Absolute rest is impossible - All is motion
We know for certainty that we, A, are in motion relative to the sun, B because we have night and day, seasons.
Now take any other object C in the universe.
C must be either be at rest relative to:
1. both A and B
2. A
3. B
Imagine A, B and C are points on a triangle. We know that A and B are in relative motion. So the distance AB is always changing. C is the other vertex of this triangle. If AC is constant and BC is constant but that means AB also has to be constant because A and B are not changing relative to C. This contradicts our premise that A and B are in relative motion.
Thus, ALL objects in the universe are in motion relative to something else. All is motion.
Is there anything wrong with this argument?
Thanks.
Now take any other object C in the universe.
C must be either be at rest relative to:
1. both A and B
2. A
3. B
Imagine A, B and C are points on a triangle. We know that A and B are in relative motion. So the distance AB is always changing. C is the other vertex of this triangle. If AC is constant and BC is constant but that means AB also has to be constant because A and B are not changing relative to C. This contradicts our premise that A and B are in relative motion.
Thus, ALL objects in the universe are in motion relative to something else. All is motion.
Is there anything wrong with this argument?
Thanks.
Comments (68)
I'm not sure this is sound. If you turn a light in your living room on and off, you have "day and night," but that's not proof of relative motion between you and the lamp. Likewise if you turn the thermostat higher and lower you have "seasons." Night and day and seasons are not proof of relative motion absent other facts, such as ... well, such as the relative motion of the earth with respect to the sun. Besides, night and day don't require relative motion between the earth and the sun, it only requires the earth to rotate on an axis. Or, for someone to be messing around with the light switch.
Observation tells us that the galaxies are moving away from each other because the universe is expanding. The galaxies are spinning, the planets are orbiting their stars, and are spinning on their axes. Then, on this planet, there is continental drift -- and you won't sit still either.
Heraclitus would be proud, as would Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer thought, metaphysically, all was unrest, and this makes for a pessimistic human existence. In the West, if you are not bound by religious cons, you are most likely an unawares Nietzschean. Will to power (transform yourself!), Be the person you are!, Eternal Return (change your life so you would want it to be its most beautiful version of itself), Beyond Good and Evil (essentially be virtuous in your own way), the Ubermensch (climb the mountain, go on your crazy travelling adventures, build the monument, produce something incredible, etc.). It's all what the modern mindset is driven on in the post-industrial world. Like it or not, we live in a Nietzschean-mindset world. This bodes poorly for me, who is a Schopenhauerean through-and-through. What do you think about that notion @Bitter Crank?
It's strange how different metrics of the same thing can not only imply different outcomes, but complete opposite outcomes.
Movement measured relative to other objects seems to imply that all things are moving, but movement measured as points in time rather than segments seems to imply that they aren't.
I don't know what I think about this problem. I actually don't even know if what you say and the paradox contradict in any way. All I can really say is this-
Well, there is no "duration-less" because time is an interval; also, the hare beats the Together Turtle in another paradox.
You are right in a sense. Relative absolute rest (relative rest) is a real thing. Just as when a spoke circles around a axle the spoke is actually accelerating even though it might have a linear velocity that is constant. The reason is anytime you change direction that counts as accelerating. I guess the point i'm trying to make is that as long as the general trend is that the object (statistical analysis plays a huge part in understanding physics) is staying in the same general state, if you hit the object, that object is likely to start accelerating from a relative absolute rest, or to put it more accurately a relative rest.
https://www.sciencealert.com/after-a-century-of-debate-cooling-to-absolute-zero-has-been-declared-mathematically-impossible
Yes there is something wrong with the argument, you haven't defined "absolute rest". Does absolute rest mean that nothing is in motion, as would be the case if time stopped passing, or does it refer to something, relative to which the motion of all things could be measured? The argument does not show that either of these is impossible, so it really does nothing to show that absolute rest is impossible.
Whatever happened to 4: None of the above.
The vast majority (like all) objects C are at rest relative to neither A nor B.
Some of it depends on your coordinate system. My fork and knife appear to be at rest relative to each other, but only because I'm using a rotating and accelerating reference frame.
I can take a triangle and twirl it about and yes, there is motion but that doesn't imply that the length AB is changing. The Earth moves quickly around the sun, but its distance from it (length AB) stay more or less the same. It would stay exactly the same for an object with a perfectly circular orbit.
So I assume you're talking about a dynamic triangle formed by moving objects, in which case all 3 of the lengths are possibly constantly changing.
Imagine a salad tong, with C at the hinge and A/B the two grasping ends. As you squeeze the tong, AC and BC lengths remain constant but AB is getting smaller. This counterexample demonstrates that AB does not have to be constant.
It draws conclusions that don't follow from the arguments. Even if all objects are indeed in relative motion, you've not shown it by your logic.
Can you describe this in words?
Quoting noAxioms
I was thinking about. Motion doesn't mean simply a change in distance rather a change in position too qualifies as motion. When you twirl the triangle the distance stays the same, yes, but there is a change in position no? Is that not motion?
:up:
C is not at rest relative to either A or B.
Of course it is, yet your OP suggested otherwise, stating that the distance AB must be changing if the position of the points is changing, and thus motion cannot happen if length AB stays the same.
I think your intuitions are accurate in the larger sense - i.e. absolute zero - which would be the absence of all motion - has been proven to be theoretically unreachable fairly recently.
Yes, as in a post I put an article saying it would take forever, which means never.
My list of impossibles: Stillness, Beginning, End, Infinite, Nothing, Free Will, He, and maybe Forever.
This is an interesting comment. I could say, suppose the light switch is in the next room and an evil demon electrician is flipping it? There's motion even though we can't observe it. In fact if I understand your point, you are saying that if there is change there must be motion. Is that true? Suppose instead of a light switch and an electrician, there's an electronic timing circuit? There's no motion, unless you count the vibrating electrons. But electrons vibrate even when there's no change! So I don't know if this idea is true. There can be change without mechanical motion, that's what the electronic revolution is all about. What do you think?
Thanks for pointing that out.
What if we assume, in fact it's true that the distance between the earth and the sun keeps changing, that it's the distance AB keeps changing. Doesn't this mean AC and BC should also change?
I used the math tool geogebra and what I saw was (taking three vertices of a triangle ABC) if we move B relative to A then even if AC doesn't change BC does change.
The mathematical proof would likely use the pythagorean theorem.
From a relativistic sense absolute zero is meaningless. As I said absolute rest is impossible.
But you still have not provide a coherent definition of absolute rest. As I explained earlier, there could be something which everything else is in motion relative to, but is not itself in motion, and this is absolute rest. How do you show that this is impossible?
Use three vertices of a triangle, A, B and C. Move point B relative to A. This can be done in two ways, translation (slide) or rotation (turn). If we rotate B around A then it necessarily moves relative to C. If we translate B along the line AB then by the pythagorean theorem the length BC changes (motion).
This is all that I've figured out mathematically. Actually there's a wikipedia article on this.
I don't see how that is relevant to absolute rest.
That doesn’t mean a ‘constant’ triangle or ‘absolute’ rest doesn’t exist as a possibility. But I personally think it’s a waste of energy to attempt to actualise either. In relation to the universe as we interact with it, I think these concepts have little to no relevance and no potential. We can wonder about them, sure - but to what end? Wishful thinking?
What is it about our value/logic structures that renders the concept of ‘absolute rest’ as relevant information - information that allows us to predict what will be the result for us of future interactions with this system? How accurate are these predictions? And, given that the total relevant information cannot grow indefinitely, why is this information more relevant to us than obtaining new information about the system? Just a thought...
Measurement is the validation tool of science.
How do you measure 'rest'?
Ah, a man of faith
Either all objects are in relative motion or there exists an object at absolute rest (relative to everything else).
You all deny/critique that
If you all are right then there is must be an object at absolute rest.
Can you prove that?
I agree with you that ‘all objects are in relative motion’. More than that:
There is no need to prove that. The person who claims that all motion is relative needs to prove that there is no such object as absolute rest. Until it is proven that all motion is relative, the critique of this premise is justified.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
There is a need to prove that there exists an object in absolute rest because there are only two contradictory possibilites:
1. An object in absolute rest
or
2. Everything in relative motion
Since you're denying 2 then 1 must be the case. So, prove it.
Let's try again...
Suppose there is an object, A, in absolute rest i.e. at rest relative to everything else.
But we know that there exists at least 2 objects in relative motion of the displacement kind i.e. the distance between them change e.g. a car moving towards you.
Is it then possible that A is at rest (absolute) relative to both the car and you??
There are three points: object A, the car (B) and you (C) forming a triangle.
We know that the distance BC is changing. Can the distance AC and AB remain constant i.e. can A be at rest relative to both B and C?
I think it's impossible. The pythagorean theorem proves it.
Bloody hell. What a mash.
:chin:
I was not denying 2, I was critical of anyone who would say that absolute rest is impossible, without first defining what "absolute rest" means. Now you have made progress toward a definition, saying absolute rest involves an "object" at absolute rest. Since I consider "absolute rest" to be an ideal, I don't agree with this requirement, unless an ideal is an object. Are you saying that an ideal, like "absolute rest", is an object? If so, in what way is it an object?
Quoting TheMadFool
You ought to see that this is nonsense. "Absolute rest" would be the standard by which all motions are measured. Therefore everything would be in motion relative to "object A" (absolute rest), unless there was something else which was at absolute rest. Only things at absolute rest would be unchanging relative to absolute rest, everything else would be changing relative to absolute rest.
Position of an object is relative to a reference object.
Motion is a change in position, thus relative to a ref. object.
Speed is the rate of change of motion, which has a range of 0 to light speed c.
We measure motion to determine rest, which is the absence of motion, just as dark is the absence of light, and dry is the absence of moisture. Thus there is no um for rest, and rest is also a relative state.
Newton defined two states of motion.
Let's redefine rest as the special case of two objects that have the same velocity.
Each object is at rest relative to the other, while simultaneously being in motion.
I must humbly disagree. Can you prove that, to quote, "there is(was) something else which was at absolute rest"?
Do you see the word "unless"? Suppose an object is assumed to be at absolute rest. All other objects would be in motion relative to this object "unless there is something else which was at absolute rest". To have an object which is not moving relative to the object which is at absolute rest requires that this object is also at absolute rest.
Therefore the fact that all objects are moving relative to another object does not negate the possibility that this other object is at absolute rest.
Motion gives rise to particles, without it there are no charges to piece together constituence.
meaning you win the arguement of the year. This is iomportant moreso a thesis should be written on it.
Therefore, I confer, if there is an object at absolute rest, it must be external to the universe.
Thus, all is not motion, but everything in the universe, is always moving.
The great ebb and flow of everything, hides sleightly the fact I'm never still - maddening actually.
EDIT: unless this object at absolute rest probes the universe, then it might be internal.
Quoting TheMadFoolYou mean the Earth and sun are A and B respectively? The distance between them does change all the time, but not a whole lot. You didn't define what C was. If it's Jupiter for instance, then AC and BC are going to be changing regardless of the stability of AB or not. If its my mailbox, then AC is pretty constant despite the continuous change to AB.
Well its pretty easy to make a counterexample of that. Just make AC and BC hinged rods holding those points at a constant separation. AB is free to change (B moving relative to A) without changing the lengths BC or AC. It just changes the angles at each of the 3 vertices.
The existence of the counterexample is proof that it isn't the case.
Oh, you think absolute rest means that either 1) everything is at rest, or 2) the distance between the one resting object and every other object remains the same.
In fact, the wording (the i.e. part) is a total contradiction. Motion is either absolute or relative, so if it is at absolute rest (assuming it is even meaningful to be objectively at rest), it just means it is stationary, which has nothing to do with what other objects are doing.
At rest relative to everything else is physically impossible since there are objects too far away to have the same velocity as any object here.
Correct. Thanks for pointing that out. Motion is always relative. What I meant to ask was if there exists an object that's at rest relative to everything else in the universe? There is no such thing, right?
Imagine two objects, my friend and I, moving towards each other. We're in relative motion. Now every other object in the universe must be at rest relative to either me or my friend but never both because if an object is at rest relative to me then it is in motion relative to my friend and if it's at rest relative to my friend then it's in motion relative to me. Ergo, just the existence of two objects in relative motion, every other object in the universe must also be in relative motion to one or both these objects. We have two such objects - the sun and the earth. No object in the universe is at rest relative to the rest of the objects in the universe.
If there are only two objects in the universe moving relative to each other, a third object might be stationary relative to one of them, but it would be moving relative to the other at the same velocity as the thing relative to which it is stationary. This is pretty trivial geometry. Yes, you describe this in your lower paragraph.
Another way of wording it: For an object to be a rest relative to the rest of the universe, everything in the universe would need to become stationary relative to the one thing. All motion everywhere would need to stop. That's not going to happen.
In some of your posts you talk about the distance between things changing or not. That's not the same as relative motion. Given two objects in relative motion (like a pair of masses A, B in eccentric orbit say), one can find a 3rd point (not stationary) that is always some unchanging distance from them, forming a constant length AC and BC despite the ever changing AB. That's still relative motion, but unchanging separation. It might even work for 3 objects, but not 4.
What about light? No matter who the observer, where the observer, relative velocity with light is always 186,000 mph. Isn't this kinda like saying that all object in the universe, because they're moving at the same velocity with respect to light, are at rest relative to each other?
I mean if a given number of things (all objects in the universe) have the same relative velocity with respect to one object (light) (light c = 186,000 mph), then these objects must be at rest relative to each other.
To illustrate, imagine objects A and B moving at the same relative velocity with respect to another object C. It follows that A and B are at rest relative to each other.
Light does not define a valid reference frame, so no, it's not like saying that. If one was to attempt consideration of such a frame, the universe collapses into a singularity and there is no space or time in which to define motion at all.
I am wondering what any of this has to do with the topic title. Absolute rest (of a given object) is conceptually possible, and it means that the object's absolute location is unchanging, and has nothing to do with what any of the other objects are doing. It requires a definition of absolute location, which isn't trivial.
Just a thought and the connection to the topic title is the possibility of an object/objects that could be at rest relative to everything else in the universe.
Are you sure about what you said? I mean my reasoning appears sound (to me). If two objects A and B have the same velocity relative to another object C, then the two objects A and B must be at rest relative to each other. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the line of reasoning is there?
If that's the case then since all objects in the universe have the same velocity relative to light then all objects in the universe has to be at rest relative to each other.
Sorry for the repetition but I didn't quite comprehend your answer to my question.
Seems correct to me.
They do not. Read what I said above about light not defining a valid reference frame. Also, light doesn't all have the same velocity since it is moving in all different directions
The visible universe is a distortion of what is rest. Visibility is vibration of energy. All what we can detect with our own vibrant parts will also be vibration. In other words, we cannot rely on our senses, thoughts and feelings to know what rest is. In physics, as we know it, rest/death is no vibration.
What if consciousness exists without vibration, without time and space, but simply 'now' for eternity. Would that not be rest?
An object at absolute rest, maybe, is then just not moving with respect to all possible surroundings. This means its relative velocity to all possible surroundings would be zero. Unfortunately, that would mean that the surroundings couldn't move either, as that would make the relative velocity of the object to its surroundings nonzero. (Or, they'd only be able to move in ways that did not make the object contained within them move with respect to any other surroundings. Motion with nothing going by anything.)
So if there's such a thing as "absolute rest", it would have to apply to everything (or be incoherent). That is, there'd be no motion. There is motion, so there's no such thing as absolute rest.
The "absolute" part is meant to take it out of our hands: make it something we discover rather than declare (so changing our minds doesn't alter the situation).
The earth is in free fall. It's not moving in a straight line because the space around the sun is curved.
I just evoked absolute rest: a thing that never moves. X-Y axis. Does it exist?
Relative velocity isn't just "declared".
Quoting frank
Probably not. But I don't really know what you mean.
Also, what difference does it make either way?
A thing is stationary if we declare it be.
Ok. A is walking away from B. Find a coordinate system in which they are both stationary.
It's just about ontological anti-realism. Don't declare a thing to be unreal if you can't do without it. A coordinate system is itself unchanging and apparently discovered instead a product of fiat.
Never mind.
>Declares things to be at absolute rest.
>Appeals to unspecified sense of anti-realism for claim.
"It's like that if we think it's like that".
Ok sorry. Now I'm back to no idea of what you're talking about.
But not here, no.
There'd be an energy capable of it.
Worst case scenario:
I know some lineform can simulate absolute rest; you don't need to absolute rest to rest. What you conceptualize is stopping. So rest is not the stopping part, but the zoning.
The centre is the skeleton of the simulation, it is not a normal centre.
Like light has lot's of types in a single catalyst.
Are we under planets and stars? Then it's a more skeletal centre for us.
You are embarrassing yourself here.
It's likely absolute rest is possible.
The universe doesn't stop, but we can rest.
Is aid required for rest in a restless universe?
If I was just falling wouldn't I be flinging about at high speeds?
Is a bird's gliding a partial rested state?
Yes.
Does your square phone expand?
No.
The square is at absolute rest within the laws of it's constraint. Has a peircing effect.
We can rest fully, but we will go to sleep or enter a meditative state. This isn't stopping fully, but it is absolute rest.
If I was nothing, there is no rest. It is just stop. Rest implies energy loss. Thus, what is absolute rest? Either always resting or the optimal rested state.