in some kind of motion?
russ_watters said:With respect to some objects, yes, with respect to other objects, no.
russ_watters said:Both correct.
You are always stationary with respect to yourself and there is no such thing as absolute rest.cfrogue said:So, when you are in a stationary frame, is that frame at absolute rest?
russ_watters said:You are always stationary with respect to yourself and there is no such thing as absolute rest.
Why wouldn't it be known? The motion of any given inertial frame wrt any other given inertial frame is well-defined.cfrogue said:Thus, the frame has some kind of motion, but it is not known.
You are stationary with respect to your frame of reference, yes.cfrogue said:OK, so you are stationary in a frame and there is no such thing as absolute rest.
That's very oddly worded. As I said above:Thus, the frame has some kind of motion, but it is not known.
Is this correct?
So an object has an infinite number of different speeds, depending on what you are measuring its speed with respect to. But I don't know why you would say it isn't known. Lots of them can be known.Russ said:...since any object can and does have an infinite number of different speeds at the same time.
russ_watters said:You are stationary with respect to your frame of reference, yes. That's very oddly worded. As I said above: So an object has an infinite number of different speeds, depending on what you are measuring its speed with respect to. But I don't know why you would say it isn't known. Lots of them can be known.
You seem to be implying that if a frame is not at absolute rest, it has an absolute motion. That's not correct. It has been said many times in this thread, in different ways:cfrogue said:Well, a frame is at absolute rest or is moving.
You said absolute rest does not exists. So, I guess a frame moves.
What if no other frame exists locally and you are not able to determine relative motion.
Does this mean the frame is at absolute rest or is it moving in some unknown way?
russ_watters said:You seem to be implying that if a frame is not at absolute rest, it has an absolute motion. That's not correct. It has been said many times in this thread, in different ways:
All motion (or lack thereof) is relative. It is measured between two objects/frames of reference.
If you have no other frame of reference to measure an object's speed against, then you can say nothing about its speed.
Whether it is easy or difficult to measure the speed of an object with respect to another doesn't really have any bearing on how the laws of physics work. I'm not sure how many times you need to see this in order for it to sink in: there is no such thing as absolute rest.cfrogue said:So, if a frame is in the universe and the nearest object is billions of light years away, you have no frame of reference in an reasonable time reference, is the frame moving somehow or is it at absolute rest?
No, it is what we can detect that implies absolute motion/rest does not exist.Certainly, you would have no idea at all since there is no mechanical way to detect absolute motion, but does that lack of ability to detect it imply it does not exist?
How do you conclude this?cfrogue said:Well, a frame is at absolute rest or is moving.
DaleSpam said:How do you conclude this?
russ_watters said:Whether it is easy or difficult to measure the speed of an object with respect to another doesn't really have any bearing on how the laws of physics work. I'm not sure how many times you need to see this in order for it to sink in: there is no such thing as absolute rest.
Perhaps the problem is you simply choose not to believe that this is how the universe works? That's what this implies: No, it is what we can detect that implies absolute motion/rest does not exist.
Again, think of the table tennis on a train example. Despite the fact that we can measure the ping pong table both stationary and moving, it has no impact on the play of the game.
From where I'm sitting right now the Earth is not moving. Of course, when I drove home from work yesterday, it was moving. Do you understand that? "Moving" and "not moving" actually aren't fundamentally different from each other. 0 and 60 are both just numbers. Right now, sitting on my couch, the Earth has a speed of 0. But when driving home from work, it was 60.cfrogue said:Simple, the Earth is moving somehow or not moving.
I am guessing it is moving. How about you?
You could respond to the examples given already that explain why if it did exist, we could detect it. Ignoring the proof doesn't make it go away.cfrogue said:Absolute motion is not detectable. That is a fact or we would not be having this conversation.
How do you prove that means it does not exist?
How do you prove an object has no motion unless there is another to compare it to?
May I see this proof?
russ_watters said:You could respond to the examples given already that explain why if it did exist, we could detect it. Ignoring the proof doesn't make it go away.
russ_watters said:From where I'm sitting right now the Earth is not moving. Of course, when I drove home from work yesterday, it was moving. Do you understand that? "Moving" and "not moving" actually aren't fundamentally different from each other. 0 and 60 are both just numbers. Right now, sitting on my couch, the Earth has a speed of 0. But when driving home from work, it was 60.
You are guessing that it is moving relative to what?cfrogue said:Simple, the Earth is moving somehow or not moving.
I am guessing it is moving. How about you?
No, you are claiming that it exists, but is impossible to detect. *I* (Ie, the laws of physics) claim that it doesn't exist and experiments prove it.cfrogue said:What?
Are you claiming it is impossible to detect?
Examples, and where to find more, have been given. If you have specific questions about specific ones, ask. But you need to put some effort into this yourself.How do you prove this?
Can I see the proof?
That's not logic, it's gibberish.Otherwise, you have no choice but to assume a frame moves around in some unknown way.
This is simple logic.
Clearly you don't or you wouldn't have asked the questions above.cfrogue said:I have the relative motion thing figured out.
While you drove home, you were at rest and the Earth was moving relative to you.
When Apollo went to the moon, the spaceship did not move, the Earth did.
Yes, I have this figured out.
DaleSpam said:You are guessing that it is moving relative to what?
Ok...cfrogue said:Well, the Earth is moving relative to the sun which is moving relative to the milky way.
If you have good aim, sure.So, if I shot a laser at a target on the earth, would I hit it perfectly?
russ_watters said:No, you are claiming that it exists, but is impossible to detect. *I* (Ie, the laws of physics) claim that it doesn't exist and experiments prove it. Examples, and where to find more, have been given. If you have specific questions about specific ones, ask. But you need to put some effort into this yourself.
That's not logic, it's gibberish.
Lets try some logic, though: if you don't believe that something can be shown to exist (absolute motion/rest), why do you still believe it does? Isn't that illogical?
Clearly you don't or you wouldn't have asked the questions above.
russ_watters said:Ok... If you have good aim, sure.
Yes, please do. Stop asking and look at what has been provided for you. It isn't like I'm going to type a 10,000 word essay on Relativity into the forum.cfrogue said:
*I* (Ie, the laws of physics) claim that it doesn't exist and experiments prove it.
How do you prove something does not exist?
May I see the proof?
No, I'm a skilled shot and understand the concept of pulling lead on a moving target.cfrogue said:Well, you line up the target, the Earth is moving with a rotation and then in its orbit around the sun.
Then the milky way moves.
How do you know where the target will be when the light reaches it?
Are you assuming the target is at absolute rest?
russ_watters said:Yes, please do. Stop asking and look at what has been provided for you. It isn't like I'm going to type a 10,000 word essay on Relativity into the forum.
russ_watters said:No, I'm a skilled shot and understand the concept of pulling lead on a moving target.
Math proof of what? I don't think even you know what you are asking!cfrogue said:No, I know what a math proof is and you have not provided it.
That wasn't a joke. Perhaps this is a game to you, but it isn't to us.cfrogue said:LOL, good one.