[TinyTree]

Motion takes place freely within absolute motionless!

If you have a universe with a single atom in it, can the atom move?

[harmonygirl]

Tinytree, why wouldn't the atom be able to move in its universe? Oh, unless it is the size of the universe, then it maybe be able to expand, which is movement.

[TinyTree]

The question is I guess- can something move it has nothing to move relative to?

Does space exist as a phenomena independent of the relationship between different things?


Similarly- if you have a photon in this empty universe, all by itself- is it moving at the speed of light, or not? relative to what?

[harmonygirl]

Good question. wouldn't the atom be moving relative to the universe (if it's smaller) and if it's the size of the universe, wouldn't it be moving (if it's expanding) relative to its previous size (thus creating the notion of time)? I think you can have space independently of other things, but with movement, you must have dimension and time. Is there light in this universe for there to be SOL? (because wouldn't that mean the atom or photon was not alone?)

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Actually, Guille, my definition of art is quite different. Art reveals a fundamental aspect of truth, which is why, for me, La Giaconde (the Mona Lisa) is not art. I see no truth there. Proportional aesthetics is just technical purity, which for me, certainly does not define art. So according to my definition, a piece speaks truth. How could a piece help but speak itself, I don't understand your point here.

I never said art is only veauty, in fact I said the opposite. Art is the representation of nature using proportions of aesthetic-message. And in fact I do think art is part of truth: for me truth (which is ultimately philosophy) is divided in four areas: science, praxis, art and feelings. I'll explain later this further.

[mkirkpatrick]

TT;
first question no.
second question no,last no also,it cannot be Realitive to Absolutness,for one
is real absolutely real,while the realitive universe is an illusion,as is the speed
of light!!

kind regards michael.

[Aiya-Oba]

MKirkpatrick,
that was beautiful that you sincerely applauded Zeroca for
wrapping the truth of the discus in few words.

The truth we seek is here with us, but it is the common indulgence of humans
to hide the truth, and jolly in the folly of hide and seek.
Only kids,fools and philosophers have no pleasure in obscuring the Truth.
-Aiya-Oba.

[zeroca]

Dear TinyTree!
I think all your questions are too relevant and they hit the mark.
I’ll try to clear subject with best of my abilities not touching all questions in details, as I haven’t got precise answers to all of them yet:

Originally Posted by TinyTree

I am curious-what do you think "absolute motion" means? Is it something moving at the speed of light?

Originally Posted by TinyTree

In a sense things moving at the speed of light are not moving-in their own perspective, time is not traveling. But externally, they are moving absolutely, so the two are meeting, from different time frames.

Absolute motion can be expressed as existence generally, i.e. existence of universe in whole with all its consisting parts – some of them relatively stopped and the rest relatively moving, i.e. all kind of processes together within universe, taken simultaneously.

Originally Posted by TinyTree

If you have a universe with a single atom in it, can the atom move?

According to my belief each body has its own space: “each body generates its own space”.
What is atom? If it is elementary consolidation, which has mass, so it has the same elementary space – lacking of consolidation. The body of atom is one side of process, but its opposite is space, i.e. if body is gravity, space is anti-gravity.
If body is consolidation to the center, space is expansion, or rarefaction from the same center. They differ in directions: if body is consolidation centripetally spherically, the space is rarefaction centrifugally, spherically; So to say briefly each body is organically bound with its own space, i.e. this unity can figuratively, conventionally be called space-body, separately space – as space bubble (and the whole space of universe isn’ty hompogenous, bur the unity, sum of these “bubbles”), but separately body, i.e. content of space bubble – simply body. This is just my belief. I don’t assert it to be pure truth for everybody. I’m not quite myself sure firmly in it (not went deeply into it yet), and just contemplating about four possible variants of space-bodies:
Two possible variant of ultimate states of bodies (i.e. of content of space bubble):
1. With solid content of body (solid body after ending of free fall);
2. With expended content of body (expended body=light);
Two possible variant of ultimate states of space bubbles:
1. As 3D expansion spherically;
2. As 3D rarefaction spherically;
These two different variants of space bubbles don’t differ in dimensions, but differ between each other in composition: in first case solid body occupies the central part of space bubble, but in the second case – expended matter does the same. I.e. two considered variants of space bubbles differ in directions.
So I’m just trying to systematize the content of universe and to solve some peculiarities of its behavior and this matter is being processed.
One is clear to me so far (see animation below):
The mechanism of spinning of solid! space-body in case of single atom is contained in its own space (i.e. reason of spinning is within system space-body itself, and not outside of it): space bubble makes its content to consolidate centrally, mentioned consolidation presses the center of atom from all sides, and arisen centrifugal repulsive force inside of body makes the whole space-body to spin. What is outside of space-body of atom? Nothingness… Can this nothingness interfere with spinning of space-body? It can’t. Even it’s “indifferent” to this spinning.
The behavior of single space-body and of pair of them (two space-bodies) is started to consider by me in the thread dark side of the Moon and Spin as a regularity on the example of Sun, the analysis is stopped for a while, but it will be continued…

Originally Posted by TinyTree

The question is I guess-can something move it has nothing to move relative to?

Originally Posted by TinyTree

Does space exist as a phenomenon independent of the relationship between different things?
Similarly-if you have a photon in this empty universe, all by itself-is it moving at the speed of light, or not? relative to what?

As for frame of reference of motion, in both cases of space-bodies the motion takes place relative to space-bodies themselves. No need in outside reference points: solid matter to the center, but expended matter – to the periphery of space-body and vice-versa (the subject is on the stage of analyzing presently), i.e. center of space-body serve as point of reference, but in case of several space-bodies, any center of them, chosen randomly. I think that concept of space, as independent from bodies phenomenon, imagined by mankind as something homogenous among bodies and spreading to all directions infinitely, needs to be revised.

Animation below: Absolute motion in case of atom, i.e. single solid body with its space together:

---White sphere – space bubble;
---Blue arrows – direction of expansion of space bubble, direction of expansion of antigravity (locomotive force of spinning);
---Gray sphere – body, solid inner content of space bubble;
---Gray arrows – direction of striving of solid matter;
---Black arrows – repulsive force to concentration of matter (centrifugal force, cause of spinning).

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Actually, Guille, my definition of art is quite different. Art reveals a fundamental aspect of truth, which is why, for me, La Giaconde (the Mona Lisa) is not art. I see no truth there. Proportional aesthetics is just technical purity, which for me, certainly does not define art. So according to my definition, a piece speaks truth. How could a piece help but speak itself, I don't understand your point here.

You misinterpret me. I didn't say proportions of aesthetics but proportions of aesthetics-to-message. Message is my name to what you call here 'truth'. The message of a piece is for me what you say is 'speaking truth'. And in fact when I say 'a piece speaks itself' is exactly the same: it is showing itself, it is telling us nature and it's nature. It's message is itself as art is itself message, and aesthetics is always linked here. I'm tired of listening contemporary artists and their followers say that message, truth, is all. It is not true, simply because 'art' itself connotes aesthetics, independently of the idea of beauty that you have, if it's relative-subjective, or only in the mind, or...etz, the important thing is that aesthetics-message is the relationship that means what we call art.