We know for certainty that we, A, are in motion relative to the sun, B because we have night and day, seasons. — TheMadFool
Thus, ALL objects in the universe are in motion relative to something else. All is motion. — TheMadFool
In the arrow paradox, Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (duration-less) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not.[15] It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.
Diogenes is said to have replied to Zeno's paradoxes on the unreality of motion by standing up and walking away.
I don't know what I think about this problem. — TogetherTurtle
Is there anything wrong with this argument? — TheMadFool
Whatever happened to 4: None of the above.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 — TheMadFool
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.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.
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.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
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.Thus, ALL objects in the universe are in motion relative to something else. All is motion.
Is there anything wrong with this argument?
None of the above. — noAxioms
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. — noAxioms
I’ll be honest, I just thought that the Diogenes story was funny. Regardless, I think that as usual his crude way of doing things reveals some truth, this time being that actions speak louder and sometimes truer than words. — TogetherTurtle
C is not at rest relative to either A or B.None of the above.
— noAxioms
Can you describe this in words? — TheMadFool
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.II 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?
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. — Pantagruel
That's a good point but are your hands moving relative to your keyboard when you type something. I think we can begin there too. — TheMadFool
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. — noAxioms
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. — Pantagruel
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? — Metaphysician Undercover
Um, yes.Is there anything wrong with this argument? — TheMadFool
My list of impossibles: Stillness, Beginning, End, Infinite, Nothing, Free Will, He, and maybe Forever. — PoeticUniverse
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.