Relativity:The miracle of movement

If an object is moving one-thing must be unmoving to make movement possible. That is space!
If our perception is a reflection of the world, then what we perceive as movement is an illusion.
Are we not the infinite space that is between what we perceive as objects?
Or if there is no room where will all the furniture go?

atoms make up everything, all atoms move, therefore nothing has to be still in order for something to move

"...nothing has to be still in order for something to move"

So you are saying no-thing or space has to be still or unmoving?
Why repeat what was just posted?
Whether it be an atom or a planet an object is an object!
What is found in the subject?
How is the movement of atoms possible?

quote:

---

If an object is moving one-thing must be unmoving to make movement possible. That is space! If our perception is a reflection of the world, then what we perceive as movement is an illusion. Are we not the infinite space that is between what we perceive as objects? Or if there is no room where will all the furniture go?

---

Ziltoid:

You appear to be saying that our perception of space is pretty much synonymous with, and/or even the cause of, space itself -- and that this provides the "unmoving reference" that makes the illusion of movement possible.

I don't think it follows, at least in the most literal sense, that "If our perception is a reflection of the world, then what we perceive as movement is an illusion". Perceptions can certainly be characterized as "illusions" -- but the ambiguity in the some of the ways the word "illusion" can be used or interpreted does not automatically imbue "perception" with some of the metaphysical implications you appear to be suggesting here.

quote:

---

How is the movement of atoms possible?

---

As you note, movement is relative, which means that "movement" only has meaning in relation to some reference point. "Space", as a homogenous, non-specific structure, has no intrinsic referential anchor, so if there was one thing in that space, you could not determine if it was moving or not -- and if it appeared to be moving, you could not determine if the thing was moving or the thing was standing still and every other thing was moving relative to it.

Ambiguity in meaning is fertile ground for metaphysical abstraction.

perception or a relative definition is essential to define movement.

If i see or realize that an object is moving, it is because on the time scale (will get into that in a moment), it appeared to change position.

Now position is a bit vague to define anyway.

But as all scientist try to define it, it is a form of measurment that is based on relativity on a theoratical construct of "space".

Anyway, the only reason why i would say this object has moved, is because it is moving along "me" as an Axis and of course i've moved before to comprehend what it means.

Movement is always relative, as relativity is such a big part of our existence to begin with.

if i stand on the earth rotating round itself round the sun, and the sun itself moving within the galaxy, and that galaxy moving away from every other galaxy we know of and so on.
If i see an object moving on this earth. Is it not moving anymore.

How much that object is moving is relative. But that's all that anyone ever speaks of.
But if an object is moving, That doesn't mean something has to be still next to it to realize that. Of course i can only say this object is moving because of "me" standing still.
I do not think there is such a thing as "non moving", and a lot of people would agree to that notion.
There is such a thing as moving along the same axis at the same speed.
And that my friend, is "unmoving" as you put it.


Please don't try explain the wheel.
It will always be a wheel.

Deducting that movement only exists when absence of movement does, is not an accurate deduction.

Movement as well as time are terms of measurement, It is always defined in comparison. never in absolute.

and here we come closer to defining matter.
Which can be said to be movement or energy condensed into a repetitive motion.

observation: "motion begets forces that repel objects who try stop that motion"

So then when i strike a solid object formed of atoms each having something revolving around something and each of those somethings formed of things revolving around things,
I strike a million little particles that are in constant motion, and thus it results in a force that repels what i stroke it with.

And that would be the complex constant motion that is material existence.


Now think Why did that force come to exist, Why does matter exist, and How.


Anyway, back to the subject.

Motion is the one thing we can be "certain" of because we perceive 2 objects moving.
Now which is the unmoving object, and which is the moving object We can never Ever tell, for accuracy purposes scientists mostly agree that both are moving, We just think of how much is this object moving according to the other and other objects and so on.

Motion exists.

But no one can ever say that something has no motion since it's a relative term of measurement to begin with.

We say something is not moving only when it's moving exactly in the same direction at the same speed as Us.
thus if we think of things on our planet, if the object's position doesn't appear to change we say it's not moving
Both of these definition are relative to the planet we're on.

<--- has no doubt of the reality of existence--what is will always be. It may-be that all questions and answers are the illusions. Unfortunately language is based off our perception, and it is impossible to perceive anything whole with our senses.
Each individuals experience of truth can only be partial, since the truth can only be one-thing, the experience will be the same to all. We are conditioned from early childhood to seek outside and we forget our inner selves.The one and only thing left in the world that the individual can do independently is to go within.
Does the world move through us or do we move through the world?
My experience is its both at the same time, but what else could it be in the world of contradictions/complimentaries(Is the glass half full or half empty?).

well I like the concept of the earth as an organism, if thats true than we move through the lifespan of the earth, or as long as the earth posses life, I doubt anyone on here is adaquetly trained to give a statement on movement in reguards to relativity as an attempt to stayon target, you yourself said that something needed to be still in order for something else to be moving when in fact it seems that the still ness is the real illusion.

quote:

---

Does the world move through us or do we move through the world?

---

meaningless question, as in what u're asking about is undefined.

define the world, define "us", i will tell u which moves within which, but we all know there is no such thing, they both move on opposite axis.

if you chose to believe we are "different" from what is in the rest of the world. then we can not discuss it within physics. and if your "movement" is some type of expression of something other than changing position that's even more vague.

but movement discussions belong in theoretical physics, not philosophy. try think why you're asking these questions, or what do they mean. maybe u'll get somewhere.

All i got from this post is words that don't belong together.

please interpret your questions, don't ask for answers for just any question.

after all, trying philosophy without meaning is just confusion that aspires to sound intelligent.

try reading up einsteins theory on relativity, maybe u'll find comfort that it's already common knowledge.


cheers~

To eye:
I know that science is an attempt to make all the unknowns of the universe(objective world) known.
What is common knowledge(china wall that is keeping man from intelligence) today is just waiting to be disproved tomorrow!
But the experience of the UNKNOWABLE is within our reach if we inquire deeply.
I know that I don't know--and all your answer are bullshit!
All philosophy is bullshit!
p.s. thanks for filling the gaps!

i was simply inquiring about the point or the question you're trying to ask. Since what i stated was accurate to the question i understood from it.

i did not assume things and state my own point of view.

i stated the point of view of certain theories in physics.
(and theories (as in relativity and the rest) are NOT something proven, are the only terms of discussion in terms of physics. They haven't been proven to be valid, but also haven't been proven to be wrong as well :: thus they are theories not facts)

other point of views were the "essense of philosophy" as many would agree.

i did not try to discuss movement or understand movement in my own terms.

i still think discussion of movement is pointless, unless you could please prove me wrong.

Unless it was to try understand our "material" existence, which was my direction of thought.

again, please explain the questions at hand.

There is no point to my either/or questions, they were fingers pointing to the moon.To answer them is meaningless!(bullshit)

Relativity is relatively new in science but has been in philosophy for thousands and thousands of years.
I feel that if they are pushed farther and farther apart into separate categories bigger and bigger disasters will be inevitable,possibly the extinction of all humans!(its a fascinating coincedence that nuclear weapons are made through a process of extreme separation!)
Do philosophers live in a different existence than scientists? Why do people understand this as separate phenomenon? The way I see it they are the same, and anyways for thousands of years many great genius thinkers(philosophers) have come and gone and has a single one of them reached any conclusion at all?or has it all been a wastage(bullshit!)
Fantasy philosophy(religion) has been a slow deadly and almost invisible poison on humanity.(if you want to find the missing link just look at the history of priesthood--the hierarchy is uncannily like the monkeys in the trees!)
I want people to wake up before its too late!

Everything in existence is made up of vibrations, just because we are unable to perceive radio waves/television waves does not mean they are not floating around us.
The more dense the vibrations the more solid an object is.

Now try to imagine a device similar to a television that could perceive thought waves(mind). This would be devastating to the vested interests! This would destroy the division of man!
Man is hypnotized by the images(thoughts) and has forgotten that s/he is holding the remote(within). The mind(t.v.) is randomly changing channels on its own, (one moment the happy channel the next the sad one ) and the programming(knowledge)is in the hands of the vested interests. Once man finds the remote within themselves, they are in control of the mind. Now the ability to control mind is possible. If you want to turn it off so be it! The channels(Intelligence) are no longer limited to your programming, they are infinite!

Both philosophy and science do have benefits.

philosophy is to understand our spiritual existence, it's an exercice of the mind, the more we think of all questions that we could not answer , the more we able to think more about our daily actions.
philosophy's purpose was to exercice the mind(that's how it was defined), and to exercice the mind is to better ourselves (of course it's a matter of opinion).

science deals with questions we "can" answer. as in material questions, things we know. Things we could know.

theoretical physics attempts to answer material questions that we can not answer at the moment , it is in other terms the philosophy of science.

factual physics or science as we know it, is to understand the material world in terms of finding answers we "need".

as in i study the atoms, the sub-atomic particles and so on. to better understand how they function and to use them for the benefit of "technology" towards making man's life easier.

philosophy and theoretical physics are closer than anyone admits, they both attempt to answer questions the same way. One is based on facts, one is based on assumptions
one has a purpose in science, one has a purpose in living.

they meet more often than we would like to admit.

they are both benefitiary.
but we have to learn that philosophy doesn't have an answer. It has a purpose of benefiting ourselves.
if we ask questions we already know answers for. then it does not benefit us in any way.

as commonly used, philosophy's questions help us think about ourselves more than our material existence.
factual science uses questions that are based on our material existence taking no spiritual assumtions or anything that we do not "know". now defining what we know is basically what we have seen, or what we assumed to be right after trying it a 1000 times.

both in the end do not have definite answers. They both asume more often than they realise it.

but science's assumtions are general. they are put in books and studied and are constantly tried to be disproven.
nothing is 100% accurate, science needs the assumptions to function.
philosophy doesn't.

I hear you eye.
100% is the expectation of the end of evolution. But this is true only if a beginning is assumed. Without assumptions or expectations, everything is perfect(100%) the way It is!

Each individual should have their own subjective philosophy. Philosophy should be limited in the objective existence to a meaning in a dictionary--Philosophy: Mans individual experience of (subjective)existence without assumptions or expectations. Questions and answers seem to be an unending cycle just like every process in existence.

The essence of humanity is a creative process(unending). Each moment our ignorance dies and our understanding is born. The new is constantly being created from the destruction of the old. But when people cling to knowledge that is not their own, stagnation is the result.


I wish the mass majority of people would grow their intelligence to allow themselves to wrap their heads around this, and I feel It to be within their grasp.
It's just when people [think] they know(possess) the answer(goal) to a quest(ion), the journey is over before it has begun. Hence humankind has been spinning around in circles for a long time now.
"I" cannot do anything , if "I" could my life would be hell.
Much gratitude for this freedom.

p.s. My mind functions in extremely abstract ways, my lack of articulateness has always been my weakness, thanks for understanding!