• Possibility
    661
    My point wasn’t that an object at absolute rest can exist, but that the concept exists only as a possibility. We can describe it, talk about it, perhaps even cause an object to approach absolute rest - as much as one can approach infinity. But whatever information we acquire is irrelevant.

    I agree with you that ‘all objects are in relative motion’. More than that:

    The world is not a collection of things, it is a collection of events. The difference between things and events is that things persist in time; events have a limited duration. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    6.2k
    You all deny/critique that <all objects are in relative motion>

    If you all are right then there is must be an object at absolute rest.

    Can you prove that?
    TheMadFool

    There is no need to prove that. The person who claims that all motion is relative needs to prove that there is no such object as absolute rest. Until it is proven that all motion is relative, the critique of this premise is justified.
  • TheMadFool
    4.1k
    :up: :clap:

    There is no need to prove that. The person who claims that all motion is relative needs to prove that there is no such object as absolute rest. Until it is proven that all motion is relative, the critique of this premise is justified.Metaphysician Undercover

    There is a need to prove that there exists an object in absolute rest because there are only two contradictory possibilites:

    1. An object in absolute rest

    or

    2. Everything in relative motion

    Since you're denying 2 then 1 must be the case. So, prove it.

    Let's try again...

    Suppose there is an object, A, in absolute rest i.e. at rest relative to everything else.

    But we know that there exists at least 2 objects in relative motion of the displacement kind i.e. the distance between them change e.g. a car moving towards you.

    Is it then possible that A is at rest (absolute) relative to both the car and you??

    There are three points: object A, the car (B) and you (C) forming a triangle.

    We know that the distance BC is changing. Can the distance AC and AB remain constant i.e. can A be at rest relative to both B and C?

    I think it's impossible. The pythagorean theorem proves it.
  • Banno
    6.4k
    Ok. So don't come to this forum for help with your physics assignments.

    Bloody hell. What a mash.
  • TheMadFool
    4.1k
    Ok. So don't come to this forum for help with your physics assignments.

    Bloody hell. What a mash.
    Banno

    :chin:
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    6.2k
    There is a need to prove that there exists an object in absolute rest because there are only two contradictory possibilites:

    1. An object in absolute rest

    or

    2. Everything in relative motion

    Since you're denying 2 then 1 must be the case. So, prove it.
    TheMadFool

    I was not denying 2, I was critical of anyone who would say that absolute rest is impossible, without first defining what "absolute rest" means. Now you have made progress toward a definition, saying absolute rest involves an "object" at absolute rest. Since I consider "absolute rest" to be an ideal, I don't agree with this requirement, unless an ideal is an object. Are you saying that an ideal, like "absolute rest", is an object? If so, in what way is it an object?

    Let's try again...

    Suppose there is an object, A, in absolute rest i.e. at rest relative to everything else.

    But we know that there exists at least 2 objects in relative motion of the displacement kind i.e. the distance between them change e.g. a car moving towards you.

    Is it then possible that A is at rest (absolute) relative to both the car and you??

    There are three points: object A, the car (B) and you (C) forming a triangle.

    We know that the distance BC is changing. Can the distance AC and AB remain constant i.e. can A be at rest relative to both B and C?

    I think it's impossible. The pythagorean theorem proves it.
    TheMadFool

    You ought to see that this is nonsense. "Absolute rest" would be the standard by which all motions are measured. Therefore everything would be in motion relative to "object A" (absolute rest), unless there was something else which was at absolute rest. Only things at absolute rest would be unchanging relative to absolute rest, everything else would be changing relative to absolute rest.
  • sandman
    6
    Newton stated an object at rest and an object in motion remain in that state unless acted on by a force.
    Position of an object is relative to a reference object.
    Motion is a change in position, thus relative to a ref. object.
    Speed is the rate of change of motion, which has a range of 0 to light speed c.
    We measure motion to determine rest, which is the absence of motion, just as dark is the absence of light, and dry is the absence of moisture. Thus there is no um for rest, and rest is also a relative state.
    Newton defined two states of motion.
    Let's redefine rest as the special case of two objects that have the same velocity.
    Each object is at rest relative to the other, while simultaneously being in motion.
  • TheMadFool
    4.1k
    You ought to see that this is nonsense. "Absolute rest" would be the standard by which all motions are measured. Therefore everything would be in motion relative to "object A" (absolute rest), unless there was something else which was at absolute rest. Only things at absolute rest would be unchanging relative to absolute rest, everything else would be changing relative to absolute rest.Metaphysician Undercover

    I must humbly disagree. Can you prove that, to quote, "there is(was) something else which was at absolute rest"?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    6.2k

    Do you see the word "unless"? Suppose an object is assumed to be at absolute rest. All other objects would be in motion relative to this object "unless there is something else which was at absolute rest". To have an object which is not moving relative to the object which is at absolute rest requires that this object is also at absolute rest.

    Therefore the fact that all objects are moving relative to another object does not negate the possibility that this other object is at absolute rest.
  • sandman
    6
    If position is relative to an object, then so is motion.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.