Thanks for the reply. I had almost forgotten about this thread.
All things being relative, space would provide the relative frame for motion. For an object to be at absolute rest, it wouldn't change it's position relative to the grid of space. For an object to be in motion, it would change it's postion relative to the grid of space.
What I was asking is, would it be possible for matter/energy to hold it's exact space/time position for an undetermined amount of time, whereby according to Newton another force of matter/energy would have to act upon it to get it to change it's space/time position. Or must all things be in absolute constant motion relative to each other and to the frame of space.
Even with absolute motion a similar trajectory between two particles would produce the appearance of relative rest between them. Their positions relative to each other would change less over time than their collective positions relative to particles with different trajectories.
I don't believe in absolute rest, and I've used absolute motion and trajectory to form a general unification theory. Within this theory trajectory and proximity take the place of energy. In my opinion, this would solve alot of the problems faced by modern physics attempting to unify a lot of theories of energy that can't be unified.
If correct, my theory would explain all of the known forces and the formation of matter into systems such as planets, galaxies, etc. Even if it isn't how our world works, I don't see why it wouldn't work. That being said, what are the odds on there being two ways to build a world.
This is the link to my theory, which I call
CREATION BY COLLISION. If you read it, let me know what you think. All opinions are welcome, and I don't mind answering any questions about it.