Motion relative to what?

>>8387669
To God, duh.

>>8387669
To an inertial frame of reference.

>>8387669
To the point infinity.

>>8387669
To absolute space

Motion suggests itself

to anything

File: glowing_pepe.jpg (16KB, 563x294px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 563x294px

>>8387669
Motion does not need to be relative to anything. Relativity is a fallacy. A moving isolated object in empty space is moving; nothing more to it.

>>8387762
not if you are moving with the same speed in the same direction as the object; it is stationary. The same goes if you are on the object. Relativity is a necessity.

Motion relative to itself, giving rise to infinitesimal motion

File: meme_frog.jpg (49KB, 610x610px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 610x610px

>>8387786
Hold up a second there, pal. Why are you injecting this idea of "you"? Why does there need to be an observer? Surely you've developed the capacity to conceive of abstract situations. We are simply considering a single object in empty space that has the property that it is moving. Nothing else. And if that object has such a property, then it is obviously moving.

>>8387805
What is the property of moving then?

>>8387805
Define moving

File: ohdooer.png (242KB, 2400x2400px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 2400x2400px

Mole

if all motion is relative then how will you know when you've accelerated to lightspeed?

>>8387970
the human body could not withstand movement of such speeds; even if proper protection existed externally, the internal organs would liquefy and cause you to explode as they were pushed against your skin.

>>8387762
But... moving relative to what?

>>8388055
Moving relative to your mom.