What will happen to a body that is not moving at all?

[my_wan]

You are using a rather unusual meaning of "not moving", to say the least.

I recommend sticking with what Mentz114 said. "Not moving" is meaningless unless you specify with respect to what.

Yes point taken. I paraphrased it from Makep in the hopes of making it clearer to him. Obviously russ's suggestion that it should have been qualified with "can be considered" is superior. I tried to make it clearer using Makep's terminology because it was clear from the OP that it included the notion that "not moving" implied not existing as well as absolute motion. Neither of which makes any physical sense.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The Principle of Equivalence fails for electric charges. A charge in an accelerating rocket will emit radiation, but a charge on the surface of the Earth will not. (A charge moving with constant velocity will not emit radiation.)

You'd have thought so, wouldn't you? However, when you take into account the motion of the observer as well, the transferred energy depends on the relative acceleration, so that for example an observer in an accelerating rocket would not detect any radiation being emitted from a charge at rest within that rocket.

 

[atyy]

You'd have thought so, wouldn't you? However, when you take into account the motion of the observer as well, the transferred energy depends on the relative acceleration, so that for example an observer in an accelerating rocket would not detect any radiation being emitted from a charge at rest within that rocket.

Yes, that is interesting. I don't understand it enough to agree or not, but I was aware of this claim in the literature, so I should at least qualify my remarks with "naive equivalence principle". I will start a new thread since I'd like to ask you and others about this.

 

[russ_watters]

Then how does a black hole develop, if not from becoming stationary or slowing down with respect to other systems.

A black hole is nowhere close to what you describe. We'd going so far away from the topic to discuss that, I'm not willing to do it. Your understanding of the issue at hand is not where it needs to be and I don't want to get into something entirely unrelated.

How can't it be an example. Is there limitations to thinking here?

Absolutely! We constrain our thought processes and discussions to science because this is a scientific discussion site!

Another example - how about the speed of thought.

There is no such thing as "the speed of thought".

As ZZ pointed out, this isn't a place for free-form, idle speculation. It isn't helpful to you or others who may be trying to learn from this thread and we don't allow it.