The stationary object

I like this idea, but all forces act on both sides, hence making an unmoving object impossible since it would be influenced through the stuff it is influencing

>>7777872
It would need to be in some sort of system that nets out into an equilibrium state, even if only briefly.

the stationary object you're looking for is called the observer.

>>7777875
Seeing oneself as the inertial frame, and thus "stationary", is an illusion. This object is absolutely stationary, it does not care about perspective. The universe as a whole is what allows it to be truly stationary.

>>7777784
Whatever you're on I'll have two.

I imagine you were wondering where you /really/ are in the universe and realized there is no origin per se (as in 0,0, not big bang lol)
It's entirely perspective, unless you define movement as something more than a relative position from a stationary object. If you define movement as having to do with any force, then there is not necessarily anything stationary, but if movement is merely a change in position relative to something else, then any one thing could be stationary, but only one thing.
Right?

>>7777905
Nope, that's the point of movement being relative
You set the frame relative to which you're moving yourself, this doesn't require any object to be truly stationary.

>>7777919
Right, I didn't mean to imply that at least one object must be stationary, but that one could be. Either everything is moving, or only one thing is not moving.
Funny, people typically in general speaking don't use themselves as the point of perspective, because they feel when they move; people typically just use Earth as that one stationary thing. We probably all do unconsciously.

>>7777784
Ok why are you convinced there there is something that is truly stationary? This seems like a ridiculous idea.
The question will always arise, "stationary relative to what?"

File: RETURN ME TO WAKEFULNESS.jpg (63KB, 846x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 846x600px

>>7777784

Wait wait what. Are you saying that motion takes resources/energy away from an atom's internal structure like a program taking away clock time from a CPU?

>>7778323
what the hell no lol

>>7777784
>Relative motion necessitates the existence of an absolute.

Already you're completely wrong.

>>7777924
How could an object be stationary if everyone else is moving. From the perspective of any moving object, the "stationary" object would appear to be moving. There is no such thing.

>>7778130
Stationary relative to the universe itself, and everything in it. Given that things can exist, they must be given the ability to exist by something, and within something. Motion necessitates non-motion. The stationary object cares not for individual, finite, perspective. It can only be seen by the whole, including itself.

>>7778323
No. Speed and relative size just being distortions of a universe's "realtime" tick rate. Its maximum rate of change in a given material. The minimum for typical matter being near c.

>>7778905
Appearances judged from individual perspective are not necessarily the truth. Looking a given way is not being that given way, it's just looking that way.

In the time of Democritus, and Plato, it appeared as though motion required a "vacuum". And that atoms were geometric shapes with certain physical properties. We know now the latter is half true. And it continued to seem that way, from our perspective, for quite a long time. Until quantum field theory and experimental evidence, etc. Which I don't actually know much about.

It does not seem that all perspectives are equally and fully correct, it seems as though all perspectives are varying degrees of limited and skewed. No matter what you see, events only yield one ultimate outcome on our scale, and I disagree entirely with the notion that there is not a singular greater truth to be known about what is actually happening in a given instant. The existence of a hazy sense of "location" and "direction" requires this.

Space itself. If it encompasses totality then there can be nowhere for it to move to or from. Even if it were to expand or contract (from our perspective, as we are the physical metrics being expanded and contracted), assuming it is bound, it, from its imaginary perspective, would remain the same size (totality), and instead metrics used to measure totality contained within it (us, objects) would be the ones who change in the opposite manner from its perspective. If it is spacially infinite, then it still can't move anywhere because if it could, it would already be there, as it is infinite.

And that's still definitely a perceptual thing but it takes a (potentially flawed) more universal approach. Everything in the universe moving relative to everything else in the universe but the universe itself remaining static. The universe in perpetual motion relative to itself, but not relative to anything outside itself because there is nothing outside itself (unless there is, in which case a superuniversal approach would be necessary)

>>7779186
>Stationary relative to the universe itself, and everything in it.
What do you think this means, because to me it's gibberish. Imagine there were only two particles in the universe, A and B. A sees B move to its left and sees itself as stationary. B sees A move to its left and sees itself as stationary. What, in your mind, is the "movement relative to the universe itself" in this case?

>Given that things can exist, they must be given the ability to exist by something, and within something.
Why? What does "the ability to exist" even mean? Either something exists or it doesn't.

>Motion necessitates non-motion.
Why?

>Appearances judged from individual perspective are not necessarily the truth.
Everything is judged from an individual perspective. So how do you distinguish between "the truth" and the "not truth"?

>In the time of Democritus, and Plato, it appeared as though motion required a "vacuum". And that atoms were geometric shapes with certain physical properties.
This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Those are explanatory hypotheses. We're talking about simple perceived motion. Explanatory hypotheses are judged according to their correlation with perceived data. But you are essentially arguing that some perceived data is false and some is true. How do you intend to separate them? By appealing to more perceived data? It makes no sense.

>It does not seem that all perspectives are equally and fully correct, it seems as though all perspectives are varying degrees of limited and skewed.
OK, so is particle A more correct or is particle B more correct? Explain why.

>>7779186
>No matter what you see, events only yield one ultimate outcome on our scale, and I disagree entirely with the notion that there is not a singular greater truth to be known about what is actually happening in a given instant.
But you're empirically wrong. We already correct for relativistic effects in things like GPS. It's a clear fact that outcomes depend on one's inertial frame of reference. The only reason you are disagreeing with GR is because of your inability to intuitively understand it, but that is not a logical argument or proof of your position.

>>7779399
This is just gibberish. Define movement of the universe relative to itself.

>>7779505
>What, in your mind, is the "movement relative to the universe itself" in this case?
The exact same as it is in any other case. If A thinks it itself is stationary, it will be inclined to believe B is moving. If not, it won't. Thus both can have compatible viewpoints. You do not need to see yourself as the inertial frame in any way that is universally meaningful.

With greater perspective about what the universe is, what is going on within it, and how, either one could know what is actually moving where.

>Either something exists or it doesn't.
How? What does "exists" mean? This is clearly not strictly philosophy.

>Why?
Either something is moving or it isn't. If it can be seen as either stationary or moving, in a relative sense, then this means either it's moving or it isn't. If this binary logic isn't applicable, then the idea of space and motion is fundamentally flawed. Distance and travel time need not exist, because you're actually everywhere at once. We do not seem to be everywhere at once.

>So how do you distinguish between "the truth" and the "not truth"?
You don't, because you can't. You can only iterate and gradually create something that appears to work and apply over all known situations, and yet still, this has no bearing on what actually "is", and "why" it actually is. Perspective does not necessarily have any bearing on actuality.

>This has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
It has everything to do with what we're talking about.

>By appealing to more perceived data?
Everything is perceived data. You can't strip out your own senses and the mental machinery you're using to understand the world. That's what it is as far as we can tell, that's what you've got to work with.

>OK, so is particle A more correct or is particle B more correct?
Depends on your finite perspective, which appears to have the more correct perspective. Because neither of us is everything. Nor are we even most things. We're just a thing.

>>7779513
>But you're empirically wrong.
How so, when no matter what, there is only one ultimate outcome? Always. Either the satellite crashed into a piece of space debris, or it didn't. Either it's still up there functioning, or it isn't.

Has it ever been seen that something happened, and yet when you go to measure directly, or interface with it, something completely different actually occurred? Or that both happened somehow, and it depends on how you measure this thing which version you see? Like a city that collided with something moving near c and was obliterated, yet it's still there when you go to check, but it depends on how fast you're moving and in what relative direction if it seems obliterated or fine?

No. There is one and only one version. Time appears to be what is changing, and this leads to a difference in length, and sense of what is simultaneous. Just because you're looking through a fogged window, doesn't mean it's actually foggy out.

>>7777784
What does it even mean to move/ to have velocity?

Realistically it means that we measure a distance from some object (often ourselves) to another object and then after some machine has changed state (a clock usually) we measure the distance again and if it is different we can say that thing moved and had some velocity. Obviously it matters who is measuring it and where they are measuring it from.

>>7779546
>The exact same as it is in any other case.
That doesn't answer the question.

>If A thinks it itself is stationary, it will be inclined to believe B is moving. If not, it won't. Thus both can have compatible viewpoints.
Again, you aren't answering the question. A and B always see themselves as stationary and the other as moving. It doesn't matter if B can interpret this as itself moving and A being stationary, because you claimed there is only one correct answer. So again, how do you determine the movement of A/B "relative to the universe"? Is A moving or is B moving, or are they both moving? According to you only one of these can be "true".

>How? What does "exists" mean? This is clearly not strictly philosophy.
You just claimed "given that things exist..." so it should not need to be explained. Again you are avoiding the question.

>Either something is moving or it isn't.
Relative to some frame, which is the only way of determining movement in the first place. There is no objective sense in which something is moving or stationary.

>If this binary logic isn't applicable, then the idea of space and motion is fundamentally flawed. Distance and travel time need not exist, because you're actually everywhere at once. We do not seem to be everywhere at once.
YOUR idea of space and motion is fundamentally flawed. You are projecting these flaws onto physicists' idea of space and motion. Until you actually attempt to learn what the idea is, you will remain hopelessly confused.

>You don't, because you can't. You can only iterate and gradually create something that appears to work and apply over all known situations, and yet still, this has no bearing on what actually "is", and "why" it actually is. Perspective does not necessarily have any bearing on actuality.
Then nothing you are saying is substantiated by anything. You are saying "X exists but I have no way to show that X exists. Oh and what physics says about X is wrong". This is nonsense.

>>7779546
>It has everything to do with what we're talking about.
Some ancient hypothesis of matter has nothing to do with how motion is defined in modern physics. You are simply playing language games by conflating two different meaning of "perception".

>Everything is perceived data. You can't strip out your own senses and the mental machinery you're using to understand the world.
That's exactly what you're attempting to do by saying there is an absolute frame of reference.

>Depends on your finite perspective, which appears to have the more correct perspective.
I'm asking you though. You have all the information of the system with only two particles. So if your idea that there is a motion relative to the universe is correct, you should be able to tell me what that motion is right? Why do you keep avoiding the question? It's because there is nothing behind what your saying but sophistry. No logical thought.

>How so, when no matter what, there is only one ultimate outcome? Always. Either the satellite crashed into a piece of space debris, or it didn't. Either it's still up there functioning, or it isn't.
Huh? This has nothing to do with whether it crashes or not; that is not the only possible factor that can be different. The satellite does not see its movement in the same way we see it. This is not just a skewed perspective, it actually requires us to correct the clock on the satellite so that it matches our perspective.

>Has it ever been seen that something happened, and yet when you go to measure directly, or interface with it, something completely different actually occurred?
Yes. For example, if you send a clock on a rocket into space and measure the time it takes to come back on earth, the two clocks will measure different amounts of time. You seem to be misunderstanding how relativity works. It does not affect causality per se, it affects simultaneity.

>>7779568
>No. There is one and only one version. Time appears to be what is changing, and this leads to a difference in length, and sense of what is simultaneous.
How can there only be one version when simultaneity is affected? If two people see events occur in different order not because of some flaw in their measurement or lack of ability to measure, but simply because of the metric of spacetime, then there are multiple version of events. Again, every time I have asked you to explain what this one version is, how to determine what the absolute truth is, you have avoided the question. Therefore you have failed continuously to substantiate your claims with anything.

There is no such thing as a universe. A thing can only exist relative to something else. It exist as word only -- a master signifier.

>Relative motion
redundant
All you're showing is that you don't understand basic relativity.

>>7779656
>That doesn't answer the question.
It does. Your "specific" case is not novel, it is the same as any other.

>So again, how do you determine the movement of A/B "relative to the universe"?
By possessing the perspective of everything and everywhere, if not at once, then at one historic set of intervals. Bear in mind my wording is always very precise, as is the meaning it's supposed to convey. I've already addressed this above.

I know this answer doesn't satisfy you. Perhaps similar to me, your mind immediately jumps to the means. By what means can this be made practical, how can it be done, how can one create such a vast network of sensors and "perspective" to allow this kind of awareness and an experimental framework to judge the idea. At present, you cannot, and these thoughts of the hypothetical means are irrelevant to the present discussion. This is about the what, why, and how, of nature's true functionality. It does not disagree with experiment (that you think it does shows you aren't actually understanding what I'm saying), and it's based on logic.

You say that absolute motion is not meaningful, and that you believe everything can function spatially in a place where all is simply relative. I would like this to be substantiated relative to the subject at hand. For example, take your hypothetical of the universe, and two particles floating around. Now get rid of one. One particle moving around, nothing to contrast it against. Your claim in this instance is that no motion exists because motion can't be known. That isn't sensible.

>You just claimed "given that things exist..." so it should not need to be explained.
Maybe if you like self referential truths. "Existing" seems to be a meaningful binary, but we don't actually understand what it all means.

>YOUR idea of space and motion is fundamentally flawed.
Show me.
[character limit]

>>7782358
>There is no objective sense in which something is moving or stationary.
>Then nothing you are saying is substantiated by anything.

I've already made it fairly clear what I mean in the OP, but I'll go on and make my own hypothetical. You have a universe that is a 200 meter by 200 meter box. What happens at the edge is completely up to you, maybe it loops back on itself, maybe it has a curvature and you end up somewhere else in a slightly staggered way. Get rid of the size entirely if you want, make the universe infinite. It does not matter, but for the sake of example, I'm imagining a regular 200 meter cube, and this is the extent of space and what can be a "somewhere".

In this space there is sphere rotating at 1 m/s. We know not why, it just is. There is a person on this sphere, moving at a rate of 1 m/s in the opposite direction of the sphere's rotation. Where are they moving? The answer is nowhere, they're stationary regardless of what any observer sees happening. The space they're occupy remains the same, their motion is just negating the motion of the body they're on. Their absolute position is not changing.

>>7779675
>Some ancient hypothesis of matter has nothing to do with how motion is defined in modern physics.
Of course it does. The "two" have the same underpinnings. But that wasn't really the point.

>You are simply playing language games by conflating two different meaning of "perception".
No? Can you explain what you mean more specifically?

>That's exactly what you're attempting to do by saying there is an absolute frame of reference.
That's probably because I think that there is an objective substrate, a whole, that we're all parts of. Machines with limited capabilities depending on what we're made of and what we're around. The workings of this substrate care not for the perceptions of any given particle system, or oscillations in a field. It does what it does, how it does, because that's what it can do. That's what it, seemingly, must do.

>It's because there is nothing behind what your saying but sophistry. No logical thought.
It's based heavily in logic, I don't think "it's all just relative and that's it" makes any sense, and I explained why in the OP. To claim it's illogical sophistry is strange given that as far as I can tell, it's giving you a pretty major run for your money. I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying, and you did know the topic so well, and I truly am such a fool, you should readily be able to figure how my logical framework is arranged and precisely address and correct it with substantial feedback. This has yet to happen, so what am I to assume?

>This has nothing to do with whether it crashes or not
It does. Either it's in a specific location at a specific instance in time, and an interaction occurs, or it doesn't. There is only one outcome. What the observers think happened is irrelevant. Something can interact or it can't, it doesn't do both.

>it actually requires us to correct the clock on the satellite
Already talked about time. Actually read what I write and you'll realize I don't deny this.

>>7779681
>There is no such thing as a universe.
Go on.

>A thing can only exist relative to something else.
Right. In this case all things exist relative to whatever the means allowing them the ability to exist, is. A matter we will likely never truly know much of anything about.

Something tells me the phenomena we witness is generated and driven by some sort of external machinery. One thing I would like to know is if the means for the universe to exist could be unraveled such that we can tell that it's all self contained. That it doesn't need anything "external" to be what it is, and do what it does.

>redundant
Absolutely not.

Sustain.

>>7777784

>but clearly, an absolute must exist.

[Citation needed]

>>7783621
This thread is its own citation.

>>7782358
>It does. Your "specific" case is not novel, it is the same as any other.
You have not answered the question in ANY case.
>By possessing the perspective of everything and everywhere, if not at once, then at one historic set of intervals.
Essentially you are not saying anything meaningful, because you are not able to describe your position in terms of physics. You are confusing poetry for an understanding of basic mechanics of the universe.

>You say that absolute motion is not meaningful, and that you believe everything can function spatially in a place where all is simply relative.
I'm not simply saying it. That's how motion is defined. I have asked you repeatedly to define absolute motion and you have not been able to do so.

>For example, take your hypothetical of the universe, and two particles floating around. Now get rid of one. One particle moving around, nothing to contrast it against. Your claim in this instance is that no motion exists because motion can't be known. That isn't sensible.
How is that not sensible? The only reason you think it's moving is because you have it in your mind's eye as a particle in space that you are observing, and you see it moving RELATIVE TO YOU. But in my hypothetical notice I did not refer to an outside perspective. The only thing that exists in this universe are the two particles and thus the only perspectives are from those two particles. The only perspective in a one particle universe is the one particle. Therefore it's impossible to say that this particle is moving. Moving relative to what? Your perspective doesn't exist. You are just using words without thinking about what they mean.

>Maybe if you like self referential truths. "Existing" seems to be a meaningful binary, but we don't actually understand what it all means.
I asked you what "the ability to exist" means. This seems to be a separate concept from existence itself. All I asked is for you to explain what you are talking about.

>>7782364
>I've already made it fairly clear what I mean in the OP, but I'll go on and make my own hypothetical.
I asked you to clarify what you're saying and every time you fail to.

>There is a person on this sphere, moving at a rate of 1 m/s in the opposite direction of the sphere's rotation.
Relative to what? Again, I don't think you understand what movement actually is but you keep talking about it as if you do. Your hypothetical is idiotic. Anyone can see that the person will see things completely differently from the body he's walking on, and an outside observer will see things completely differently. You talk about absolute position without explaining what it is, or how to calculate it. So you are just talking gibberish.

>>7782397
Of course it does. The "two" have the same underpinnings. But that wasn't really the point.
I'm still searching for the point.

>No? Can you explain what you mean more specifically?
The "perception" of a theory has nothing to do with the physical perception of motion. Motion perceived by an observer in physics is strictly a matter of metric spacetime. It's not two people thinking differently.

>That's probably because I think that there is an objective substrate, a whole, that we're all parts of. Machines with limited capabilities depending on what we're made of and what we're around. The workings of this substrate care not for the perceptions of any given particle system, or oscillations in a field. It does what it does, how it does, because that's what it can do. That's what it, seemingly, must do.
None of that is relevant to your failure to understand what motion is. Relativity does not mean that there are different worlds dependent on perspective. There is one world, one spacetime. But this does not imply simultaneity. Why don't you learn about relativity before you argue against it?

>>7782397
>To claim it's illogical sophistry is strange given that as far as I can tell, it's giving you a pretty major run for your money. I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying, and you did know the topic so well, and I truly am such a fool, you should readily be able to figure how my logical framework is arranged and precisely address and correct it with substantial feedback.
It's a little hard to do that when you will not answer a single question I have posed. I have explained exactly what is not coherent and not logical, and yet you take this as further evidence that you are right. This is the hallmark of delusion.

>It does. Either it's in a specific location at a specific instance in time, and an interaction occurs, or it doesn't.
As I already said, relativity does not affect causality. Two events separated by time greater than the distance between them divided by the speed of light will have the same order in all reference frames. Anyone with even cursory understanding of relativity understands this, but I already knew you had none and are arguing against something you have no knowledge of. It's almost like you read the word "relative" and just attached whatever you thought it meant to a well defined physical theory.

>Already talked about time. Actually read what I write and you'll realize I don't deny this.
I understand you don't deny it, that's why I'm saying it proves you wrong. The fact that your "hypothesis" is so incoherent as to allow you to say whatever you want to say at any given response does not invalidate the critique.

Temporary bump. Will generate a response soon.

>>7783938
>You have not answered the question in ANY case.
I have, repeatedly. Re-read my posts and actually try to think. If you still don't understand, I'm at a loss for how to help. Drop the idea of "relatives" as being the most base and necessary description of phenomena. Forget lorentz contraction. Forget time dilation. Forget all of it and think about the layout of a physical space, using your own mind. Then rebuild, and factor it all in again. There exists something that is mentally blocking you from interpreting what I'm saying properly. You're latching onto relative this, relative that, and bouncing everything off it, and this is why you can't see or understanding anything. That type of reasoning is not useful for evaluating what is clearly a novel idea to you.

You might think I'm trolling you when I say this, but I'm being quite genuine. I spent a lot of time fixated on relative truths and interactions. There comes a point when you must stop hiding behind this hazy and multifaceted way of thinking (in spectrums), this layer, and be willing to try to delineate the underlying absolutes. Not absolutes for and of you, absolutes for everything and anything.

>Essentially you are not saying anything meaningful
"I see nothing, therefore, there is nothing to be seen."
I think not. Of course I take this as further evidence you don't understand. I'm showing you a flipbook, and you claim my hands are empty.

>because you are not able to describe your position in terms of physics.
I think mathematics is a form of language.
Read what you just wrote. It equates to "I don't care to reason, nor listen to the reasoning of others." If this is truly the case, which is fine, I think this isn't the right thread for you.

>I'm not simply saying it.
You are.
>That's how motion is defined.
Definition is relative. You're taking something human made as an intrinsic feature of the universe, how it really is, and how it really works. Just because something is seen a certain way, doesn't mean it is that way. If you were really into the history of physics you would be acutely aware of this. You're confused about the relationship between a very successful and seemingly applicable theory, or model, and the underlying how and why of what is really happening, and how the universe truly functions. It is a common mistake to assume "ah, only now are we immune from erroneous assumptions! Only now are we to take the underlying philosophy of our theories as fact. All of those historical guys, they just weren't there yet."

We need to get this cleared up before trying to continue. I'm not getting substantial feedback of any sort, and seemingly, you don't think you are either. There is a reason for this, wouldn't you say?

>I have asked you repeatedly to define absolute motion and you have not been able to do so.
I have. And I'll do it again.

You are you, and I am me. I am here, and you are there, but neither of us are everywhere. Therefore, you are occupying a (mostly) discrete "somewhere". Yet when you try to put two objects in the same somewhere, they bump into each other. They just... they just won't do it. They can't do it while both staying whole. It seems they cannot occupy the same somewhere. This means that location is a real thing. That I require a means to get from here to there, and can't do it immediately, means distance, whatever distance might be, and change of location throughout space (ie, motion), are real things. It appears to happen at a certain rate. Therefore, speed is a real thing, no matter what speed and the rate of change through space, actually is. I am inclined to think there are only actually two speeds, moving and not moving. The rest is a function of distorting time, and these relative distortions depending on the distortions any given observer is experiencing themselves. This is the "tick" rate I mentioned in the OP, and it's why simultaneity is a thing at all.

>How is that not sensible?
Because you just said not being able to detect motion means motion doesn't exist, which is obviously incorrect and an assumption with no substantial grounds. Floating in a vacuum devoid of light, while paralyzed, doesn't mean motion doesn't exist, that's nonsense. It indicates nothing of the sort.

>Your perspective doesn't exist.
Yes it does. Unless in your hypothetical we're talking about a universe that doesn't work like our own, which seems pointless.

>I asked you what "the ability to exist" means.
It means the ability to exist. Obviously existence is a self referential binary we take as meaningful. Either something exists, or i doesn't. We don't know why anything can exist. We don't don't know what it actually means to exist, we just know that it happens. In this case, location of that existing thing appears to exist as well. It is able to exist in a location. Something is giving it the ability to exist in a location. Whether you think space is quantized or continuous, the universe finite or infinite, is irrelevant. The thing allowing it to exist in this way is what we'll simply call "space". Space is what allows spatial existence, and spatial relationships. But we obviously do not know what allows space itself, or if it even requires such a thing.

>I asked you to clarify what you're saying and every time you fail to.
I take it more as you failing to understand, to be quite honest. That's just the nature of available truth being relative to the mental machinery of an observer.

>You talk about absolute position without explaining what it is, or how to calculate it.
In the hypothetical I layed out exactly how to view the motion of the related bodies. You don't need to calculate it. A toddler can tell you that a fish swimming upstream at the same rate as the stream itself's motion in the other direction, will move nowhere. They don't need to know anything about force, fluid dynamics, temperature, geometry, particles.... waveforms. None of it. They don't even need to have a concept of physics, it is readily obvious what is happening and a high level explanation gives a decent idea of "why", and how.

Though really, you could pretty easily calculate it. The only things in this hypothetical 200 meter cube universe are a spinning sphere (that cannot be subdivided) and a person in a vacuum.

>Relative to what?
> Your hypothetical is idiotic.
The universe as a whole.

>Anyone can see that the person will see things completely differently from the body he's walking on
Yes, unless they know the speed of their movement, the sphere, and the parameters of this hypothetical universe is, they will likely have a skewed understanding of what is happening.

>and an outside observer will see things completely differently.
An outside observer will see the person's movement is negating the motion of the body they're tethered to, and that their actual position is not changing. In this case only the outside observer knows what is really happening.

>It's not two people thinking differently.
>There is one world, one spacetime.
>Relativity does not mean that there are different worlds dependent on perspective.
You do realize this has been what I've been deliberately pointing out to -you-, right? I'm not saying it for the hell of it. Well, assuming there does exist "a" spacetime.
So why do you deny absolutes? Is there one outcome or not?

>It's a little hard to do that when you will not answer a single question I have posed.
Not understanding an answer, or being able to process it as such, doesn't mean one wasn't given.

>I have explained exactly what is not coherent and not logical,
You say this, and yet can you actually point out where? And draw a concrete link between what I'm saying, and what you believe addressed, or in this case, refuted it? I imagine not. You might start, but it'll fizzle out into the same patchwork swiss cheese haze as the rest of how you believe things work.

>As I already said, relativity does not affect causality.
Good, we're on the same page and can now move passed this and on to the real substance of the conversation.

>I understand you don't deny it, that's why I'm saying it proves you wrong.
Show me.

>does not invalidate the critique.
I can't invalidate what never had any connection, to begin with. There would need to be validity to start with. Hopefully we get there.

Bump. For now.

>>7777873
still have barycenters

This thread isn't going anywhere quite yet.

File: guru.jpg (51KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1000x667px

>loud gong noise

>>7788491
Yet again.

And again.

And again.

>>7785747
>location is a real thing

Actually, absolute location is most definitely not a real thing. That's why there is no center and no edge of the universe. Location is nothing but position relative to something else. If you're in a spaceship and everything else in the universe besides your spaceship suddenly disappears, then "where am I?" becomes an intrinsically meaningless question. Now you might say, "well, if I was traveling at 40 km/h, then in an hour I can say I am 40 km from where I was", but how can you say you were traveling at some given speed? Maybe I'm in the spaceship with you and I say bullshit, we haven't moved. By definition, neither of us is correct because motion necessitates an exterior object that we can reference. Without that reference, the question of whether we have moved or not is meaningless. And therefore, whether or not our location is the same as before is meaningless.

Now let's assume there is one other object besides the spaceship. We start out being 1 km away from the object. Our distance from that object is the ONLY property of location that we have and it is completely relative to that object. Now if we move towards the object on a collision course, it is true that we will not be able to occupy the same physical space as the object once we get there. But nothing about this phenomenon supports the argument that there must be some sort of absolute location. It fits just as perfectly with our previous notion such that our relative distance from the object must be greater than whatever amount of distance the object occupies outward from it's center, otherwise we would indeed be occupying the same space at the same time.

>>7790877
This is just saying the same thing I already responded to. "We don't think we can know absolute location or motion, therefore, they don't exist." That's illogical. Everything about the existence of these parameters suggests the complete opposite of what you're saying. I'm not sure why you've latched so heavily onto this way of thinking, when it simply does, not, work. And I have explained why, yet again, it is unaddressed.

Please READ my posts, and actually think, or don't respond. Just let the thread die if I'm not going to get any actual discussion.

>>7792032
>I'm not sure why you've latched so heavily onto this way of thinking

not him but wouldn't an absolutely stationary frame of reference conflict with the speed of light being constantly that speed in every frame of reference?

>>7792042
Went into this in the OP.
>The universe is probably binary. Either something is or is not moving. If it is moving, "speed" is actually a localized distortion of time. Distance isn't actually contracting, the object moving is subject to fewer ticks per any given interval, so as far as it can be aware, distances are shorter. The stationary object would exist in realtime, and would be undergoing the most rapid change.

Giving rise to the appearance of light always moving the same speed, regardless of what you do. The appearance of length contraction from different reference frames could be well described, in addition to the tick rate, as matter being a quantized waveform gaining amplitude and compressing on itself relative to oneself as an observer with each part moving differently depending on the source of its "acceleration".

>>7777784
>relative motion necessitates the existence of an absolute.
The exact opposite is true. Relativity implies that an absolute reference frame can not exist. Why are people bothering to argue with this moron?

>>7792087
>Relativity implies
Not feeling too confident, eh?

If you're an expert, then come now. Read the thread and provide substantial criticism. Otherwise, do yourself a favor and find another thread. Not hard, eh? It stands to reason only a professional physicist wou;d know their field well enough to easily figure what I'm saying and precisely correct it, but some of the attitudes I'm seeing here are a bit absurd. You're acting arrogantly about something you don't seem to be able to correct.

>>7792091
Everybody else, both here in this forum and in the world's scientific community is on the same page with how the notion of the absolute is completely unsupported while the idea of relativity is not only logical but supported by all empirical data and experiments to date. There is no proof, no mathematical deduction, nor any verifiable reason to believe anything you have claimed has any scientific basis. If all you can say to refute these facts is that "well just because we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there", then I'm afraid you don't seem to understand the basic tenets of scientific thought. Do you honestly believe that you alone are so enlightened while lacking the experience and knowledge of millions of others despite having no reliable way of convincing any of them of that?

Crazy thought here, the center of mass moves faster than light. It is not limited by C.

>>7792256
You keep framing this as "absolutes vs relativity", then your mind jumps to "oh gosh my well supported theory I believe in is being attacked by the outsider!" Cut it out, and actually read what is being said. Read the whole thread, or at the very least, my last cluster of responses. It's not just making up some random idea and claiming "Well man like what if the sun is actually mirrors and the energy comes from somewhere else, and like, everything works this way. Btw, dualism! Can't check but it could be true!" No. This is based on solid reasoning that I have yet to see even remotely addressed.

Either you can, or you can't. If you want to try, read the thread, take part, do whatever you want. If not, do us both a favor, and get lost. I'm not going to repeatedly restate what I've already said, and I'm not going to wade through your irrelevant authority based garbage.

>>7792283
I've carefully read each of your posts and as others have noted, you continually avoid direct questions and offer nothing but ill-suited borderline irrelevant ramblings. All "solid reasoning" you have offered has ultimately come down to things people have easily discounted, such as your notion of absolute location, which after having that fallacy logically deconstructed step by step the only rebuttal you could put forth was the displaced quote "We don't think we can know absolute location or motion, therefore, they don't exist".

But you are right with one thing, it is indeed a waste of time for me to continue to argue with someone who is unreasonable. I urge you to try and understand that science is based on verifiable deduction and not things "that feel like they should be right because my intuition says so" before you try to be a part of legitimate scientific discussion.

>>7792283
>Btw, dualism! Can't check but it could be true!
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what this thread is. Except with aetherism not dualism. And for some reason you don't understand why it can't be checked.

>>7792362
>I urge you to try and understand that science is based on verifiable deduction
I agree. It's important to also realize that you have to be careful with higher level "meaning" and implication that is derived from scientific endeavor, because it is not generated by science itself. None of it is transcendental, it's made by people. For example, do you believe that there exists "a" spacetime? Not "does spacetime and its associated ideas and calculations appear to work" but "does there exist a spacetime". They are very different questions, and one must be careful of how they hold and frame things within their mind, such that they do not confuse the two.

So again, I get a post devoid of substance. All you've done is relay to me your own subjective experience of the topic, as though it's an argument or at all substantiates your position. I don't care what you feel, I don't care who you think you're standing with, and I don't care about you. I'm here to talk about this topic, and apparently you have nothing of any weight to contribute.

Examples:
>you continually avoid direct questions
Such as?
>offer nothing but ill-suited borderline irrelevant ramblings.
When? Where? Show me, and show what you're using to claim it's "ill suited" or "irrelevant rambling". This is what is meant by "substantial" responses.
>All "solid reasoning" you have offered has ultimately come down to things people have easily discounted
When? Assuming this discounting happened, by what means is it legitimate? Stand on your own.
>which after having that fallacy logically deconstructed step by step
When? Where? Highlight it either exactly, or as a process.
>the only rebuttal you could put forth was the displaced quote "We don't think we can know absolute location or motion, therefore, they don't exist".
I've said a lot more than that. But by all means, hold yourself up by something plucked out of context.

This is disgusting and shameful behavior. Get it together.

>>7792425
The luminiferous aether is not relevant.
Read the thread. Properly use the brain.

>>7792440
Good, then this thread isn't relevant.

>>7792445
4u

>>7792448
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0Ai16REYn8

>>7785742
>I have, repeatedly.
No you haven't. Again, I asked you to explain what motion relative to the universe means. This requires a coherent physical model if you want to compete with relativity. Until you create such a model, instead of just handwaving everything away to the extreme, you have not taken a single step towards arguing your point. You are evading the question, and you know it. You then demand that I drop relativity when you have given no reason to do so. The idea that one must accept your point of view as true in order to understand it is the basis of delusional thinking.

>"I see nothing, therefore, there is nothing to be seen."
Well there are two possibilities. Either you are speaking obvious truths and the rest of the world is blind to what's right in front of their eyes, or you are just plain wrong and speaking gibberish. Pointing out that the former is possible is no different than pointing out the latter is possible.

>I think mathematics is a form of language.
I didn't even ask for mathematics, I asked for a physical hypothesis. Do you understand what that means?

>Read what you just wrote. It equates to "I don't care to reason, nor listen to the reasoning of others."
You are not very good at reading if that is what you think my request that you describe your position in terms of physics instead of vague handwaving equates to.

>Definition is relative.
It can be. However if you are using your own definition of motion which is separate from the commonly understood definition, and you won't even explain what that definition is, what is the point of discussing it? If we are not talking about the same motion, then why are you saying my definition of motion is wrong? You're being hypocritical in order to yet again evade facts.

>>7792452
I'm really at a loss for what is so difficult for people to understand. It's strange, not a single person here displays that they "get it". Even without anything I've said above, all things point towards the necessary existence of absolute location, it's logically disjointed otherwise. It's like there's some strange selective reading going on here, I say it doesn't matter what space "is" or how it works, continuous or quantized, flat or curved, that absolute position in space demonstrably exists, and the problem is.... where? It doesn't matter if the universe is infinite or whatever the hell, that two objects bump into each other demonstrates it readily. That an object requires time to travel between points does as well.

It's almost disturbing. Am I really surrounded by people who think the universe, on our scale, functions on some kind of incomprehensible magic? This shit is outright bizarre. I want to reverse engineer it, if nothing else.

>>7785745
>You're taking something human made as an intrinsic feature of the universe, how it really is, and how it really works.
Any concept, including yours, is human made. You also claim to be describing how the universe works. The only different is that relativity is a coherent physical theory proven by empirical evidence. Your concept is not even a hypothesis that can be described let alone tested, and yet you claim it replaces relativity! It's delusional.

>Just because something is seen a certain way, doesn't mean it is that way.
Well it certainly doesn't mean it's not that way.

>You're confused about the relationship between a very successful and seemingly applicable theory, or model, and the underlying how and why of what is really happening, and how the universe truly functions.
This is so silly. Again, what is the point of saying this? It applies equally to your argument. You are attempting to describe the underlying truth with a description yes? Science is the method by which we choose which theory best correlates with the underlying reality, meaning which best correlates with the data we receive from reality. Your concept doesn't even reach the first step in this process. Are you completely lacking in self-awareness? You seem to be spouting posts and posts without any thought as to their relationship to your own argument, just to get the last word in.

>>7785747
>You are you, and I am me. I am here, and you are there, but neither of us are everywhere. Therefore, you are occupying a (mostly) discrete "somewhere". Yet when you try to put two objects in the same somewhere, they bump into each other. They just... they just won't do it. They can't do it while both staying whole. It seems they cannot occupy the same somewhere. This means that location is a real thing. That I require a means to get from here to there, and can't do it immediately, means distance, whatever distance might be, and change of location throughout space (ie, motion), are real things. It appears to happen at a certain rate. Therefore, speed is a real thing, no matter what speed and the rate of change through space, actually is.
None of this disagrees with relativity, it's just the extra assumptions you are not talking about that disagree.

>Because you just said not being able to detect motion means motion doesn't exist
That is of course true. If motion is not able to be detected, not just *isn't being detected* but, it's impossible from any reference frame to experience motion, then it does not exist. If all reference frames agree then that must be our best description of the universe, which is really what we mean when we say the "truth". Your argument that the truth is independent of what all reference frames experience is equivalent to saying the truth is meaningless, untouchable. It's pure solipsism. And if you are a pure solipsist you should not be arguing anything about the universe at all, absolute motion or not. Again, did you think through what this argument means before you posted it? It basically means science is useless and nothing can be known. If you want to argue that, go ahead.

>>7792484
>I'm really at a loss for what is so difficult for people to understand.
Nothing is at all difficult to understand here, except for you apparently, but you may just be stupid. If you think you have proven aether theory (by which I mean that an absolute reference frame exists) by pure logic, you are wrong, and should reflect on the unjustified jumps in your reasoning.

>>7785749
>Yes it does. Unless in your hypothetical we're talking about a universe that doesn't work like our own, which seems pointless.
Let's try this again. You have a universe with two particles. That's it. Now when you think about this universe you are looking at the two particles yes? That means that your perspective is not the perspective of either particle, yes? But we just said that this universe only has these two particles. Therefore your perspective is not a part of this universe, it does not exist in this hypothetical universe. Do you understand this? The only perspectives you can consider in this universe are the perspectives of the two particles. When you reduce the universe to one particle there is only one perspective, the perspective of that particle. Can the particle experience itself moving? No.

>Obviously existence is a self referential binary we take as meaningful. Either something exists, or i doesn't. We don't know why anything can exist. We don't don't know what it actually means to exist, we just know that it happens.
Again, I'm not asking you to explain what existence means, I'm asking you to explain what "the ability to exist" means. This seems like a specific thing, or do you just attach extra words that don't mean anything specific because it sounds good? Again, if you can't even explain your argument coherently, how do you intend to convince people it's correct? You just seem to be making things up as you go along to appear like you know something. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

>In this case, location of that existing thing appears to exist as well. It is able to exist in a location. Something is giving it the ability to exist in a location.
And see you did it again. If things just exist or don't exist, what is the point of talking about an "ability to exist"? Why does it need to be given an ability if it just is? What does this specifically mean?

>>7785749
>I take it more as you failing to understand, to be quite honest. That's just the nature of available truth being relative to the mental machinery of an observer.
More delusions.

>A toddler can tell you that a fish swimming upstream at the same rate as the stream itself's motion in the other direction, will move nowhere.
That is relative motion, you fool. From the perspective of the water, the fish is indeed moving. From the perspective of the toddler it's not moving. Again, I ask, what is the "absolute" motion? Are toddlers the absolute reference frame in the universe?

>The universe as a whole.
The universe as a whole is not a reference frame. If you actually try to describe motion this way you won't get anywhere. I have asked you repeatedly to attempt this and the single time you did you ended up confusing the universe with a toddler.

>Yes, unless they know the speed of their movement, the sphere, and the parameters of this hypothetical universe is
Oh so apparently spheres are now the absolute reference frame, not humans. Wow, you must really be stupid to not be able to see how time and time again you fail to do what you continually allege is so easy. The human can know his speed relative to some reference frame. He will get different answers dependent on the reference frame. WHICH IS THE CORRECT ONE?

>An outside observer will see the person's movement is negating the motion of the body they're tethered to, and that their actual position is not changing.
What happens when two outside observers see different things because they are in different inertial reference frames? You are an outside observer to everything that isn't you. Your perspective will not necessarily agree with every other outsider perspective. So what possible reasoning is going into your choice of "what is really happening"? Just admit you don't know. It's almost like you are purposely making the most naive mistakes in order to illustrate how relativity works.

>>7785760
>So why do you deny absolutes? Is there one outcome or not?
Because singular spacetime does not imply simultaneity. This is basic special relativity. It follows directly from the principle of relativity (the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames) and the fact that the speed of light is constant. The classic thought experiment that illustrates this:

"A popular picture for understanding this idea is provided by a thought experiment consisting of one observer midway inside a speeding traincar and another observer standing on a platform as the train moves past.

A flash of light is given off at the center of the traincar just as the two observers pass each other. The observer on board the train sees the front and back of the traincar at fixed distances from the source of light and as such, according to this observer, the light will reach the front and back of the traincar at the same time.

The observer standing on the platform, on the other hand, sees the rear of the traincar moving (catching up) toward the point at which the flash was given off and the front of the traincar moving away from it. As the speed of light is finite and the same in all directions for all observers, the light headed for the back of the train will have less distance to cover than the light headed for the front. Thus, the flashes of light will strike the ends of the traincar at different times."

>Not understanding an answer, or being able to process it as such, doesn't mean one wasn't given.
True, but's that not what happened, you pretentious fuck.

>>7782397
>Good, we're on the same page and can now move passed this and on to the real substance of the conversation.
Wow. Let me remind you that you previously argued that because a city cannot be both destroyed and not destroyed, relativity must be wrong, in this post >>7779568 Then I responded that relativity does not affect causality, that you are confusing simultaneity with causality, and you continued to argue as if relativity contradicts causality. Then I explained why it does not effect causality, and suddenly we are "on the same page"? No, we are certainly not on the same page because you don't understand what relativity is, you won't admit that you don't understand it, and you just brush off every mistake that I point out. So the discussion is pointless. I'm sure you'll take the last word with more meaningless, self-contradicting babble. Enjoy it.

>>7792466
>Again, I asked you to explain what motion relative to the universe means.
To which I provided an answer, an entire framework actually, repeatedly. The issue you're having is that you didn't -understand- the answer, and instead of asking more targeted questions in an attempt to know what I mean, you returned to fight mode.

Let's have a recap.
-Things look like they exist. We'll take that as an axiom, and ignore the nature of existence. This part of the conversation is now gone.
-Objects bump into each other, they collide. They cannot be made to exist in the same location, without subdividing or altering them substantially. They are able to occupy and exist in a location. It does not matter your frame of reference, this occurs and will continue to occur. If the object were floating absolutely alone, it would and could move. It doesn't matter if it has a point for contrast or comparison, it will do what it does because it can.
-Therefore, things possess an absolute position. The universe cannot be made to have multiple objects occupy the same space, nor do you have an infinite capacity to move them around. Eg, if boxed in, they will collide with each other. Ask yourself, by what means can that happen? It'll happen anywhere. It'll happen on any scale, it doesn't matter the size or shape of the box. Remove the box, what does it matter? It doesn't. The situation is the same.
-Therefore, absolute position in space exists. Regardless of what you are relative to.
-Appearing to move does not mean something is moving. It might be you moving.
-Motion is simply a change in absolute position in the universe. This is why the person on the rotating sphere is stationary, their absolute position is not changing as they're negating the motion of the sphere.

>This requires a coherent physical model if you want to compete with relativity.
You've been given one. If you do not feel this is the case, ask more precise questions.
I'm not going to bullshit you and make up some speculative mess about quantized space via some kind of fundamental grid of novel particles, or some underlying field with a constant and regular fluctuation in amplitude forcing other fields into this grid arrangement. Then just say you count the dots and arbitrarily define a 0,0,0, do some shit to represent curvature or addition of points in some cases, and then just count the points from there and arrive at a metric of defining the absolute position. Why? Because I don't know. And it isn't even necessary.

You've been given information about what you yourself experience and see every day and how it relates to absolute position. Respond to it.

>I asked for a physical hypothesis
You've been given one. You've been given a framework. You've been given hypotheticals, you've been given examples. What left is there to give?

>my request that you describe your position in terms of physics
>in terms of physics
You don't want math. You don't want reasoning. You don't seem to want language of any kind.
How about I ask, what do you think you want right now?

>and you won't even explain what that definition is
I've made it implicit. I've stated it explicitly. Motion is change in absolute location. Not "relative" to whatever. It is change in position in space, period. If you want to tell me position in space doesn't exist, or that it's a claim that needs evidence, you should have a very easy time wrapping this up with how it all -really- is. There is a reason this hasn't happened yet, wouldn't you say?

>Any concept, including yours, is human made.
Bingo. That's why it's an iterative process. Knowledge is a framework with all elements weighted by probability and implication. This is what people use to reason. This is how you determine "trueness". These are at the root of many of the epistemological ideas science itself is based on.

What's happening here is that your outward ideas and claims don't agree with empirical data, experiment, or logic itself. My own ideas are more likely, and more substantiated. This is why you are meeting resistance. You're tryin' to sell me gibberish.

>and yet you claim it replaces relativity!
Not even once. You did.

>Well it certainly doesn't mean it's not that way.
Yeah.

>just to get the last word in.
Lolwat? Anon, I visited this thread at least once a day to sustain it for further conversation. Your return and responses included.

>None of this disagrees with relativity, it's just the extra assumptions you are not talking about that disagree.
Such as? I keep talking about "substantial responses" and it feels you aren't understanding or taking that request seriously. I'm becoming tired.

>If motion is not able to be detected, not just *isn't being detected* but, it's impossible from any reference frame to experience motion, then it does not exist.
No, it indicates you can't detect or measure your motion throughout space. You're making an assumption for no reason, probably for the sake of arguing.

>It's pure solipsism.
For what it's worth, I've been intent to keep philosophy out of this, but I've been very close to comparing your mindsets to solipsist ways of thinking on numerous occasions. I mean really, give me a break. "I cannot detect or prove my motion, therefore, motion cannot be said to necessarily exist." That's an extension of the basis of solipsist thought. The stripping of unbacked assumptions, the stripping of faith. If you can't detect motion, why even assume there is a "you", or an anything, to be moving? Might as well be a projection from whatever your mind and experience really is and comes from.

>nothing can be known.
Depends on the definition of knowing you're relying on. You could say things can be known, but rarely truly understood as far as their underpinnings and nature. If you're willing to accept faith in your senses and mind, as well as an objective substrate of some sort around you, with which you are only a part.

>your perspective is not a part of this universe,
If this universe works the same as ours, it might as well be. I know stuff seemingly changes its location. Doesn't matter how limited this particle's means to perceive are.

>Can the particle experience itself moving? No.
Which has no bearing on whether it's moving or not...

> I'm asking you to explain what "the ability to exist" means.
The ability to be a thing, do stuff, and be somewhere. The ability to do and be what we know as the properties of something that exists. This must be afforded by something, probably, no different than current within a material is often afforded by interaction with a photon. The condition does not create itsef, but what allows that condition (or state) itself to exist in that instant?

This is very simple. I don't know what your issue here is. It's not even esoteric.

>what is the point of talking about an "ability to exist"?
Its ability to exist is reliant on what allows it to exist, this governs its properties and interactions with all else. The ability to have a location is one such facet.

>More delusions.
I think you're misusing this word. The other possibility is you're rustled or stupid, so I'm choosing the former.

>From the perspective of the water, the fish is indeed moving.
Irrelevant. Forget theory of mind for now, udnerstand how perspective works, and then try to separate yourself from it. When viewed in the context of absolute position, the fish is simply converting chemical energy to work and negating the change in position imposed on it by the water. This is why it appears to stay in place. It's not as good a hypothetical as the sphere in a vacuum, but it works well enough.

>Again, I ask, what is the "absolute" motion?
Change in absolute location. The fish has negated another object's tendency to alter its position in space, thereby, remaining stationary. Now looping all the way back to the OP, do you now understand what I'm saying? Factor in the planetary motions, and all of that. What is this fish, really, doing. In the case of the hypothetical with the sphere it's obvious what each object is doing, not so much here.

>The universe as a whole is not a reference frame.
Then nothing exists. Nothing gives it the means, to exist.
Why are you there and me here? By what means?

>you did you ended up confusing the universe with a toddler.
That's what you did.

>WHICH IS THE CORRECT ONE?
I already told you. If the human knows how the universe works, he will have the correct answer. If the sphere has mental faculties, the same works for it as well.

Otherwise, both of them are incorrect. An external observer will find it obvious what they're actually doing.

>So what possible reasoning is going into your choice of "what is really happening"?
Things are composed of things that function in a given way, in accordance with their properties and the properties of what is around them. The capacity of a given observer to measure that underlying function must be taken into account when determining what it really is, and how it all really happened. In this case, all perspectives are more likely to be limited and skewed, not equally true facets of the same multifaceted deal.

>Just admit you don't know.
You first.

>Because singular spacetime does not imply simultaneity.
Yet if you have an object spinning in a wide arc, with an observer on board, with this object emitting a small burst of photons at the same point in every rotation towards some sort of photomultiplier, either the device is triggered or it isn't, regardless of your own motion or position.

This is what I mean by "there is only one outcome". If the thing is misaligned or mistimed, it won't work for anyone. No will observer will see it to work, nor any effect of a given device it might act as a trigger for.

>True, but's that not what happened, you pretentious fuck.
Yeah, it is, relative to my perspective.
Deal with it.

>>7792551
I haven't ever mentioned anything about relativity, much less argued about it. I'm only pointing out the irrelevant and stupid nature of your arguments against absolute motion and location, and the disjointed belief system you seem to have about spatial relationships.

Wow yourself right out the door.

>It's a guy with no knowledge of relativity argues relativity episode

>>7779186
>given the ability
Oh I see what you implied there. Why think anything is given?

>what gives mass its volume?
>what gives an atom its charge?

Things are what they are. Inb4 dudeweed

>>7792599
>Things are what they are.
Not yet.

>>7792565
>They are able to occupy and exist in a location. It does not matter your frame of reference, this occurs and will continue to occur.
This is empirically false, so your entire argument fails. In order for location to be independent of inertial reference frame, either the laws of physics must be different depending on reference frame, or the speed of light is not constant. This can be seen in the derivation of the Lorentz transformation. This should really shut down the thread by itself, but you are so delusional and so ignorant that you will probably just ignore this.

>You've been given one. If you do not feel this is the case, ask more precise questions.
You've given nothing coherent that isn't immediately disprovable. The rest is just handwaving.

>I've made it implicit. I've stated it explicitly. Motion is change in absolute location. Not "relative" to whatever.
No you didn't. You simply claimed that position is independent of reference frame as an axiom, which is empirically false. Not to mention that when you attempt to determine "absolute" motion as you have described it you are choosing some arbitrary reference frame (such as an observer looking at the sphere), which violates your axiom that motion is independent of reference frames. A 10 year old could come up with a better theory of motion than this.

>>7792568
>What's happening here is that your outward ideas and claims don't agree with empirical data, experiment, or logic itself.
Completely delusional projection. Yes, every physicist in the world is perpetuating a theory contradicted by empirical data, experiment, and logic. Only you know the truth, even though you have never conducted an experiment in your life, know nothing about physics, and can't stop contradicting yourself.

>Not even once. You did.
LOL, you started the thread by directly contradicting relativity, ever post you make contradicts relativity, but somehow you think you aren't replacing relativity. You are truly delusional.

>>7792617
>This is empirically false, so your entire argument fails.
It obviously isn't. You seem to have a very poor ability to remember prior events in a way where they're actually usable by you.

Either something interacts, or it does not interact. There is only one outcome. The object passes through a narrow tunnel, or it's too large and it doesn't. Its location is absolute, and clearly independent.

>You've given nothing coherent
It doesn't seem that's on my end of things. I've exhausted any way it can be my fault you aren't comprehending.

>(such as an observer looking at the sphere), which violates your axiom that motion is independent of reference frames.
Now you're really grasping at straws, or have very pitiful reading comprehension.
I told you that there were only two objects in this universe, the sphere, and the person. Where does that leave the observer? That universe is just a box, the observer is watching or measuring from "outside". It's to give you a cognitive tool to insert yourself into the "whole" perspective without becoming the person, the sphere, or a nothing within that universe. Because you don't seem to be grasping it too easily on your own.

Also, inb4 you try to make some sort of artificial leverage by claiming light can't leave our universe. Again, this is a universe that works exactly like ours and is sitting there like a box. How you think it can be measured is completely irrelevant speculation.

>Yes, every physicist in the world is perpetuating a theory contradicted by empirical data, experiment, and logic.
If they have the position you seem to, and make the same claims, I would say yes. They do have a disjointed and broken view of space.

Then again, they'd be a professional physicist rather than you, so there is a higher chance they would have the experience and mental faculty to simulate my perspective and framework for reasoning, and offer a substantial and targeted critique, if there was one to be given. That comes naturally with knowing a field. You don't find yourself reeling and framing the other person strictly as a moron, or becoming confused yourself. You've thought about it enough, and know enough, to see what's roughly going on in their head and how it contrasts with your own knowledge and ideas.

Just two cents there.

>LOL, you started the thread by directly contradicting relativity,
Lol is right. I don't see a contradiction, and no one can even show me one despite ranting on with all manner of fluff about how these contradictions so certainly and substantially exist! Ha!

>>7792568
>No, it indicates you can't detect or measure your motion throughout space. You're making an assumption for no reason, probably for the sake of arguing.
If something cannot be measured or detected by any reference frame in the universe, that is equivalent to saying it does not interact with the universe. So it doesn't exist. Just replace "absolute motion" with "invisible pink unicorn that doesn't interact with anything" or whatever you want and you will get the idea. If you cannot provide evidence that this motion exists, if that evidence cannot by definition exist, then you are talking out of your ass. You are just believing in absolute motion purely on faith. So don't try to claim this is about logic or evidence. This for you is purely based on faith that it exists. It's a delusion. Physics is about describing things that actually effect the universe.

>Irrelevant. Forget theory of mind for now, udnerstand how perspective works, and then try to separate yourself from it. When viewed in the context of absolute position, the fish is simply converting chemical energy to work and negating the change in position imposed on it by the water. This is why it appears to stay in place. It's not as good a hypothetical as the sphere in a vacuum, but it works well enough.
LOL, none of this responds to the fact that from the reference frame of the water, the fish is moving. So you are choosing an arbitrary reference frame when you claimed absolute motion is independent of reference frame.

>Then nothing exists. Nothing gives it the means, to exist.
This is yet again a bunch of nonsense. since apparently me explaining relativity to you does not work, I want you to look up what reference frame means and copy it down in your post so that I can see you know what it means. This will prove you are deliberately writing nonsense instead of just writing nonsense unconsciously because of your ignorance.

>>7792628
Professional physicists would immediately recognize this as >>7792425.

>>7792575
>That's what you did.
How could I have done that when I never claimed that the universe is a reference frame in the first place? More delusional projection.

>I already told you. If the human knows how the universe works, he will have the correct answer. If the sphere has mental faculties, the same works for it as well.
If the human knows how the universe works he will know relativity. So the correct answer is relativity. But this doesn't answer the question I asked. Who's reference frame is correct? The human's or the sphere's? Let's say the human knows all the reference frames in the universe, which does he say is correct?

>Things are composed of things that function in a given way, in accordance with their properties and the properties of what is around them. The capacity of a given observer to measure that underlying function must be taken into account when determining what it really is, and how it all really happened. In this case, all perspectives are more likely to be limited and skewed, not equally true facets of the same multifaceted deal.
That doesn't answer the question though. You can figure out all the properties, all the force transfers, chemistry, whatever you want, but you are still left with the problem of determining motion from reference frames. Which perspectives are skewed and which are the true facts? You just keep repeating that they exist without distinguishing which is which. The reason why you can't distinguish between them is because there is no such thing as a false reference frame and a true reference frame. Hence, relativity.

so let's summarize:
1. The claim that motion is independent of reference frame is empirically false because it contradicts observed laws of physics
2. Every alleged example you have given of "absolute motion" is dependent on reference frame
3. "Motion relative to the universe" as you have described it cannot be proven to exist and does not even effect the universe

>>7792634
>So it doesn't exist.
This is moronic. Let's just dilute this to its pure form and get that out of the way.

You're saying that you have two particles, and some given something or other that allows them to move around and occupy various locations. Then woops, one particle disappears, and that motion that was occurring ceases to exist? Motion ceases to be a thing that's happening or even possible throughout this universe?

How stupid. Quit your clinging. It looks foolish and insults my sensibilities.

>Physics is about describing things that actually effect the universe.
You don't even know what the universe is, much less what it is to "affect" it or a given part of it. Look how modern the view of the higgs field is. Before this the range of the weak force was a gaping hole, and yet you want to look at me and say you know what it all is and what can affect it.

The motion of a particle doesn't give a shit about what it's relative to. Either it's moving or it isn't, and it matters not what you can see or what you think. We live here. We know this. Get over it.

>LOL, none of this responds to the fact that from the reference frame of the water, the fish is moving.
It tells you exactly why it isn't relevant. Obviously you wouldn't be able to respond though.
Things are bigger than a single observer.

>This is yet again a bunch of nonsense.
You still aren't responding.
Why am I here, and you there? By what means can that be? Stop dodging the question.

>>7792588
>Yet if you have an object spinning in a wide arc, with an observer on board, with this object emitting a small burst of photons at the same point in every rotation towards some sort of photomultiplier, either the device is triggered or it isn't, regardless of your own motion or position.
What is this supposed to prove? Again, you are talking about causality (whether the device triggers or not), instead of simultaneity (at what time the device triggers relative to some observer). The former is unaffected by relativity, the latter is. So you have not proven that a singular spacetime implies simultaneity. The thought experiment I posted proves that simultaneity is false. You have no answer to the thought experiment. So admit simultaneity is false. NOW.

>I haven't ever mentioned anything about relativity, much less argued about it
Yeah you never mentioned relativity because you don't understand it. That doesn't mean we aren't talking about it, because everything you have said is in direct conflict with it. It's like saying every person is married and then saying you never mentioned anything about bachelors. You are so stupid it's a wonder you remember to breathe.

>>7792645
Hopefully they'd have a way of "proving me wrong" that was valid.

>>7792650
>How could I have done that when I never claimed that the universe is a reference frame in the first place?
More worming around. You implied I was saying a toddler was the absolute reference frame while ignoring, deliberately, the context. You're not possible to communicate with because you choose to fail to understand how a statement functions within a larger idea, or context. So you don't grasp the meaning or idea it was supposed to convey.

>If the human knows how the universe works he will know relativity.
No. He'll know three things. The universe is a 200 meter cube, he is moving at a constant 1m/s along the equator in a straight line, and the sphere is rotating on its axis at 1m/s. He will know all the supporting ideas to understand speed, measurement, etc. That's it.

>Which perspectives are skewed and which are the true facts? You just keep repeating that they exist without distinguishing which is which.
Anon, we have been through this! It's right in the OP! It's been in multiple posts. Without either having the perspective of everything at once, or having a vast network of sensors that take snapshots at very precisely synchronized intervals, it would be difficult to patch together. This is why we're relying on extrapolating the simplest cases over a variety of conditions. Well, at least that's why I'm preferring to present it that way. For someone into physics, you don't really have much of an interest for the real base stuff, do you?

>so let's summarize:
1. It doesn't.
2. They aren't.
3. Affecting the universe, whatever that is supposed to mean, is irrelevant. Either it can move somewhere or it can't. It does. Because it can. It moves from somewhere to somewhere else.

>>7792627
>It obviously isn't.
See I told you you would ignore what I wrote. Again, saying that location is independent of reference frame directly implies that either the laws of physics are different in different reference frames, or that the speed of light is not constant. So which one do you agree with?

>Either something interacts, or it does not interact. There is only one outcome.
Yes, it's called causality you fucking tard. We've already been over this. Relativity does not affect causality, it affects simultaneity. You even said we were on the same page on this. But as soon as you need to keep your pathetic thread alive you go right back to saying stupid shit that even you know is wrong. You fucking lunatic.

>I told you that there were only two objects in this universe, the sphere, and the person. Where does that leave the observer? That universe is just a box, the observer is watching or measuring from "outside". It's to give you a cognitive tool to insert yourself into the "whole" perspective without becoming the person, the sphere, or a nothing within that universe. Because you don't seem to be grasping it too easily on your own.
We've already been over this too .There is no reference frame outside of the universe. If there was something looking at us then it would by definition be a part of our universe, interacting with us. But then this would be just another arbitrary reference frame. Something which does not interact with us is a magic pink unicorn that can't be shown to exist. No one cares about your imaginary friend the magic pink unicorn. Get it through your thick skull.

>Also, inb4 you try to make some sort of artificial leverage by claiming light can't leave our universe.
You are seriously this dumb aren't you? Now I want you to look up the definition of universe and copy it down into your post. The universe encompasses all interactions which effect each other.

>>7792668
>The former is unaffected by relativity, the latter is.
There you go then, in your own words. Either an interaction occurs, or it doesn't. Perspective and reference frame doesn't matter. Therefore it is governed by its absolute position, not some skewed sense of "when" or how you observe it to happen.

>So admit simultaneity is false. NOW.
I don't care about simultaneity. This is more to do with the tick rate.

File: Ohwow.jpg (39KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 562x437px

>>7792628
>If they have the position you seem to, and make the same claims, I would say yes. They do have a disjointed and broken view of space.
So you're just smarter than all of them yeah?

>I don't see a contradiction, and no one can even show me one despite ranting on with all manner of fluff about how these contradictions so certainly and substantially exist! Ha!
You: "What is my actual motion through space when tethered to something that itself is undergoing such a large amount of motion? What is my absolute location and how is it changing? This would require a perspective that encompasses the whole of all things, but clearly, an absolute must exist."
Physicists: "Since there is no absolute reference frame in relativity theory, a concept of 'moving' doesn't strictly exist, as everything is always moving with respect to some other reference frame."

No wait, that must be a mistake. Nothing you said contradicts relativity theory. Therefore you agree with everything I have said. Ha!

>>7792685
>See I told you you would ignore what I wrote.
What am I supposed to say to it, the same thing I've said probably a dozen times now? The same thing you haven't at all connected with or responded to directly? Why would I do that?

No matter how many times you follow it up with something you claim is relevant, you cannot draw any substantial links meaning either you don't understand what I'm saying, you don't understand what you're saying, or a bit of both. Otherwise the hard link would be likely readily apparent to both observers.

>Relativity does not affect causality, it affects simultaneity.
It affects the tick rate relative to "realtime", or the fastest rate of change the universe is capable of.

>There is no reference frame outside of the universe.
Oh for fuck's sake. Making the universe a finite space you can look into, like a snow globe, is meant to simulate having a much larger perspective of the whole. It doesn't matter what if anything exists outside of the universe, or even if that concept has meaning.

Man you're as dense as they come.

>You are seriously this dumb aren't you?
Every response and jab you attempt further showcases your limitation.

>>7792696
>So you're just smarter than all of them yeah?
Less delusional. Could be a function of ideological differences. Luckily, the latter a physicist would capable of legitimately addressing or reconciling.

>Physicists: "Since there is no absolute reference frame in relativity theory, a concept of 'moving' doesn't strictly exist, as everything is always moving with respect to some other reference frame."
And what, this is the part that shuts me down?
Is this where I get "shown"?

>>7792656
>You're saying that you have two particles, and some given something or other that allows them to move around and occupy various locations. Then woops, one particle disappears, and that motion that was occurring ceases to exist?
No. Now you are just being deliberately dense. I never said the two particle universe actually gave rise to the one particle universe. You can't just destroy particles, well technically you can destroy particles with mass by colliding it with its antimatter but this would just create other massless particles. So you can't reduce the universe to one reference frame unless that universe has always had one reference frame.

>You don't even know what the universe is, much less what it is to "affect" it or a given part of it.
I know a hell of a lot more than you, that's what this thread proves.

>Before this the range of the weak force was a gaping hole, and yet you want to look at me and say you know what it all is and what can affect it.
What are you babbling about you illiterate buffoon? I don't need to know everything about the universe to debunk your stupid little nonsense. Just basic physics.

>Why am I here, and you there?
The question makes no sense. Why implies a reason. Reason implies intelligence behind the universe. There is no reason to think there is. Plus it's just bullshit to distract from the topic at hand, which you have lost grasp of.

>>7792719
>I never said the two particle universe actually gave rise to the one particle universe.
That's right anon, I did. Good job! I highlighted the logical implications of your own hypothetical by slighting changing its parameters! Pretty clever, huh? That's alright, I knew you could handle it and wouldn't wrongfully attribute it to something you did.

Talk about deliberately being dense.

>I know a hell of a lot more than you, that's what this thread proves.
Too bad talk doesn't mean anything. Bout' time for you to prove it.

>What are you babbling about you illiterate buffoon? I don't need to know everything about the universe to debunk your stupid little nonsense. Just basic physics.
If only instead of thinking you knew basic physics, you had some basic logic and reasoning skills. "Debunkers" are almost universally myopic, and so far, you've done a poor job of that to begin with.

Why don't you ditch your "m-m-m-my role as a debunker!" mindset and start giving some real responses. This attitude of yours is absurd.

>The question makes no sense.
Because you're cluttering it up by pulling in unrelated elements that have no place in it, as you indicate later.
>Why implies a reason.
Why implies a means. Unless you think the universe is all magic. You turn on a light switch, and some objects begins to make you able to see. Are you implying there is no "why" to be asked about why you can see, or why there is such a thing as seeing? Are you scientifically inclined, or not?

It's like an onion. You can view it on many layers, but this matter is uniquely simple. Why are you there. Why am I here. We are not the same person. We are not in the same place. Why can place exist, what is location. There is a WHY to be asked, and there is a spectrum of potential answers to be given. If you can't see that I question whether you're a scientist at all.

>>7792677
>You implied I was saying a toddler was the absolute reference frame while ignoring, deliberately, the context.
The context was that you chose the reference frame agreeing with the toddler rather than the reference frame of the water, for no valid reason. That was my point. It does not really matter whether you chose the toddler's reference frame or some other, because you still chose one that you claimed was absolute. This contradicts your axiom that absolute motion is independent of reference frame. And you you have failed again and again to elucidate why the particular reference frame you chose is THE ONE.

>No. He'll know three things. The universe is a 200 meter cube, he is moving at a constant 1m/s along the equator in a straight line, and the sphere is rotating on its axis at 1m/s.
From whose reference frame, idiot? 1m/s along the equator by itself doesn't mean anything.

"Since there is no absolute reference frame in relativity theory, a concept of 'moving' doesn't strictly exist, as everything is always moving with respect to some other reference frame."

>Without either having the perspective of everything at once, or having a vast network of sensors that take snapshots at very precisely synchronized intervals, it would be difficult to patch together.
I gave you an example with only two particles. I gave you all the information available in this universe. We've had several simple examples you should have been able to determine the absolute motion of. The only ones you have deigned to answer you have answered by choosing an arbitrary frame of reference which violates your axiom that arbitrary motion is independent of such frames. If you cannot choose a frame of reference you must admit there is no absolute motion, there are only relative motions. Do it already, the glaring contradiction in your argument has been made as clear as it can.

>>7792677
>1. It doesn't.
So are the laws of physics variable in different reference frames or is the speed of light not constant? Because one of these must be true in order for motion to be independent of reference frame.

>2. They aren't.
You: "In the hypothetical I layed out exactly how to view the motion of the related bodies. You don't need to calculate it. A toddler can tell you that a fish swimming upstream at the same rate as the stream itself's motion in the other direction, will move nowhere."

>3. Affecting the universe, whatever that is supposed to mean, is irrelevant.
LOL. OK, have fun with your imaginary pink unicorn friend that has nothing to do with the universe, can't be shown to exist in any way, yet you insist exists. I wouldn't tell any mental health professionals about him though, they might lock you up.

>Either it can move somewhere or it can't. It does. Because it can. It moves from somewhere to somewhere else.
Then it's interacting with the universe you twit.

>>7792719
>Reason implies intelligence behind the universe.
Eh... It can, and typically does, but doesn't necessarily have to. I don't think it's worth bringing into it.

Obviously the universe is only capable of doing certain things, through certain means. We exploit this every day, despite that we don't know too much about scale, why, or how. What it comes to for me is whether the machinery for the universe to be what it is, and do what it does, can be shown to be entirely self contained, or if we are to assume it's driven and generated by some sort of "external" machinery. Or if it's just fundamentally breaks our logic and cannot be investigated or understood why anything "is" or "does".

>There is no reason to think there is.
There is. Many of the physicists you appear to respect came to think the same. I think it's irrelevant and tend to ignore it, or avoid thinking about it as a separate intelligence. I just call it machinery, whether that logic applies or not.

>Plus it's just bullshit to distract from the topic at hand,
Ughhh......
Again, this is just an opinion based off the fact that you don't get it. You don't understand what I'm saying to you. It's all part of one idea.

>>7792677
>Hopefully they'd have a way of "proving me wrong" that was valid.
Can you prove dualism wrong?

>>7792689
>There you go then, in your own words. Either an interaction occurs, or it doesn't. Perspective and reference frame doesn't matter. Therefore it is governed by its absolute position, not some skewed sense of "when" or how you observe it to happen.
No, the interaction happening or not is separate from when it happens or where it happens. I think elementary school students could tell you this. But good try, you might reach the 3rd grade eventually. For example from my perspective I started fucking your mother at 9:00 PM at coordinate (1,2,3). But my buddy flying his rocket in the x direction in space saw me start fucking your mother at 9:01PM at coordinate (1.5,2,3). The event itself doesn't change, it's just that time and space are skewed by Lorentz contraction because we are in different inertial frames.

>I don't care about simultaneity. This is more to do with the tick rate.
The tick rate is a bunch of nonsense you pulled out of your asshole and you are already talking about simultaneity when you talk about "absolute" location and motion.

>What am I supposed to say to it, the same thing I've said probably a dozen times now?
What exactly are you going to say to a thought experiment that shows two observers see light hit the walls of a moving car at different times? An experiment that has been performed countless times in real life, that empirically proves simultaneity is false. Nothing. You will say nothing and continue to whine that it's not relevant without even referring to the experiment, because you don't understand relativity. Simultaneity is false. This is an empirical fact. So you lose. Done. Over.

>>7792709
>Oh for fuck's sake. Making the universe a finite space you can look into, like a snow globe, is meant to simulate having a much larger perspective of the whole.
Of the whole snowglobe, not the universe. But you can get a perspective of the whole snowglobe from anywhere inside the snowglobe you idiot, so what is your point? There is no outside perspective looking in on the whole universe, and if there was it would just be another perspective. Another arbitrary perspective, dependent on a reference frame. Get it through your thick skull already. Everything is an outside observer to everything else. You're idea fails. Nice try. Now fuck off.

>Less delusional. Could be a function of ideological differences. Luckily, the latter a physicist would capable of legitimately addressing or reconciling.
"Since there is no absolute reference frame in relativity theory, a concept of 'moving' doesn't strictly exist, as everything is always moving with respect to some other reference frame."

>And what, this is the part that shuts me down?
>Is this where I get "shown"?
You: "What is my actual motion through space when tethered to something that itself is undergoing such a large amount of motion? What is my absolute location and how is it changing? This would require a perspective that encompasses the whole of all things, but clearly, an absolute must exist."
Physicists: "Since there is no absolute reference frame in relativity theory, a concept of 'moving' doesn't strictly exist, as everything is always moving with respect to some other reference frame."
I'm sorry you are so delusional that you think these two statements do not contradict each other. It's sad really.

>>7792756
>That's right anon, I did. Good job! I highlighted the logical implications of your own hypothetical by slighting changing its parameters! Pretty clever, huh? That's alright, I knew you could handle it and wouldn't wrongfully attribute it to something you did.
So why did you say this?
"You're saying that you have two particles, and some given something or other that allows them to move around and occupy various locations. Then woops, one particle disappears, and that motion that was occurring ceases to exist?"

Are you extremely forgetful of all the bullshit you write that I have to correct or do you just not care?

>Because you're cluttering it up by pulling in unrelated elements that have no place in it, as you indicate later.
All I asked was for you to explain what "able to exist" means. I'm sorry your feeble little brain makes up such meaningless phrases as filler text.

>Why implies a means. Unless you think the universe is all magic. You turn on a light switch, and some objects begins to make you able to see.
That would be explaining how the universe works, which is what physics does. It does not explain why it works, because that's a meaningless question.

>>7792758
>That was my point.
Keep making your points. Keep focusing only on the point you can jump in to state! Give no thought to what you read.

Look, you don't have a point. Your "point" has no relation to the topic at hand, you only think it does because you consistently fail to grasp what we're talking about. We're having two different conversations, with each other. It's miserable, and it's retarded. Cut it out.

The toddler isn't even part of the scene, for one fucking thing. So let's stop mentioning the toddler. It's just a stream with a fish, the toddler is unrelated and only given for comparison of what mental faculty is required to figure it out. For another, this came directly from the context of a sphere rotating in a vacuum. It's a different representation of the same thing, and the perspective of the stream is equally unimportant.

>From whose reference frame, idiot? 1m/s along the equator by itself doesn't mean anything.
It's a perfect sphere spinning on an axis with absolutely nothing else. Spinning 1m/s, and walking 1m/s, can mean nothing else. Accelerate it in some direction, whatever, the same thing is still happening on its surface, only now their absolute position is changing within their universe.

>If you cannot choose a frame of reference
The frame of reference is the universe itself. Not the stuff composing it, or "in" it, it itself. The very thing that gives you the means to right now to exist on earth, but not jupiter. It forces you to be only in one location.

>>7792760
>Because one of these must be true in order for motion to be independent of reference frame.
It doesn't. I've explained why. Either an object interacts with another, or it does not. The machinery of the universe doesn't strictly care about reference frame when it comes to spatial location, and this demands that motion be absolute. I'm not sure how to put it more directly for you. Appearances don't matter beyond what they tell you about how something works, results are what count.

>A toddler can tell you
Yeah, I suppose the wording does wrongfully imply the toddler is present. Oh well.

>Then it's interacting with the universe you twit.
Then you believe in absolute location.

>>7792797
>Keep making your points. Keep focusing only on the point you can jump in to state! Give no thought to what you read.
I respond to more of what you say then you do to me, hypocrite. If you want to read go to wikipedia and learn about relativity and physics. You aren't here to learn or even to get criticism of your ideas, you're here to perpetuate the illusion that you are intelligent, special, and infallible.

>Look, you don't have a point. Your "point" has no relation to the topic at hand
My point is that absolute motion doesn't exist, absolute location doesn't exist, and simultaneity doesn't exist. Obviously this has to do with the topic at hand since you keep repeating the opposite. It seems that you have given up trying to argue "rationally" and are instead attempting to pretend the argument doesn't exist in order to preserve your delusion.

>The toddler isn't even part of the scene, for one fucking thing. So let's stop mentioning the toddler.
Didn't I just say it doesn't matter whether you chose the toddler's reference frame? You're the one who isn't reading. I'll say it again, there is no absolute motion of the fish and the stream. Motion only exists in relative terms.

>It's a perfect sphere spinning on an axis with absolutely nothing else. >Spinning 1m/s, and walking 1m/s, can mean nothing else.
They mean nothing without a reference frame. You literally can't imagine it in your head without a reference frame. The earth is not spinning from your reference frame. When you walk your legs are rotating the earth under you. Two spaceships traveling at different speeds will see the earth rotating at different speeds. This is fucking freshman physics, and it's empirically proven. Yet here you are plugging away at the round hole with a square peg, wallowing in your ignorance.

>>7792797
>The frame of reference is the universe itself.
Again, I want you to look up what frame of reference means and copy it in your post. Until then you do not know what it means so there is no point in discussing it while you pretend to know what it means. That would just be foolish.

>>7792806
>It doesn't.
OK, so now you have written down explicitly how wrong you are, such that it can be directly seen you are in contradiction with the foundational proof of special relativity. Excellent:

"It was Albert Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions:
1. the principle of relativity – the equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;
2. the constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, independent of the relative motion of its source."

>Then you believe in absolute location.
LOL. Lunatic.

>>7792767
No. Eventually a mechanistic approach to explaining neurological function could put fairly serious doubts to it. The idea that the body is just a proxy, and the mind is projected from elsewhere, likely is here to stay. Forever.

>>7792779
>No, the interaction happening or not is separate from when it happens or where it happens.
Because all perspectives are skewed to some degree. They are erroneous. Only by being everything at once could you truly know.

>The tick rate is a bunch of nonsense you pulled out of your asshole
So you believe time is continuous, or? I'm more inclined to think it's granular.

>and you are already talking about simultaneity when you talk about "absolute" location and motion.
I guess simultaneity is probably bullshit then, or incorrectly framed to some degree.

>What exactly are you going to say to a thought experiment that shows two observers see light hit the walls of a moving car at different times?
Skewed perspectives. Or that photons are just a high amplitude wave in an underlying field, which appears granular relative to a given measurement device, and therefore appears to behave strangely relative to matter and distance.

>>7792820
>Because all perspectives are skewed to some degree. They are erroneous. Only by being everything at once could you truly know.
That doesn't respond to what I said. The interaction happening or not separate from when it happens or where it happens.

Also, "being everything at once" wouldn't give you a single perspective, it would give you all the perspectives, which conflict with each other. So no absolute perspective, dunce.

>So you believe time is continuous, or? I'm more inclined to think it's granular.
Unknown, but has no effect on the topic at hand.

>Skewed perspectives.
So what's the correct perspective? Oh right, somehow all the skewed, contradictory perspectives added up in the Deepak Chopra-we-are-all-one-consciousness-bullshit somehow is "absolute" even though it's nonsense multiplied by nonsense. Read a fucking textbook. I'm out.

>>7792833
>Read a fucking textbook. I'm out.
I'm pretty tired and hungry, so I'm cooking right now. I didn't plan on responding tonight either way.

I know you're still here (probably), so take a look back at your posts for a moment. Really skim through them. You'll find they represent a gradient. Your final post was the most thoughtful one, and it less shows that you've become frustrated and broken down, and more shows you're beginning to let your rigid grasp on what you think you know, slip. And in creeps the topic and the thought patterns of other people, the barrier is weakened. That's why you've left, or run off. That's what saturation does to people.

Being omnipresent would allow something to understand what is actually happening in any given interval. It would afford it the ability to readily understand what an interval is to begin with. Realize that omnipresence also relies on absolute location. You are all somewheres that can be considered such, at once. Do you really believe all you'd experience is grand contradiction? I think not. I think you'd learn quite a bit about time, and the gradients that make up any degree of change. Unlike everything else, which is moving around all the time, you would be motionless.

Think I'll let the thread die now.