"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112117006.535615.94190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:

"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112032615.040480.171680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:

"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111679730.124029.134510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:

"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message

kenseto wrote:

"The Ghost In The Machine"

<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>

wrote

in

message

news:q887h2-gbu.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...

In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:31:56 GMT
<w%V%d.6496$rL3.4855@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in

message

news:3aamtkF6bbkreU2@individual.net...

Sigh....All objects are observed to be moving wrt us and the

universe

is

observed to be in a state of accelerated expansion. Therefore

objects in

the universe are in a state of moving.

Oh, come on. My coffee cup is not moving with respect to the

But you can't use the table as reference for absolute motion

in

space). The table is in a state of absolute motion in space.

Therefore your

coffee cup is also in a state of absolute motion in space.

And you know this *how*? I am pointing out to you that it is easy

establish whether two objects are in relative motion, but I have no
idea how you establish whether any single object is in absolute

What is your test for establishing that, other than saying "it just
is"?

You need to do the experiment described in the following link to

the existence of absolute motion (page 3).
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf

And
just because the *center* of the next galaxy happens to be

with

respect to the *center* of this galaxy does not mean that every

star in

that galaxy is moving with respect to our sun.

You keep on using other objects as reference for absolute motion.

This is

bogus. Absolute motion is not wrt any visible object.

Then what IS absolute motion with respect to? If you say the

then how do you KNOW that every visible object is in motion with
respect to it?

Motion of an object in the E-Matrix is absolute motion. I know that

object is in a state of absolute motion because no object is in a

absolute rest.

Absolute motion will affect the rate of a clock and the
light path length of a rod. That's the reason for the observed time

and rod contraction.

I'll give you a simple
example. I'm driving along a road at 20 mph and I throw my

Mickey-D's

French Fry wrapper backwards out the window at 20 mph. Is the

wrapper

moving or not, and with respect to what?

Both you and the wrapper are in the same state of absolute motion

before you

throw it. After you throw it (apply a force to it) the wrapper

have a

different state of absolute motion than you.

Those are relative statements, note -- same state of motion,

state of motion. You keep using other objects as reference for

motion. This is bogus. (Quoting you, note.) What is the absolute

of the wrapper?

Sigh....you have to do experiment in the rest frame of the wrapper to
determine its absolute motion.
Any object in your rest frame will have the same state of absolute

you. I really don't know what is your problem with that statement.

I'll give you another example. Suppose I look at the relative

motion of

all the dots painted onto a balloon that is inflating. But the

balloon

is also resting on the table, and one of the painted dots is

precisely

at the point of contact between the table and the inflating

balloon.

Note that, as the balloon inflates, ALL of the dots are in a

of

relative motion, including the one at the point of contact. But

the

table defined zero velocity, there is one dot that is not

even

though it has the same relative motion status as all the other

on

the balloon.

Sigh....same example as above. You use the table as reference for

absolute

motion. This is a bogus assumption. The table is also in a state

absolute

motion.

Yeah, but suppose that there is one object in the universe that has
zero absolute motion.

So??

It is simply NOT an empirical fact that everything is moving

relative

to everything else, and it is also thus an improper conclusion

that that everything is in a state of *absolute* motion.

It is an emperical fact that everything is in a state of absolute

motion.

Reference please. The only empirical fact we have is that all

are in a state of relative motion.

And relative motion between two objects is the vector difference of

vector components their absolute motions along the line joining them.

Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector

of

their vector components along the line joining A and B.

[Punchline: I'm not arguing with you that everything is in a

of

motion.

Yes you are.

For every object, one can choose an inertial frame where that
object is in motion, and since all inertial frames are

equivalent, there is no object that can be said to be

rest.

Precisely....every objerct in the universe is in a state of

motion.

However, is it your improper logical jump that everything is
therefore absolutely in motion. Rather, the proper statement is

that

there is *no such thing* as absolute motion or absolute rest.

Sigh...if there is no absolute rest that means that all objects

in a

state of absolute motion.

Nope, it's not one or the other. Absolute rest is an ill-defined
concept.

It is only an ill-defined concept for a naive SR religious nut like

It is

OK, and here is where your computational weakness is showing

through.

First of all, your definition of observed relative motion is

incorrect.

If I have a passenger on Train A and a passenger on Train B,

the

two trains are going in opposite directions at 45 mph each on

adjacent

tracks. At the moment where the two passengers are directly

from

each other (at their point of closest approach), their relative
velocity with respect to each other is 90 mph. However, the

component

of their relati