Universal stationary frame of reference for speed, d and t

[Jean Jack]

So I understand this is probably more contiguous with philosophy than with physics, and there is probably no exact answer to this, but I had a couple of interesting questions relating to planes of reference, keep in mind I am a high school student and possesses very little knowledge of relativity/astronomy/cosmology;

1) Is there such a thing as a stationary plane or point of reference in space? - I understand that everything is stationary in relation to something, but moving in relation to something else, so I am currently sitting down and my velocity in relation to my room is 0 ms^-1 however, I am moving in relation to the centre of the Earth as a stationary point of reference, and the Earth is moving in relation to the sun, sun to the galaxy etc... As such it would be difficult if not impossible to determine a universal stationary frame of reference. However I ask, is it even mathematically / physically possible for a stationary point in space to exist, isolated from relations to other systems?

2) If there are no possible universal stationary planes/points of reference in space, does that mean that we can never truly identify the absolute velocity of an object?

3) in that case, my understanding (not that I understand it at all!) is that time is relative to velocity, therefore can we never truly identify a universal time frame of reference at a universal stationary point of reference? Would objects lying on a universal stationary point therefore undergo the fastest time in the universe?

4) as I am sitting down, is my kinetic energy 0, or would it only truly be 0 if I was lying on a universal stationary point in space?

5) If point A is the centre of the sun, point B is my bedroom on earth, and point C is on the surface of Mars, If I accelerate from rest at point B to the speed of light at point C, but point B is moving towards point C relative to point A at 10000ms^-1, does that mean I am going faster than the speed of light by a magnitude of 10000ms^-1?

6) If there were no particles in the universe as reference, would points A and B lying in space remain at equal distances to each other? Or would their location and separation be unquantifiable with the absence of particles to act as physical entities allowing for relationships such as v=d/t to allow for distances, time and velocity to exist? Basically do distances exist with absence of particles? If not would this be the reason why universal stationary points cannot exist, as they would imply pinpointing locations in the vacuum of space that are not relative to moving particles, and with a lack of movement, distance cannot exist. Do distances even exist? Or are they only an imaginary entities that tie in sporadic speed and time measurements?

Sorry for the billion questions asked, I have been thinking about these things a lot recently, I have become aware that some of these ideas may run in parallel with some of Einstein's ideas of relativity. I don't expect that you should answer every question, but only discuss some questions that have struck you as interesting, thanks in advance!
My head hurts...

 

[phinds]

1) Is there such a thing as a stationary plane or point of reference in space?

no

2) If there are no possible universal stationary planes/points of reference in space, does that mean that we can never truly identify the absolute velocity of an object?

since there is no such thing, we pretty much can't locate it.

3) in that case, my understanding (not that I understand it at all!) is that time is relative to velocity, therefore can we never truly identify a universal time frame of reference at a universal stationary point of reference?

Time is what a clock measures.

Would objects lying on a universal stationary point therefore undergo the fastest time in the universe?

Again, there is no such thing so this is not a meaningful question

4) as I am sitting down, is my kinetic energy 0, or would it only truly be 0 if I was lying on a universal stationary point in space?

kinetic energy is frame dependent.

5) If point A is the centre of the sun, point B is my bedroom on earth, and point C is on the surface of Mars, If I accelerate from rest at point B to the speed of light at point C, but point B is moving towards point C relative to point A at 10000ms^-1, does that mean I am going faster than the speed of light by a magnitude of 10000ms^-1?

You cannot reach the speed of light so this question has no meaning. You could reframe it as "close to the speed of light"

.

 

[ZapperZ]

SI have become aware that some of these ideas may run in parallel with some of Einstein's ideas of relativity.

No, they don't. In fact, you need to look at the postulates of Special Relativity and you'll find that many things you are doing here are contrary to that.

There is NO preferred frame of reference, stationary or not.

My head hurts...

Considering that you are attempting to counter Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's Special Relativity, your head SHOULD hurt.

Zz.

 

[Jean Jack]

If there were no particles in the universe as reference, would points A and B lying in space remain at equal distances to each other? Or would their location and separation be unquantifiable with the absence of particles to act as physical entities allowing for relationships such as v=d/t to allow for distances, time and velocity to exist? Basically do distances exist with absence of particles? If not would this be the reason why universal stationary points cannot exist, as they would imply pinpointing locations in the vacuum of space that are not relative to moving particles, and with a lack of movement, distance cannot exist. Do distances even exist? Or are they only an imaginary entities that tie in sporadic speed and time measurements?

So could someone please shine some light on this question? If it even really makes any sense, I understand that distance is only an arbitrary measurement, but that is not the point of the question,

 

[ZapperZ]

So could someone please shine some light on this question? If it even really makes any sense?

The speed of light in vacuum, c, is a fundamental constant of our universe. It also occupies a very important role in Special and General Relativity. It defines how far light travel in a unit time. The resulting theory defines not only space and time, but also how they are connected within what is known as Minkowski spacetime.

So where is the need for a "particle" to exist in any of these?

Zz.

 

[Jean Jack]

The speed of light in vacuum, c, is a fundamental constant of our universe. It also occupies a very important role in Special and General Relativity. It defines how far light travel in a unit time. The resulting theory defines not only space and time, but also how they are connected within what is known as Minkowski spacetime.

So where is the need for a "particle" to exist in any of these?

Zz.

I suppose I can see your point, however, photons are particles...

 

[ZapperZ]

I suppose I can see your point, however, photons are particles...

Did Einstein use "photons" in his Special and General Relativity? Does it even matter?

Space is NOT defined or required by the presence of "particles". Draw a cartesian coordinate system. Why do you need a particle to define a location in that coordinate system? It makes no sense.

Zz.

 

[phinds]

I suppose I can see your point, however, photons are particles...

No, they are not. They are quantum objects. They travel as waves and exhibit particle behavior only when interacting and in any case they are never particles in the classical sense of that word. They are quantum objects.