Need expert advice on how to handle a seemingly legitimate objection

[Wiploc]

Let's say all objects in motion ceased.

To make sense of that, I'm going to imagine that everything goes the same speed. Everything matches speed with, say, Pee Wee Herman. So every tardyon is stopped, relative to every other tardyon.

Seriously? The same speed, yeah--exactly zero miles per hour;

Relative to what?

hence, not moving at any speed at all.

Relative to what?

Nothing is moving!

Relative to what? Except for Pee Wee, everything is moving relative to how it used to be moving.

What's the relevance of the fact that it can be put in terms of being relative?

That's the only coherent way to put it. There is no magic speedometer that can tell you you are stopped without being stopped relative to something.

That's not a necessary quality to bring up.

Unless you want to make sense according to modern science.

You make it sound like a universe with only a single object can't be moving

A universe moving? How would that work? What would it be moving relative to?

unless there's another object to compare it to or for it to be relative with.

Bingo! Exactly! You get it!

Sure, it may appear to not move,

Relative to what?

but if it's getting closer to the outer reaches of the galaxy, it's moving.

A universe moving relative to the outer reaches of the galaxy? Fine. You've got two things, and one is moving relative to the other. I'm with you.

We talk in terms of objects in motion being in motion relative to other objects, yes, but motion, movement, and velocity doesn't require that fact.

Unless Einstein and all them brainy guys are right.

It may be a fact, but it's not necessary.

It seems to be necessary. All motion is relative. If you aren't moving relative to something else, then you aren't moving.

What I'm saying isn't contradicting relativity.

I'm contradicting you. I'm saying that you're contradicting relativity. You're saying that there is some secret absolute objective object (Jehovah, the center of the universe, or whatever) that is "really" stopped. You think that all other speeds are relative to it's speed, but it's speed isn't relative to them.

I'm telling you that this is pre-Einstein thinking. If relativity is true, you are wrong.

Objects do move in speeds relative to other moving objects. So what?

So that's what speed means.

If the only single object in a one-object universe is moving,

Relative to what? What can you mean if you say it is moving?

then that is so whether we can tell it's moving or not, and if the only single object in a one-object universe is not moving, then that is so whether we can tell it's stopped or not.

Those are viewpoint claims, not truth claims. We can say that the real object is moving ten miles an hour relative to an imaginary object that is moving ten miles an hour relative to it. One viewpoint is as good as another. Neither one (the real object's viewpoint or the imaginary object's viewpoint) is true, or right, or better than the other. There is no ultimate arbiter of the one object's speed.

Truth, as philosophy has taught us is independent of our knowledge of the truth.

Yes, agreed.

If the cat is in the other room, then that is so whether we know the cat is in the room or not.

Agreed.

But it is not truth-apt to say that the only object in the universe is moving. That's a viewpoint thing (like "Coffee tastes good") rather than a true-or-false thing. The only sense in which anything can move is relative to something else.

 

[fast]

I didn't mean to imply a moving universe. I meant a single moving object within it. However, your answer wouldn't have changed.

Let me try it another way. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the universe was finite with an actual border, and to make it more interesting, any time an object would reach the border, it would either bounce back and change directions depending on whether the area hit on the border was vibrating. If an object hit the border in an area it wasn't vibrating, the object would simply stop at the border. Occasionally, certain areas of the border would start vibrating and cause the stationary object to move. This would easily allow Peewee to calculate the speed an object is moving. He does it and now knows how fast objects are moving.

Later, the vibrations became too great to sustain a border and the universe started expanding, but he kept track of the speeds a lot of different objects were moving, not relative to other objects in motion but relative (since you like that word so much) to the speed they were traveling when they weren't moving at all.

Einstein came along years later and noticed no borders or mile markers to establish a baseline of no movement, but he did realize that he could measure speed relative to other objects. If only peewee would of shared his knowledge! It must be true, for there is no knowledge of the truth unless there is truth to have knowledge of.

Again, our inability to ascertain that an object is stationary, regardless of it's relative speed to other objects, is no good reason to deny the possibility of a stationary object.

 

[Wiploc]

I didn't mean to imply a moving universe. I meant a single moving object within it. However, your answer wouldn't have changed.

Let me try it another way. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the universe was finite with an actual border, and to make it more interesting, any time an object would reach the border,

Or the border reached the object, since that is two different equally valid ways of describing the same phenomenon.

it would either bounce back and change directions depending

or the border would bounce back or change directions.

on whether the area hit on the border was vibrating. If an object hit the border in an area it wasn't vibrating, the object would simply stop at the border. Occasionally, certain areas of the border would start vibrating and cause the stationary object to move. This would easily allow Peewee to calculate the speed an object is moving.

The speed the object is moving relative to the border.

He does it and now knows how fast objects are moving.

Relative to the border.

Later, the vibrations became too great to sustain a border and the universe started expanding, but he kept track of the speeds a lot of different objects were moving, not relative to other objects in motion but relative (since you like that word so much) to the speed they were traveling when they weren't moving at all.

When they weren't moving at all relative to the border.

Einstein came along years later and noticed no borders or mile markers to establish a baseline of no movement, but he did realize that he could measure speed relative to other objects. If only peewee would of shared his knowledge!

Einstein isn't like you and me. His opinion isn't based on a lack of knowledge.

...

Again, our inability to ascertain that an object is stationary, regardless of it's relative speed to other objects, is no good reason to deny the possibility of a stationary object.

Right, it would be stupid to say "All motion is relative" just because you don't know any better. But Einstein wasn't stupid.


I think we've covered the waterfront here. I know what you're thinking, and you know what I and Einstein and modern science are thinking. We don't have to continue this discussion unless you want to.

 

[fast]

Or the border reached the object, since that is two different equally valid ways of describing the same phenomenon.

If the border isn't moving, then to say the border reached the object is a misleading suggestion that the border was in motion, and even the fact that the object was moving relative to the border's position doesn't change the fact that the border isn't moving, yet you maintain the description is equally valid.

In other news, I like cookies.

 

[Wiploc]

Or the border reached the object, since that is two different equally valid ways of describing the same phenomenon.

If the border isn't moving, then to say the border reached the object is a misleading suggestion that the border was in motion, and even the fact that the object was moving relative to the border's position doesn't change the fact that the border isn't moving, yet you maintain the description is equally valid.

The object and the border are getting closer together. You can describe that as the object moving, or you can describe it as the border moving. Because motion is relative, that's one thing described two different ways. Neither description can be said to be right at the expense of the other, because no frame of reference has priority over another.

 

[steve_bnk]

Vibrating boundaries and bouncing objects.

Couple imagination with some math and physics and you get cosmologies.

 

[fast]

Or the border reached the object, since that is two different equally valid ways of describing the same phenomenon.

If the border isn't moving, then to say the border reached the object is a misleading suggestion that the border was in motion, and even the fact that the object was moving relative to the border's position doesn't change the fact that the border isn't moving, yet you maintain the description is equally valid.

The object and the border are getting closer together. You can describe that as the object moving, or you can describe it as the border moving. Because motion is relative, that's one thing described two different ways. Neither description can be said to be right at the expense of the other, because no frame of reference has priority over another.

You are stuck on using the premise that motion is relative to support the same conclusion.

Let me try this yet another way. Can we measure the movement of an object relative to the speed of light?

 

[Wiploc]

You are stuck on using the premise that motion is relative to support the same conclusion.

As you are stuck on using the premise that motion is relative to some ultimate magical unprovable standard to support that same conclusion. The difference is that I am explaining the opinion of science, and you are explaining how you personally would like things to be.

Let me try this yet another way. Can we measure the movement of an object relative to the speed of light?

We do it all the time. We take two objects. We arbitrarily assume that one of them is stopped. We determine how fast the "moving" object seems to the "stopped" object. We compare that to the speed of light, which we know is the same for everybody, which is why Einstein's system is necessary to make sense of the observed universe.

 

[fast]

As you are stuck on using the premise that motion is relative to some ultimate magical unprovable standard to support that same conclusion. The difference is that I am explaining the opinion of science, and you are explaining how you personally would like things to be.

Let me try this yet another way. Can we measure the movement of an object relative to the speed of light?

We do it all the time. We take two objects. We arbitrarily assume that one of them is stopped. We determine how fast the "moving" object seems to the "stopped" object. We compare that to the speed of light, which we know is the same for everybody, which is why Einstein's system is necessary to make sense of the observed universe.

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

 

[zorq]

As you are stuck on using the premise that motion is relative to some ultimate magical unprovable standard to support that same conclusion. The difference is that I am explaining the opinion of science, and you are explaining how you personally would like things to be.

Let me try this yet another way. Can we measure the movement of an object relative to the speed of light?

We do it all the time. We take two objects. We arbitrarily assume that one of them is stopped. We determine how fast the "moving" object seems to the "stopped" object. We compare that to the speed of light, which we know is the same for everybody, which is why Einstein's system is necessary to make sense of the observed universe.

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

The funny thing is that this question only makes sense once you offer another reference point, (some other body, perhaps a celestial body) in relation to the earth.

Motion simply CAN NOT be described without another reference point.

The speed of light is 299 792.458 kilometer / second

How fast is the Earth spinning? 0.5 km/sec ~~ 0.00016 % the speed of light
How fast is the Earth revolving around the Sun? 30 km/sec ~~ 0.01% the speed of light
How fast is the Solar System moving around the Milky Way Galaxy? 250 km/sec ~~ 0.083%the speed of light
How fast is our Milky Way Galaxy moving in the Local Group of galaxies? 300 km/sec ~~ 0.1 % the speed of light
How fast is Earth moving compared to the universe's background radiation? 583 km/s ~~ 0.194 % the speed of light.

 

[fast]

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Speed_of_Earth.html

How many times did they use the word "relative" or mention Einstein?

 

[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.

 

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

 

[none]

@fast, if there was only one observable ( singularity ) how fast would it be moving if there was nothing else?

 

[fast]

@fast, if there was only one observable ( singularity ) how fast would it be moving if there was nothing else?

I don't know, but our inability to figure it out neither entails that's it's moving nor entails that it's not. Suppose an object is increasing it's speed relative to another object and that other object vanished. Do you think the object increasing in speed is now stationary just because it's relative speed to that other object has now changed?

 

[none]

@fast, if there was only one observable ( singularity ) how fast would it be moving if there was nothing else?

I don't know, but our inability to figure it out neither entails that's it's moving nor entails that it's not. Suppose an object is increasing it's speed relative to another object and that other object vanished. Do you think the object increasing in speed is now stationary just because it's relative speed to that other object has now changed?

the way I see the problem you ask is this:
lets say the singularity fractured then reformed, what is the speed of the reformed singularity?

 

[fast]

@fast, if there was only one observable ( singularity ) how fast would it be moving if there was nothing else?

I don't know, but our inability to figure it out neither entails that's it's moving nor entails that it's not. Suppose an object is increasing it's speed relative to another object and that other object vanished. Do you think the object increasing in speed is now stationary just because it's relative speed to that other object has now changed?

the way I see the problem you ask is this:
lets say the singularity fractured then reformed, what is the speed of the reformed singularity?

Well, let's see, if there is a singularity not in motion then fractures, the fractured pieces would be moving out at a speed greater than 0, increase speed until it stopped, then increase speed going back to the center and then stop again.

If the singularity is in motion (speed y), then fractures, then the speed of the pieces in the direction of the moving object would increase in speed (speed y) and the pieces now near where the object once was would be moving slower (speed w). Then the pieces wouldn't stop; rather, the fast pieces would slow and the slow pieces would speed up and eventually all pieces would be moving at speed y again.

 

[none]

@fast, if there was only one observable ( singularity ) how fast would it be moving if there was nothing else?

I don't know, but our inability to figure it out neither entails that's it's moving nor entails that it's not. Suppose an object is increasing it's speed relative to another object and that other object vanished. Do you think the object increasing in speed is now stationary just because it's relative speed to that other object has now changed?

the way I see the problem you ask is this:
lets say the singularity fractured then reformed, what is the speed of the reformed singularity?

Well, let's see, if there is a singularity not in motion then fractures, the fractured pieces would be moving out at a speed greater than 0, increase speed until it stopped, then increase speed going back to the center and then stop again.

If the singularity is in motion (speed y), then fractures, then the speed of the pieces in the direction of the moving object would increase in speed (speed y) and the pieces now near where the object once was would be moving slower (speed w). Then the pieces wouldn't stop; rather, the fast pieces would slow and the slow pieces would speed up and eventually all pieces would be moving at speed y again.

I think you are making the wrong conclusion. I don't think you can measure the speed of everything reformed into singularity.
I agree before the fracture you say speed is indeterminate and the you say all the particles from the fracture have relative speed, but I have to ask: once the singularity reforms how are you able to determine it's speed?

 

[fast]

@fast, if there was only one observable ( singularity ) how fast would it be moving if there was nothing else?

I don't know, but our inability to figure it out neither entails that's it's moving nor entails that it's not. Suppose an object is increasing it's speed relative to another object and that other object vanished. Do you think the object increasing in speed is now stationary just because it's relative speed to that other object has now changed?

the way I see the problem you ask is this:
lets say the singularity fractured then reformed, what is the speed of the reformed singularity?

Well, let's see, if there is a singularity not in motion then fractures, the fractured pieces would be moving out at a speed greater than 0, increase speed until it stopped, then increase speed going back to the center and then stop again.

If the singularity is in motion (speed y), then fractures, then the speed of the pieces in the direction of the moving object would increase in speed (speed y) and the pieces now near where the object once was would be moving slower (speed w). Then the pieces wouldn't stop; rather, the fast pieces would slow and the slow pieces would speed up and eventually all pieces would be moving at speed y again.

I think you are making the wrong conclusion. I don't think you can measure the speed of everything reformed into singularity.
I agree before the fracture you say speed is indeterminate and the you say all the particles from the fracture have relative speed, but I have to ask: once the singularity reforms how are you able to determine it's speed?

I didn't mean to suggest that I could measure the pieces after reformation. For that matter, I wasn't even suggesting i could measure the speed of the reformed object, but I do believe an object is either moving or not and that movement is also independent of relative objects in motion, even though our measurements of objects are often calculated relative to other objects in motion. The fact objects are in motion relative to other objects doesn't entail the necessity of it for it to be true objects are in motion.

All the particles may have relative speed, but that's not a necessary condition of actual speed. Also, neither relative speed nor actual speed requires measurement for it to be so that objects have those speeds. Imagine 3 objects in space and one of them is going slower than the other two, and the other two are moving at the same speed. The two faster objects zoom by the slower object and then the slower object and one of the faster objects disappear. I would say the remaining object is in fact moving. The lack of a relative object to measure it's speed against doesn't seem to contradict that point. It may not be an object in motion relative to another object in motion, but it's nevertheless an object in motion.

 

[none]

...
The two faster objects zoom by the slower object and then the slower object and one of the faster objects disappear. I would say the remaining object is in fact moving. The lack of a relative object to measure it's speed against doesn't seem to contradict that point. It may not be an object in motion relative to another object in motion, but it's nevertheless an object in motion.

then tell me the speed of singularity if you don't need a relative object...