Need expert advice on how to handle a seemingly legitimate objection

[none]

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.

It is ok, I understand sometimes we all can type faster than our logic

 

[fast]

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...
I'm not denying what you think I am. I am making a vital distinction between an objects motion through space and the formula we use to calculate an objects motion through space.

 

[none]

Determine speed or determine the speed?

the speed... I should have said motion as that is a better description of what is in your hypothetical.
So back to the topic...how are you determining the motion of a single object with no other objects?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not denying what you think I am. I am making a vital distinction between an objects motion through space and the formula we use to calculate an objects motion through space.

yeah who needs the ratio of distance over time when we can use something else..
what is the explanation? how do you determine the motion of a single object with no other objects? especially without the ratio of distance over time...

 

[fast]

Determine speed or determine the speed?

the speed... I should have said motion as that is a better description of what is in your hypothetical.
So back to the topic...how are you determining the motion of a single object with no other objects?

i never set out to determine that. I would need to know the distance it travelled for that.

 

[none]

Determine speed or determine the speed?

the speed... I should have said motion as that is a better description of what is in your hypothetical.
So back to the topic...how are you determining the motion of a single object with no other objects?

i never set out to determine that. I would need to know the distance it travelled for that.

glad you said that you need a distance to calculate speed.
here... I asked you and you replied with a question.

@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?

But now you know that you need distance to determine an objects speed.
and this is proved by not being able to calculate the speed of a single object, because you can't determine it's distance traveled.
you said this:

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.

You either at this point understand you can't have speed with a single object or you don't understand, and if you introduce a second object you can determine speed because the two objects are relative to each other.
the key word is relative... everything is relative...
here is what space is, and everything is relative....:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space

Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction.
...

now I am waiting for those quantum physics hacks to argue I am wrong...

 

[Wiploc]

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.

You've established that it is moving, relative to the "slower" object.

The lack of a relative object to measure it's speed against doesn't seem to contradict that point.

Right. It's moving relative to situation/viewpoint/frame of reference of the "slower" object. The fact that that particular object no longer exists doesn't eliminate that frame of reference. Suppose, for another example, that you are driving 30mph relative to Elm Street, when the earth vaporizes. You don't stop. You keep moving 30mph relative to where Elm Street was.

It may not be an object in motion relative to another object in motion, but it's nevertheless an object in motion.

Relative to the other (now nonexistent) object is the only sense in which we've established that it's in motion.

 

[Wiploc]

If we could superimpose a 3D grid (with x, y, z coordinates) on the universe, we would clearly see that most if not all objects are moving, but we can't do such a thing, but the inability to do so doesn't show that objects are not in motion.

The grid's frame of reference isn't privileged over any other frame of reference. The assumption that the grid isn't moving is no less arbitrary and no more true than the assumption that the earth is not moving.

I suppose some of you think time doesn't pass either in a universe with no objects.

I believe this. Call it a lightly-held belief. If you can show some change happening that doesn't involve objects, then I'll believe time passes.

Smart people can make complicated calculations; they can run exciting experiments. They can produce some amazing and admirable results, but when it comes to the interpretation of those results, they can really lead people astray.

I recommend reading about the Michelson Morley experiment. Fascinating stuff, and it may give you a glimpse of why we no longer believe in absolute speeds.

 

[fast]

Determine speed or determine the speed?

the speed... I should have said motion as that is a better description of what is in your hypothetical.
So back to the topic...how are you determining the motion of a single object with no other objects?

i never set out to determine that. I would need to know the distance it travelled for that.

glad you said that you need a distance to calculate speed.
here... I asked you and you replied with a question.

@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?

But now you know that you need distance to determine an objects speed.
and this is proved by not being able to calculate the speed of a single object, because you can't determine it's distance traveled.
you said this:

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.

You either at this point understand you can't have speed with a single object or you don't understand, and if you introduce a second object you can determine speed because the two objects are relative to each other.
the key word is relative... everything is relative...
here is what space is, and everything is relative....:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space

Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction.
...

now I am waiting for those quantum physics hacks to argue I am wrong...

But now I know? Are you honestly trying to have a serious conversation?

Yes, I said this:
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?

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?

 

[Wiploc]

I gave you an example of 3 objects moving where 2 vanished leaving a single moving object.

glad we are able to discuss your hypothetical again....
how do you know the single object is moving?

Because I had other objects to compare it against

you HAD other objects, so when the reference disappears ( other objects ) so does it's motion, ...

Fast, I'm with you on this one point. If you were moving before, you're still moving now, because you haven't slowed down.

If the object X was one mile behind you at a second after noon, and two miles behind you at two seconds after noon, then I have no problem saying that it would have been four miles behind you at four seconds after noon---if it had still existed. You are still moving relative to that now-imaginary object that is moving away from you at one mile per second.

But that doesn't mean you are moving in some absolute sense. You are moving relative to that now-imaginary object, but you are stopped relative to yourself (and relative to any imaginary objects that are stopped relative to yourself).

 

[none]

Fast, I'm with you on this one point. If you were moving before, you're still moving now, because you haven't slowed down.

If the object X was one mile behind you at a second after noon, and two miles behind you at two seconds after noon, then I have no problem saying that it would have been four miles behind you at four seconds after noon---if it had still existed. You are still moving relative to that now-imaginary object that is moving away from you at one mile per second.

Hi, Wiploc..
If there were only two objects and one disappeared after the distance between them changed how do you determine the current speed of the remaining object?

 

[Wiploc]

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?

What is it moving at C-C relative to? See, we're all moving at C-C relative to ourselves.

 

[fast]

I gave you an example of 3 objects moving where 2 vanished leaving a single moving object.

glad we are able to discuss your hypothetical again....
how do you know the single object is moving?

Because I had other objects to compare it against

you HAD other objects, so when the reference disappears ( other objects ) so does it's motion, ...

Fast, I'm with you on this one point. If you were moving before, you're still moving now, because you haven't slowed down.

If the object X was one mile behind you at a second after noon, and two miles behind you at two seconds after noon, then I have no problem saying that it would have been four miles behind you at four seconds after noon---if it had still existed. You are still moving relative to that now-imaginary object that is moving away from you at one mile per second.

But that doesn't mean you are moving in some absolute sense. You are moving relative to that now-imaginary object, but you are stopped relative to yourself (and relative to any imaginary objects that are stopped relative to yourself).

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

 

[none]

Fast, I'm with you on this one point. If you were moving before, you're still moving now, because you haven't slowed down.

If the object X was one mile behind you at a second after noon, and two miles behind you at two seconds after noon, then I have no problem saying that it would have been four miles behind you at four seconds after noon---if it had still existed. You are still moving relative to that now-imaginary object that is moving away from you at one mile per second.

Hi, Wiploc..
If there were only two objects and one disappeared after the distance between them changed how do you determine the current speed of the remaining object?

I hope this doesn't get lost, but I would really like an explanation Wiploc..

 

[fast]

Fast, I'm with you on this one point. If you were moving before, you're still moving now, because you haven't slowed down.

If the object X was one mile behind you at a second after noon, and two miles behind you at two seconds after noon, then I have no problem saying that it would have been four miles behind you at four seconds after noon---if it had still existed. You are still moving relative to that now-imaginary object that is moving away from you at one mile per second.

Hi, Wiploc..
If there were only two objects and one disappeared after the distance between them changed how do you determine the current speed of the remaining object?

If we logically deduce that an object is moving, we need not determine it's speed to know it's moving.

 

[none]

Fast, I'm with you on this one point. If you were moving before, you're still moving now, because you haven't slowed down.

If the object X was one mile behind you at a second after noon, and two miles behind you at two seconds after noon, then I have no problem saying that it would have been four miles behind you at four seconds after noon---if it had still existed. You are still moving relative to that now-imaginary object that is moving away from you at one mile per second.

Hi, Wiploc..
If there were only two objects and one disappeared after the distance between them changed how do you determine the current speed of the remaining object?

If we logically deduce that an object is moving, we need not determine it's speed to know it's moving.

we just had a very long conversation about this.
how do you know a single object is moving if it is the only object in existence?

 

[none]

check post #165 in this thread...

 

[Wiploc]

Hi, Wiploc..
If there were only two objects and one disappeared after the distance between them changed how do you determine the current speed of the remaining object?

- The object is still stopped relative to itself, like it always was.

- If the 2nd object was moving ten miles an hour relative to the 1st object, then the first object is still moving at ten miles per hour relative to where the 2nd object would be (relative to the 1st object) if it still existed.

 

[none]

Hi, Wiploc..
If there were only two objects and one disappeared after the distance between them changed how do you determine the current speed of the remaining object?

- The object is still stopped relative to itself, like it always was.

- If the 2nd object was moving ten miles an hour relative to the 1st object, then the first object is still moving at ten miles per hour relative to where the 2nd object would be (relative to the 1st object) if it still existed.

thanks for the reply.
if an object used to exist somewhere where is that somewhere if only one object exists?
also how do you know the remaining object isn't rotating?

 

[fast]

Fast, I'm with you on this one point. If you were moving before, you're still moving now, because you haven't slowed down.

If the object X was one mile behind you at a second after noon, and two miles behind you at two seconds after noon, then I have no problem saying that it would have been four miles behind you at four seconds after noon---if it had still existed. You are still moving relative to that now-imaginary object that is moving away from you at one mile per second.

Hi, Wiploc..
If there were only two objects and one disappeared after the distance between them changed how do you determine the current speed of the remaining object?

If we logically deduce that an object is moving, we need not determine it's speed to know it's moving.

we just had a very long conversation about this.
how do you know a single object is moving if it is the only object in existence?

It depends on the history of the actual object in question. If we simply ponder a hypothetical, you're right, it's going to be mighty difficult to know if it's moving.

 

[none]

we just had a very long conversation about this.
how do you know a single object is moving if it is the only object in existence?

It depends on the history of the actual object in question. If we simply ponder a hypothetical, you're right, it's going to be mighty difficult to know if it's moving.

I'd say it is impossible to know for sure even if it was proven to be moving before it became the only object in existence.