>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".

The coordinate system itself is not a product of fiat. I just said that.

Ok sorry. Now I'm back to no idea of what you're talking about.

OK.

Absolute rest is possible. What does it take? Is this genesis of simulation?

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.

Try reading the very first few pages of a physics text, the basic mechanics stuff.

You are embarrassing yourself here.

he does mean stopping as oppose to rest because rest doesn't require a full stop. We can stop properly too.

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.

That stuff you are doing on your keyboard, I don't think you've quite got it worked out.