Need expert advice on how to handle a seemingly legitimate objection

[fast]

What made it stop moving? It's not moving relative to the other objects, but we're not discussing it's movement to other objects. We're discussing whether or not it's moving.

the distance value being zero, nothing measured as distance for a given time means it is not moving.
and if the object were the only thing, and that being singularity, the speed would be undefined...

What is up with this need to do math? I'm not out to make a calculation. I don't even care to measure any distance. I've already acknowledged that distance may be problematic to figure out when dealing with few to no objects. The issue isn't in figuring out the distance travelled but rather if (if, i say) an object is moving or isn't moving. Suppose an object strongly collides with another object of the same size and density and they change direction. The inertia from post impact alone suggests that the increasing distance is a function of the fact that both objects are moving. If one of the objects suddenly dissipates, there's no good reason to think the other object has even slowed down, let alone stopped.

All this jazz about it not moving because there's not another object moving relative to it goes to show you're more concerned about relativity, distance determination, and calculations. We don't need a formula. We just need to think through this and rule out why we know the object is moving despite the disappearance of our evidence not that it was (but rather is) in fact moving--while all the while remembering that the theory of relativity is not at issue.

 

[none]

...
What is up with this need to do math? I'm not out to make a calculation. I don't even care to measure any distance. I've already acknowledged that distance may be problematic to figure out when dealing with few to no objects. The issue isn't in figuring out the distance travelled but rather if (if, i say) an object is moving or isn't moving. Suppose an object strongly collides with another object of the same size and density and they change direction. The inertia from post impact alone suggests that the increasing distance is a function of the fact that both objects are moving. If one of the objects suddenly dissipates, there's no good reason to think the other object has even slowed down, let alone stopped.

All this jazz about it not moving because there's not another object moving relative to it goes to show you're more concerned about relativity, distance determination, and calculations. We don't need a formula. We just need to think through this and rule out why we know the object is moving despite the disappearance of our evidence not that it was (but rather is) in fact moving--while all the while remembering that the theory of relativity is not at issue.

motion is a ratio, do you understand what a ratio is?
distance is part of that ratio and so is time.
quit jumping to incorrect conclusions.
speed = distance/time , motion = distance/time
the ratio expressed by distance and time IS MOTION.
what is the problem?
I haven't used any numbers, this is all conceptual and the basics at that...nothing difficult but you seem to fail at grasping the simple explanation.
I hope that you can understand this post.

 

[Wiploc]

How fast is our planet moving compared to the speed of light?

We are stopped, relative to the speed of light, as we observe from here.

This is true for every observer in every situation. How can you and I both be stopped relative to the speed of light when we aren't stopped relative to each other? That's why Einstein had to invent relativity, to make sense of that.

Something just aint right somewhere. These truths you keep speaking of seem to leave me no closer to my answer.

Your answer is that there is a master speedometer that is right, and everything else is wrong. Nothing is going to get you closer to that answer.

If an object is moving 1/2 the speed of light and I want to know how fast it's moving,

Everything is moving at half the speed of light --- according to things that are moving that fast relative to it.

I don't need a response that the question is confused because it's not asking how fast it's going relative to something else,

There is no other standard.

and I don't need to hear it's not moving at all relative to the speed of light. I need to hear that it's moving 335,308,315 MPH.

Then it's moving at 335,308,315 relative to things that are moving 335,308,315 relative to it. That's all the answer there is. Any contrary opinion is pre-Einsteinian, out of date, known to be wrong.

 

[fast]

...
What is up with this need to do math? I'm not out to make a calculation. I don't even care to measure any distance. I've already acknowledged that distance may be problematic to figure out when dealing with few to no objects. The issue isn't in figuring out the distance travelled but rather if (if, i say) an object is moving or isn't moving. Suppose an object strongly collides with another object of the same size and density and they change direction. The inertia from post impact alone suggests that the increasing distance is a function of the fact that both objects are moving. If one of the objects suddenly dissipates, there's no good reason to think the other object has even slowed down, let alone stopped.

All this jazz about it not moving because there's not another object moving relative to it goes to show you're more concerned about relativity, distance determination, and calculations. We don't need a formula. We just need to think through this and rule out why we know the object is moving despite the disappearance of our evidence not that it was (but rather is) in fact moving--while all the while remembering that the theory of relativity is not at issue.

motion is a ratio, do you understand what a ratio is?
distance is part of that ratio and so is time.
quit jumping to incorrect conclusions.
speed = distance/time , motion = distance/time
the ratio expressed by distance and time IS MOTION.
what is the problem?
I haven't used any numbers, this is all conceptual and the basics at that...nothing difficult but you seem to fail at grasping the simple explanation.
I hope that you can understand this post.

The problem is that you insist there is no distance between two separate points in space when we cant measure the distance between two separate points in space.

 

[none]

The problem is that you insist there is no distance between two separate points in space when we cant measure the distance between two separate points in space.

I am not insisting that at all.
you said something about 3 objects and speed, that is not really what you are saying here.
if there was only one object and it moved in space the distance is the start and finish if you can establish them.
so the explanation I gave you is still valid, motion = distance/time.
now can you establish two separate points with only one object?

 

[fast]

How fast is our planet moving compared to the speed of light?

We are stopped, relative to the speed of light, as we observe from here.

This is true for every observer in every situation. How can you and I both be stopped relative to the speed of light when we aren't stopped relative to each other? That's why Einstein had to invent relativity, to make sense of that.

Something just aint right somewhere. These truths you keep speaking of seem to leave me no closer to my answer.

Your answer is that there is a master speedometer that is right, and everything else is wrong. Nothing is going to get you closer to that answer.

If an object is moving 1/2 the speed of light and I want to know how fast it's moving,

Everything is moving at half the speed of light --- according to things that are moving that fast relative to it.

I don't need a response that the question is confused because it's not asking how fast it's going relative to something else,

There is no other standard.

and I don't need to hear it's not moving at all relative to the speed of light. I need to hear that it's moving 335,308,315 MPH.

Then it's moving at 335,308,315 relative to things that are moving 335,308,315 relative to it. That's all the answer there is. Any contrary opinion is pre-Einsteinian, out of date, known to be wrong.

I grasp what you're saying. What i don't grasp is why that's the only accurate view. Why, for instance, if an object is moving at c-c, why isn't it accurate to say that object isn't moving even if it has a so-called speed RELATIVE to other objects?

 

[fast]

The problem is that you insist there is no distance between two separate points in space when we cant measure the distance between two separate points in space.

I am not insisting that at all.
you said something about 3 objects and speed, that is not really what you are saying here.
if there was only one object and it moved in space the distance is the start and finish if you can establish them.
so the explanation I gave you is still valid, motion = distance/time.
now can you establish two separate points with only one object?

What does establishing the distance have to do with there being a distance? We know that objects are moving! Our planet is moving. We're moving! If all other objects in the universe dissipated, we would no longer be moving relative to other objects, but we're still moving!

ETA: and it still doesn't effect your formulas. You might not be able to figure out what numbers to use, so you might not be able to figure out how fast we're moving, but it's still true. We might have more difficulties with our imaginary singular object, as it hasn't been established whether it was moving or not, but unless you think our planet alone is the only thing not moving in the entire universe, then we're moving. I take that back. We're still moving, and again, that's even if every other object in the universe were to dissipate.

 

[none]

...
What does establishing the distance have to do with there being a distance?
...

what is music without sound?
seriously, without a distance you can't determine motion.
it is very simple, just like music isn't understood without sound.
if you can't measure a distance for a duration then the distance is zero, and it follows that there is no motion.

...
If all other objects in the universe dissipated, we would no longer be moving relative to other objects, but we're still moving!
...

how do you arrive at this conclusion?

ETA: and it still doesn't effect your formulas. You might not be able to figure out what numbers to use, so you might not be able to figure out how fast we're moving, but it's still true. We might have more difficulties with our imaginary singular object, as it hasn't been established whether it was moving or not, but unless you think our planet alone is the only thing not moving in the entire universe, then we're moving. I take that back. We're still moving, and again, that's even if every other object in the universe were to dissipate.

this isn't a logical conclusion given the physics I know.
how do you arrive at this conclusion?

 

[fast]

what is music without sound?
seriously, without a distance you can't determine motion.
it is very simple, just like music isn't understood without sound.
if you can't measure a distance for a duration then the distance is zero, and it follows that there is no motion.

How far did you walk today? Don't guess. In inches, what is the exact distance you walked?

 

[none]

what is music without sound?
seriously, without a distance you can't determine motion.
it is very simple, just like music isn't understood without sound.
if you can't measure a distance for a duration then the distance is zero, and it follows that there is no motion.

How far did you walk today? Don't guess. In inches, what is the exact distance you walked?

don't change the subject.
I asked you to explain your hypothetical.
how do you determine motion if there is only one object in existence?

 

[fast]

what is music without sound?
seriously, without a distance you can't determine motion.
it is very simple, just like music isn't understood without sound.
if you can't measure a distance for a duration then the distance is zero, and it follows that there is no motion.

How far did you walk today? Don't guess. In inches, what is the exact distance you walked?

don't change the subject.
I asked you to explain your hypothetical.
how do you determine motion if there is only one object in existence?

I'm not changing the subject.

Let me try another way. If an object outside of the observable universe were to enter the observable universe today, was the object in motion yesterday?

 

[none]

...
Let me try another way. If an object outside of the observable universe were to enter the observable universe today, was the object in motion yesterday?

this is a different question and hypothetical.
try answering the question with a statement of opinion or fact instead of answering with a new hypothetical and question.
how do you determine motion if there is only one object?

 

[fast]

...
Let me try another way. If an object outside of the observable universe were to enter the observable universe today, was the object in motion yesterday?

this is a different question and hypothetical.
try answering the question with a statement of opinion or fact instead of answering with a new hypothetical and question.
how do you determine motion if there is only one object?

I have resorted to trying to understand your question better, for I'm really starting to think that we're not on the same page as to what that really means. I think an answer to that previous question might really help.

 

[none]

I have resorted to trying to understand your question better, for I'm really starting to think that we're not on the same page as to what that really means. I think an answer to that previous question might really help.

what is there to understand?
you said "Let me try another way." and then asked about a different hypothetical... you are trying to change the subject from a single object being in motion to some new hypothetical.
if you can't establish your reasoning about a single object being in motion why should I entertain an endless amount of different hypotheticals?
Anyways, I'd say if a object came into existence that wasn't there previously we couldn't determine it's prior state because it wasn't in existence, but that is just me.
Now here is one for you: If I became a clown because I wore clown clothes was I a clown before I put the clown clothes on?
seriously, just justify the reasoning of a single object in motion without any other objects.
I explained to you that motion is the ratio of distance divided by time, you can't have motion without both time and distance.

 

[fast]

I have resorted to trying to understand your question better, for I'm really starting to think that we're not on the same page as to what that really means. I think an answer to that previous question might really help.

what is there to understand?
you said "Let me try another way." and then asked about a different hypothetical... you are trying to change the subject from a single object being in motion to some new hypothetical.
if you can't establish your reasoning about a single object being in motion why should I entertain an endless amount of different hypotheticals?
Anyways, I'd say if a object came into existence that wasn't there previously we couldn't determine it's prior state because it wasn't in existence, but that is just me.
Now here is one for you: If I became a clown because I wore clown clothes was I a clown before I put the clown clothes on?
seriously, just justify the reasoning of a single object in motion without any other objects.
I explained to you that motion is the ratio of distance divided by time, you can't have motion without both time and distance.

Came into existence? Where did I say anything about coming into existence?

Yes, you did explain that motion is a ratio, and I believe you're sorely mistaken about that.

 

[none]

Came into existence? Where did I say anything about coming into existence?

yeah there could be branes and a manifold, but this is a distraction... a subject change that you want me to engage in.
and I am not interested in you lecturing me on this subject and you haven't explained the basic physics denying hypothetical you propose of a single object moving in space.

Yes, you did explain that motion is a ratio, and I believe you're sorely mistaken about that.

then incorporate that opinion into a reasonable reply as to how you determine motion if there is only one object.

 

[fast]

I have resorted to trying to understand your question better, for I'm really starting to think that we're not on the same page as to what that really means. I think an answer to that previous question might really help.

what is there to understand?
you said "Let me try another way." and then asked about a different hypothetical... you are trying to change the subject from a single object being in motion to some new hypothetical.
if you can't establish your reasoning about a single object being in motion why should I entertain an endless amount of different hypotheticals?
Anyways, I'd say if a object came into existence that wasn't there previously we couldn't determine it's prior state because it wasn't in existence, but that is just me.
Now here is one for you: If I became a clown because I wore clown clothes was I a clown before I put the clown clothes on?
seriously, just justify the reasoning of a single object in motion without any other objects.
I explained to you that motion is the ratio of distance divided by time, you can't have motion without both time and distance.

As to the bold, my justification is that the sheer presence of other objects have no bearing on the motion of a single object, and by motion, I certainly don't mean relative motion, and if you think there is no other kind, then you're apparently in good company, as it's quite obvious others believe that too.

 

[fast]

yeah there could be branes and a manifold, but this is a distraction... a subject change that you want me to engage in.
and I am not interested in you lecturing me on this subject and you haven't explained the basic physics denying hypothetical you propose of a single object moving in space.

Yes, you did explain that motion is a ratio, and I believe you're sorely mistaken about that.

then incorporate that opinion into a reasonable reply as to how you determine motion if there is only one object.

I cant help but wonder what you mean by determine motion when you think motion is a ratio. That's why I made my comment about math earlier.

 

[none]

seriously, just justify the reasoning of a single object in motion without any other objects.

As to the bold, my justification is that the sheer presence of other objects have no bearing on the motion of a single object,

they could affect it's vector through their gravitational fields.
so you are wrong there.
but your comment is about more than one object, I am still waiting for your explanation of how you can determine motion if there is only one object.

and by motion, I certainly don't mean relative motion, and if you think there is no other kind, then you're apparently in good company, as it's quite obvious others believe that too.

so explain this motion that is not relative, I couldn't find it in my physics book.
If you know what you are talking about why not just answer the question: how can you determine speed if there is only one object?

- - - Updated - - -

I cant help but wonder what you mean by determine motion when you think motion is a ratio. That's why I made my comment about math earlier.

that is because it is WIDELY accepted that motion is a ratio of time and distance.
explain motion without distance, then explain motion without time...
It's all you buddy...

 

[fast]

they could affect it's vector through their gravitational fields.
so you are wrong there.

That dawned on me as I wrote that. Rather than explain why I posted it in such a hurry, I do concede on that point, and yes, I was wrong about that.

- - - Updated - - -

Determine speed or determine the speed?