Is movement really relative or absolute?

[only1god]

I was discussing in another page this topic with someone. He said it's relative in everything, meaning that energy and force doesn't count. This is obviously wrong because the fact that today we can't (maybe tomorrow we can) know which thing is moving towards the other and which not, doesn't change the reality.

For example, when I'm driving my car things "seems" to be coming at me, the road seems to be moving under my car and i seem to be at rest, but this doesn't change that it's me who's moving, otherwise we wouldn't need to pay for fuel to move...

Another thing, Why was important changing from geocentrism to heliocentrism? We could just have stayed with the geocentric model.

 

[ergospherical]

For example, when I'm driving my car things "seems" to be coming at me, the road seems to be moving under my car and i seem to be at rest, but this doesn't change that it's me who's moving, otherwise we wouldn't need to pay for fuel to move...

What if you are standing on one of those airport-style travelators? That's powered by mains, presumably, so does that mean it's the Earth that's moving?

 

[phinds]

This is obviously wrong

No, it's obviously right. You are confused because you apparently have not studied "frames of reference". From YOUR frame of reference, the road is moving. From the ROAD's frame of reference you are moving. Both of you are correct in saying that the other is moving. All motion is relative (although acceleration is absolute, but that's a whole 'nother issue).

 

[Dale]

He said it's relative in everything, meaning that energy and force doesn't count.

Energy is relative even in Newtonian physics.

Force is frame invariant in Newtonian physics but relative in special relativity.

For example, when I'm driving my car things "seems" to be coming at me, the road seems to be moving under my car and i seem to be at rest, but this doesn't change that it's me who's moving, otherwise we wouldn't need to pay for fuel to move...

This “otherwise” statement is an incorrect conclusion. If you are in a car, it doesn’t matter what reference frame you use, you need the same amount of fuel regardless.

Besides, it is naive to think that the Earth is at rest. The Earth is spinning on its axis, that axis is orbiting the sun, the sun is orbiting the galaxy, the galaxy is moving within the galactic cluster, and the galactic cluster is moving relative to the CMB, and the CMB is expanding.

 

[FactChecker]

Staying within simple, Newtonian physics, force is related to acceleration, not to constant velocity. F=ma. You must specify what kind of motion you are talking about before you can consider if it is relative or not.
You pay for fuel to keep a car moving because you must oppose the forces (friction) that would otherwise slow it down. This is a question of acceleration/deceleration, not of constant velocity.

 

[only1god]

This “otherwise” statement is an incorrect conclusion. If you are in a car, it doesn’t matter what reference frame you use, you need the same amount of fuel regardless.

that was what i meant, perspective doesn't change reality

Besides, it is naive to think that the Earth is at rest. The Earth is spinning on its axis, that axis is orbiting the sun, the sun is orbiting the galaxy, the galaxy is moving within the galactic cluster, and the galactic cluster is moving relative to the CMB, and the CMB is expanding.

from our reference frame (earth) everything is orbiting around us...

 

[hutchphd]

from our reference frame (earth) everything is orbiting around us...

And when I stand on my head everything is upside down. So what?

 

[Dale]

that was what i meant, perspective doesn't change reality

But both perspectives are compatible with the same reality. Your “otherwise” indicates that you think only one perspective explains why the car uses fuel. That is not correct. Both explain that same fact.

from our reference frame (earth) everything is orbiting around us..

Yes. And that frame is no more or less valid than any other frame.

 

[only1god]

But both perspectives are compatible with the same reality. Your “otherwise” indicates that you think only one perspective explains why the car uses fuel. That is not correct. Both explain that same fact.

Yes. And that frame is no more or less valid than any other frame.

This only means that movement is absolute in reality and relative in perspective, but your perspective even if it's right does not change the fact of what's actually happening. This is what i was trying to explain...

 

[phinds]

This only means that movement is absolute in reality and relative in perspective

No, it definitely does not mean that. Movement is relative in reality, not absolute in reality.

 

[Dale]

movement is absolute in reality and relative in perspective

This appears to be personal speculation. Do you have a professional scientific reference that makes this same distinction?

 

[only1god]

This appears to be personal speculation. Do you have a professional scientific reference that makes this same distinction?

So is the Earth orbiting around the sun or is the sun orbiting around us? from our perspective the sun is orbiting around us, but that doesn't change the fact that Earth is orbiting around the sun.

 

[only1god]

No, it definitely does not mean that. Movement is relative in reality, not absolute in reality.

As i said, is geocentrism the same as heliocentrism?

 

[Dale]

As you do not have a professional scientific reference that supports your distinction, this thread is closed. I recommend that you read the forum rules before posting again. We are here to educate about mainstream science, not indulge in personal speculation.