Need expert advice on how to handle a seemingly legitimate objection

[fast]

If an object is moving relative to another object, then at least one (and highly likely both if we pick two at random) of the objects are moving absolutely--moving in fact and without the need to be characterized as moving relative to another object. Why deny this?

By the way, if someone realizes why I say at least one, they might also realize why I'm insistent that an object can be accurately described as moving in fact and without the need to invoke relativity.

On that note, talk to yall later,

 

[none]

If an object is moving relative to another object, then at least one (and highly likely both if we pick two at random) of the objects are moving absolutely--moving in fact and without the need to be characterized as moving relative to another object. Why deny this?

By the way, if someone realizes why I say at least one, they might also realize why I'm insistent that an object can be accurately described as moving in fact and without the need to invoke relativity.

On that note, talk to yall later,

yeah anybody can say motion isn't based on relativity, proving it is a little harder.
I have asked you many time to explain it but you skirt the question and try to change the subject.
have a look at post #165, try and reply to that post or I can just bump it until you turn off the blinders.

 

[Wiploc]

I don't usually like to use the word "absolute",

Well, that was my usage, not yours. I grasp for a way to express what you're thinking.

and I fully accept that objects are in relative motion, but I don't grasp the fear in denying that objects are moving "in fact".

No fear involved. We believe the experts. We accept the results of the Michelson/Morley experiment. We didn't like it at first; we had to struggle to come to terms with relativity; but we got here.

Michelson and Morley proved that we were stopped in the universe. A jaw dropping discovery, since this wasn't the era when we thought we were the center. But, if we were stopped when moving toward the sun (at dawn) then we'd have to be moving when we were going away from the sun (at dusk), right? But, no, when they tested again twelve hours later, we were still stopped. So they tested six months later, when were were going galactic east instead of galactic west. We were still stopped.

It was paradox. Mind bending.

Along came Einstein, with a new theory that took care of the problem. The paradox is resolved, if we accept that all motion is relative. And many scientific experiments have confirmed Einstein's theory. So that's how we have to think now, if we don't want our beliefs to conflict with the known facts.

Fear doesn't come into it.

Indeed, to say an object is moving relative to an imaginary object (well, in the sense you're using it), it's really no different than accepting my position.

Not at all. All motion is relative. It can even be relative to hypothetical objects, but it is still relative.

The funny thing about even saying that an object is moving relative to another is that one may in fact not truly be moving at all.

There's no such thing.

 

[Wiploc]

thanks for the reply.
if an object used to exist somewhere where is that somewhere if only one object exists?

It's position is relative to you while it exists, and it's hypothetical position is still relative to you when it only hypothetically exists.

also how do you know the remaining object isn't rotating?

a) I don't know that it's not rotating.

b) Rotating relative to what?

c) XKCD:

 

[none]

It's position is relative to you while it exists, and it's hypothetical position is still relative to you when it only hypothetically exists.

also how do you know the remaining object isn't rotating?

Rotating relative to what?

why doesn't your answer of hypothetical position of an object that doesn't exist anymore provide a relative reference?
your question seems kind of odd, I thought maybe you thought this through.

 

[none]

It's position is relative to you while it exists, and it's hypothetical position is still relative to you when it only hypothetically exists.

if there was only one object where is the hypothetical position?

also how do you know the remaining object isn't rotating?

a) I don't know that it's not rotating.

the point is you don't know that it is not rotation.

 

[Wiploc]

It's position is relative to you while it exists, and it's hypothetical position is still relative to you when it only hypothetically exists.

also how do you know the remaining object isn't rotating?

Rotating relative to what?

why doesn't your answer of hypothetical position of an object that doesn't exist anymore provide a relative reference?
your question seems kind of odd,

Ah, rotating relative to the now-hypothetical object. I'm with you now. But I don't know what your point is. Is it rotating relative to that? I'm happy to accept either hypothetical. I don't know where you're headed.

I thought maybe you thought this through.

I'm just a layman who liked to read Asimov. No way I've thought it thru. That would involve math.

 

[none]

Ah, rotating relative to the now-hypothetical object. I'm with you now. But I don't know what your point is. Is it rotating relative to that? I'm happy to accept either hypothetical. I don't know where you're headed.

not a hypothetical object a hypothetical location.
Where is the hypothetical position relative to the object?
I am getting at when there is only one object in existence you can't really determine much about it especially rotation and motion.

 

[Wiploc]

if there was only one object where is the hypothetical position?

Hypothetically, the 2nd object is six miles due east, if the first object is a compass. In the alternative, the 2nd object is 9.65606 km towards 3 o'clock, if the 1st object is a metric clock.

also how do you know the remaining object isn't rotating?

a) I don't know that it's not rotating.

the point is you don't know that it is not rotation.

Hypothetically, I do know that the 1st object isn't rotating relative (all motion is relative) to the second object, because the 2nd object remained at 3 o'clock relative to the 1st object.

 

[Wiploc]

Ah, rotating relative to the now-hypothetical object. I'm with you now. But I don't know what your point is. Is it rotating relative to that? I'm happy to accept either hypothetical. I don't know where you're headed.

not a hypothetical object a hypothetical location.
Where is the hypothetical position relative to the object?
I am getting at when there is only one object in existence you can't really determine much about it especially rotation and motion.

I don't see the problem. Hypotheticallity would seem to make things easier, not harder. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that the 2nd object is a bean, and that the bean is hypothetically stuck in the first object's nose. In that case, then in the 1st object's nose is the hypothetical location of the hypothetical 2nd object. What's hard about that?

 

[none]

Hypothetically, the 2nd object is six miles due east, if the first object is a compass. In the alternative, the 2nd object is 9.65606 km towards 3 o'clock, if the 1st object is a metric clock.

also how do you know the remaining object isn't rotating?

a) I don't know that it's not rotating.

the point is you don't know that it is not rotation.

Hypothetically, I do know that the 1st object isn't rotating relative (all motion is relative) to the second object, because the 2nd object remained at 3 o'clock relative to the 1st object.

it was a good change up to introduce a hypothetical position.
Not much to say about that but it does seem to reinforce the idea of relativity.
one thing being relative to another.
but the whole issue I brought up is that you can't determine a object's motion if it is the only object.
I should say that without being relative to another thing you can't determine an objects motion.
I am pretty sure you can agree that without something relative to an object you can't determine it's motion.
if you can determine an object's motion without something else existing I would like to hear it.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, rotating relative to the now-hypothetical object. I'm with you now. But I don't know what your point is. Is it rotating relative to that? I'm happy to accept either hypothetical. I don't know where you're headed.

not a hypothetical object a hypothetical location.
Where is the hypothetical position relative to the object?
I am getting at when there is only one object in existence you can't really determine much about it especially rotation and motion.

I don't see the problem. Hypotheticallity would seem to make things easier, not harder. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that the 2nd object is a bean, and that the bean is hypothetically stuck in the first object's nose. In that case, then in the 1st object's nose is the hypothetical location of the hypothetical 2nd object. What's hard about that?

whats wrong is that I didn't evaluate your argument before I replied.

 

[zorq]

There was a riddle my teacher posed to the class back when I was taking physics and learning about relativity.

Imagine you are traveling in a spacefaring automobile/spaceship traveling the speed of light. When you turn on the headlights, what happens to the light? If you turn on the brake lights, what would happen to that light?

Many of us students supposed that the light from the headlights would just stay in the lampwell. We were wrong. We also supposed that the light from the brake lights would be dropped off in stopped in motion like bag of potatoes on the side of the road. We were wrong about that too.

It is actually a bit of trick question because nothing (with mass) can travel the speed of light. The truth is that even if you were in a vehicle traveling at 99.9999999% the speed of light, the light from the headlights would shoot out exactly like it does here on earth. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference just sitting in the spaceship. Because no matter how fast you are traveling compared to the speed of light the light would still be retreating from you at light speed.

The other trick to the question is that you can only ever travel at near light speeds relative to other objects. There is no such thing as traveling at 99.9999999% the speed of light except when you establish something that you are traveling at that speed relative to. So if you are able to wrap your head around it, if you establish the frame of reference as a neutrino fired out from the sun, the entire solar system is traveling at relativistic speeds RIGHT NOW. Unfortunately the only effect this has on us is that the neutrino exists for a longer time from our perspective.

It is this frame of reference mind trick exercise that helps to understand what is going on. When we are born on this planet from an early age we are overwhelmed by the overriding construct of location with respect to the earth. With everything we do we need to take the effects of the earth into consideration. We can't walk. We can't crawl. We can't bring food to our mouths accurately unless we take into account the effects of gravity on that food. To our infant minds we establish the Earth as the ultimate reference point. Later in school we learn about the solar system and we can begin to imagine the universe from different reference points but these are completely useless to us compared to our earthly reference point. We get the idea early on that there is an absolute way to measure speed and position of objects.

Unfortunately our instincts, while extremely useful for navigating life on earth are simply wrong when it comes to navigating the cosmos.

 

[fast]

If an object is moving relative to another object, then at least one (and highly likely both if we pick two at random) of the objects are moving absolutely--moving in fact and without the need to be characterized as moving relative to another object. Why deny this?

By the way, if someone realizes why I say at least one, they might also realize why I'm insistent that an object can be accurately described as moving in fact and without the need to invoke relativity.

On that note, talk to yall later,

yeah anybody can say motion isn't based on relativity, proving it is a little harder.
I have asked you many time to explain it but you skirt the question and try to change the subject.
have a look at post #165, try and reply to that post or I can just bump it until you turn off the blinders.

Events occur, and we can describe events that occur, but there is difference (an important difference) between events that occur (for instance, the orbit of Earth around the Sun) and the description of events that occur (for instance a person explaining the occurrence).

Sometimes, a description accurately describes the occurrences observed, and sometimes, a description fails to accurately describe the occurrences observed, but just as there can be multiple inaccurate description of occurrences, so too there can be multiple accurate descriptions.

I have no problem with accepting (for the most part) the description (I'm talking about a description here) of the motion of objects in terms of their relative movement to other objects, so I am not denying every aspect of how we are now taught in science to describe movement you read about in your physics book, but a) i do deny it false that there are no other yet accurate ways to describe events that actually occur in nature and b) I am very cautious not to accept every aspect of a theory that helps us explain the actual events and occurrences in nature simply because a theory holds up in non-extreme cases.

When we divert our attention away from describing multiple objects to simply describing a single object, we ought not forget what I said earlier about the fact there can be multiple yet accurate ways of describing events in nature. Apparently, the whole notion of relatively demands there be more than a single object for there to be motion, so it's no wonder we are compelled to deny the movement of an object in a hypothetical where there's only one object in our universe.

I find it mind-blowing how a learned theory can be so consuming that we can't imagine other accurate descriptions.

 

[fast]

But, if we were stopped when moving toward the sun (at dawn) then we'd have to be moving when we were going away from the sun (at dusk), right?

if we were stopped when moving?

When I said, "The funny thing about even saying that an object is moving relative to another is that one may in fact not truly be moving at all, " you responded with "There's no such thing."

Seriously? When speaking about the motion of an object in terms of its relative motion to another object, we're not merely talking about its motion but rather it's relative motion. If one object appears to pass another, we really can't tell which if any is stopped and that's partly why we speak in relative terms.

 

[zorq]

Fast, relativity isn't just an idea that some one came up with and talked about. Relativity is not just a "description" of how someone thinks things work. I know that you understand this, but I'm going to reinforce it.

The theory of Relativity makes predictions that have actually been tested in many different ways. Relativity has also been monetized by industry. All of the GPS satellites factor in the effects of the theory of relativity to maintain their orbits and keep their clocks in perfect sync. Not only has relativity been tested and verified by scientists, people are actively using it to make money here in the real world.

Now keeping that in mind, suppose you are right for a moment. Suppose that an object can be described as moving even though there is nothing to compare it to. What does this supposition offer us? Are there any advantages to this new information independent of all other reference points? What can we predict if objects have an internal status of motion independent of everything else?

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is an example of a valid non-deductive argument?

1 Almost all dogs are less than 1000 kg
2 Rex is a dog.
3 Rex is probably less than 1000 kg

If 1 and 2 are true, then 3 MUST be true?

Yep

are you sure?

I'm not sure.

Rex may be an elephant hound, and no elephant hound ways less than 1000kg.

So? That Rex may be more than 1000kg is already assumed in the argument. That Rex may be more than 1000kg does not change the possible validity of the argument.
So?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The notion that the speed of a massive body is somehow absolute seems to be a category error

Nah. Speed is relative. But that is maybe not what you ment...

That speed should be relative is fine with me. Re-reading my English it's clear that this is what my sentence sugested to begin with.

That being said, we don't really know what is speed anyway!

the way competent speakers use the word "speed", in the case of massive bodies, as the distance traveled divided by the time of travel.

Who are these "competent speakers"?

I knew you had no idea who they are!
Very simple. Tune to 198LW (not midday just now they are working on their broadcasting station or something! Try the evening.)

That's British English of course. It turns out competent speakers of English call themselves "the English".

Seems you speak of something else than speed at a specific time moment. Som sort of "mean speed over land" or something line that.

Why, I speak competent speaker's English! Look up English dictionaries. I'm talking about that sort of definitions. Sure, I mean mean speed. It's Hussain Bolt's kind of speed. Who would have a mind to disagree?

But how is distance measured if not relatively to other massive objects? Science says we don't measure the distance between two points of space but between objects.

Eh, again. Who says this?

Me.

But in competent speech, distance is the extent of space between two objects... or two places. So, the lexical meaning is clear and leaves room enough for the idea of absolute speed, which physicists say doesn't apply to the speed of massive objects.

What does these "physicist" really say? Cause what you say doesnt make sense.

It seems to make sense... Which part you don't like?

You can always talk about speed as the rate of change relative time of anything, really.

Sure but time itself is relative, right?

That real objects cannot have higher speed than c is a totally different matter.
I think your problem stems from the way we measure distance: in time units of light flight.

It's kinda out of the blue here.
Never mind.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

rex is a dog

Yes, all elephant hounds are dogs. And they all weigh over 1000kg.

what about the baby elephant hounds?

Yeah! Excellent!
Another cooky for ya!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

How about 99.9999999%? The dog would be about 22,361 times as heavy.

I'd say "massive", not heavy.

I take it that the poor dog would still weighs less than, say, 2,000kg on a weighnig machine at rest relative to it. Or Am I weightfully wrong here?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If there is only one object in an infinite featureless universe then the "constant velocity" is meaningless and simply will not exist: how much you accelerate you still wont be moving.

Not exactly true. Read what I posted on inertial navigation and measuring acceleration. You can determine achange in velocity by measuring acceleration.

You are on the single object. If acceleration has always been zero then you are ether at rest to some universal unchanging reference point or you are at a constant speed.

You fire a rocket attached to the object,and measure acceleration. Change in velocity is calculated. When the rocket stops firing and acceleration goes to zero, you knowyou are traveling at a constant speed.

If the lone object is a rocket and then the speed of the centre of gravity of rocket+fuel remains zero. If you want to count differently, then you have to count at least two objects, the rocket and the ejected fuel, and you leave the perimeter of the initial assumption of just one object. Then the speed of the rocket may be relative to the centre of gravity of the fuel already ejected or to the centre of gravity of the whole as representative of the state prior to firing the rocket, to get the acceleration. Either way, it remains relative.
EB