A...question.

[avevale_intelligencer]

I'm wondering if it's possible to explain this to me without beginning with "It's not quite as simple as that..." Because I think it kind of is.

As I understand it, it's a basic principle of physics that all motion is relative, that there is nothing in the universe that is at absolute rest. The moon moves relative to the earth, the earth to the sun, the sun to the galaxy, the galaxy relative to the Local Group, and so on outward. I get all that; the first part I understand. It's the second part that gets me.

Because if A is in motion relative to B, then B must in respect of that particular motion be at rest relative to A. For every motion, every expenditure of kinetic energy, there must be a thing which is at rest relative to the moving thing. So surely, eventually, when you get to the end of that long string of movement and sum all the velocities and directions, logically there must be a thing, or a point in space, or a field or something, which is at rest relative to everything. If everything in the universe is moving outwards, there must be an in to be moving outwards from.

There is in the Sagittarian 'verse. Towards the end of the Sagittarian Age, scientists traced back the paths of all known metastellar bodies, based on data collected over the preceding several thousand years, and located a point in space which, according to their findings, approximated to the point of origin of the universe, and a team of specialists used one of the three remaining Gilchrist machines capable of large scale transmissions to travel there. They found, precisely at the indicated point, a roughly spheroidal black rock about eight miles in diameter, and for some years thereafter speculation raged across the nets about whether any of its surface features could be interpreted as deliberate markings, whether its age corresponded to that of the rest of the matter in the universe, and so on; in short, whether it had been put there or just got left behind. No conclusive answers were ever forthcoming; the only solid fact about the rock that could be ascertained was that, as far as could be told, relative to every galaxy, nebula, star, planet and asteroid in the universe, it was at rest. Everything was moving away from it, and had been for billions of years; it wasn't moving at all. And so, as ever, people made up their own minds according to their preferences. But that's fiction, and this is real life, probably.

I realise that this is a variation on the old Unmoved Mover argument which was one of Aquinas's proofs of deity, but that's not where I'm going with this. I would honestly like to know in what way my logic is faulty, if it is. If it can be done in a way that I can see makes sense, that would be good.

And if the Higgs field turns out to be the thing relative to whch everything else is moving, that would be rather neat.

Comments

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

"Relative to the pie and its motion, he is not moving at all. If he were, it wouldn't hit him, or at least not in the same time or place. "

This can only be true if you're using the phrase "relative to" in a completely different sense to everyone who's ever got anywhere in studying physics, including Newton (who never even needed to worry about wrinkles like the weird way that light behaves, or whether gravity goes at a finite speed). And I think *that's* at the root of your confusion about all the rest of it.

Relative to him the pie is moving. Relative to the pie, *he* is moving. That is the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase "relative to".

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

But he isn't. He isn't doing anything, and nothing is doing anything to him, which would cause his motion to change in that way. Therefore the two are not equivalent except as a matter of imaginary perception.

It may not matter mathematically, but that (to me) means the maths is completely divorced from the practical reality, and that makes me question; not the utility of the maths, because that's been adequately demonstrated (so please don't ask me if I want my computer not to work) but whether there is more here to know than the maths is telling us. I think there must be.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

The pie isn't "doing anything" either! The pie had something done to it in the *past*, which caused it's motion to change from what it had been before, to what it is now. It underwent an acceleration (which in physicists parlance is any change of speed or direction or both). Yes, that *acceleration* happened to the pie, not to the man. But that's a past event. What the pie is doing *now* is... nothing. And what the man is doing is nothing. But they both see the other getting closer to them. As far as the analysis of the current motion of the pie-man system goes, it is equally valid to say that the pie is moving towards the man, or that the man is moving towards the pie, or that both are moving in opposite directions, or that both are moving in the *same* direction at different speeds. How that came to be the case is a separate issue.

In everyday earthbound experience, yes the maths is hard to see as having much relevance unless you're dealing with very big, very well lubricated things moving in ways that are virtually unaffected by their environment. We grow up with the idea that being "at rest" is more natural than moving; That if you start things moving, they will eventually stop, and so on, because that's what we see happening. But the reason *why* those things happen is simply that we're attched to the surface of this socking great ball of rock and surrounded by a load of gases that it drags around wherever it goes, and together they keep foiling our attempts to move differently to how they are moving.

But in a car crash, for example, it becomes *very* relevant, because for that second-or-less where everything significant is happening, there isn't much time for either atmospheric drag or road friction to much much difference to the outcome, and so the result of two cars hitting each other head on when they're both going at 40mph (with respect to the road) is almost identical that of one car at 80mph hitting a stationary one that's been left in gear with the brakes off (i.e. as it would be if it were moving). And I don't just mean "same result" as in "Volvo p0wnz Mini"; I mean "Volvo p0wnz Mini *to exactly the same extent*". The only difference is which bit of the road each bit of debris ends up on, because it's only with respect to the road (and to a much lesser extent, the surrounding air) that there's any difference between the two situations.

One second later, of course, they are suddenly not so independant of the world around them, either because of bent axles or because a slight off-centredness of the collision caused them to twist, and when your wheels are no longer pointing in the same direction as your movement relative to the road (aka its motion relative to you), friction becomes a much bigger factor. If neither engine is still running, the two cars get dragged from whatever state of motion they were in before to one where they're back in synch with the movement of the road: The state of motion we earthbound observers normally refer to as being "at rest".

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

"whether there is more here to know than the maths is telling us. I think there must be."

What kind of "more" did you have in mind? And *why* do you think there must be? Just a feeling? Because no amount of explanation can answer a feeling.

And also, since it generally pays to know where you stand before trying to take a step... Have you at least actually accepted now the standard interpretation of the phrase "relative motion"? Because if we can't even agree the basic terms needed to discuss what's going on in the simplest possible example of motion - i.e. two isolated bodies in continuous, unforced motion - I don't see how we can ever usefully progress to discussing how any of it applies to any situation more complex... Let alone anything so mind-bendingly complicated as "The real world"! =:o\

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I understand the interpretation of the phrase--I think--but it leaves out, as I had my judge say in the latest post, so much that seems to me to be important, like causality for instance, that I don't understand how it can be applied to the real world. It's all about imaginative perception of events taking place in an instant divorced from everything that's gone before or will come after, and in a vacuum unpopulated by any other event or object--a completely unreal situation.

But the failure of understanding is obviously mine, and I'm sorry my dimness has annoyed you.

I've never disputed that the thing works on paper, or that useful things have been done with it, and if you were telling me that nothing is going to come along that will put relativity in a new light as relativity did to Newtonian mechanics, that we have now discovered everything we need to know to describe fully the physical universe, then I would have to believe you. But I know you're not telling me that. Some believe we'll never understand the universe in its entirety; I think we will. But one thing we can both agree on is that we're not there yet. That's my basis for saying there's more.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

It leaves out so much else because it's only step 1. You can't take steps 2, 3, and 4 without first taking setp 1. Refusing to take step 1 because it doesn't get you all the way to China is no way to achieve the "journey of a thousand miles".

But I think what's *really* annoying me is that you started out by asking for an explanation, and when given one you complain that you aren't persuaded that the ideas in it are true. Well, no. You don't ask to be persuaded, you asked for an explanation. If you had asked to be persuaded, I would have known not to waste my time getting involved.

[eintx.livejournal.com]

Hey, hey. Shouldn't you be in bed curing your cold?

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Cold is gone now. Headache remains.

But yeah, resting is still a good plan... If resting is actually even *possible*...? =:o\

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I asked for an explanation because the ideas and the logic seemed, from my reading of, among others, Einstein, to be flimsy, implausible and based on a poetic image. I was really hoping to learn something that would flesh them out, provide solid ground for them, make it seem more real. I haven't.

I want to take step 2 as much as anyone here, but from what you and others have told me there isn't one, there's nothing more to learn. Nothing beyond objects moving in an endless vacuum, and we have no way of telling which is moving where or how fast but that's all right because it doesn't really matter for the maths. Where is there to go from there? I really want to know.

I'm sorry that you think you've wasted your time. I don't.

And please, get well soon. *hugs*

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

First: [HUGS].

Because hugs are important.


Second: You are a deeply valued friend. Also: I love your music/lyrics.
(Historical/introspectional note: The latter came first; But... [NOTE TO SELF!!!] ...the former is more important.)

Relevant (structured) factoid:
- At one point during this business, I sought escape from the frustrating world of "internet communication with my friends/acquaintances/others".
- I settled upon music as the means of my escape.
- I scanned the shelves next to my bed for a suitable thing to stick into the nearby player, to thereby cause appropriate music to kiss my ears...
... and finally settled upon something called "Wassaliens (and Other Unexpected Noises)".

=8o?

... And it didn't occur to me auntil halfway through track three, at the very least, that the very person whose creations were now soothing my troubled ears/brain, was the same person who had annoyed me to the point of needing such comfort in the first place.


... [LONG AND THOUGHTFUL PAUSE] ...


You are a beautiful thing, Mr. Jonathan Waite. You are a creature who somehow pre-seeds the comfort required to cope with the *dis*-comfort he is later destined to inflict (in the course of seeking his own enlightenment - Never an easy process!), in the form of musical and lyrical delight.

I wish that all discomfort-inflicting humans could claim a fraction of as much justification. However timey-wimey it may be.

[And yes, I used that particular hyphenated phrase just to bug you. Because revenge is a dish best served with the recipient's least-favourite kind of ice-cream. =>:o} ]

(And part of me wants to frame this whole comment forever and stick it on my wall as a testament to my inter-personal finest hour; And another part of me is thinking "My God, Bristow, you are *SO* far up your own frickin' ass!" ...

... In this matter at least, let history - and Jonathan Waite - be my (co-equal) judge(s).)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

You're pretty amazing yourself, you know. Now if I can just get the comfort/discomfort ratio over 1:1, I might actually achieve something positive...

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

P.S.: I note that you didn't reply to my comment that precedes this one. I wish that you had dared to. Although maybe eintx is glad that your didn't...(...?)

For me: Nothing tests a physical theory or hypothesis more thoroughly than a situation in which failing to take proper account of it can cause you, or a friend of yours, to die.

(And before anyone asks, yes: I've been equally as guilty - on *many* occasions - as Keris was, on that day (and most drivers are *EVERY* day, through simple ignorance if not actual laisicality), of failing to take basic Newtonian Mechanics (a) into account, and (b)seriously.
- I got away with it. (On every occasion *so far*... =:o\ )
- So did he... on many occasions, but not, alas, on *THAT* occasion. =:o{ )