absolute rest?

[analog]

is there such a thing as absolute rest in space, whereby matter or energy doesn't change it's absolute position in space/time?

or are all things in perpetual motion in space, whereby they constantly change their absolute position in space/time and therefore would be impossible to hold in one space/time position over a universal maximum amount of time?

i have my own opinions, just curious of others.

[Foas]

is there such a thing as absolute rest in space, whereby matter or energy doesn't change it's absolute position in space/time?

or are all things in perpetual motion in space, whereby they constantly change their absolute position in space/time and therefore would be impossible to hold in one space/time position over a universal maximum amount of time?

i have my own opinions, just curious of others.

I don't believe there is such a thing as absolute rest anywhere. I base this on the belief that everything is in motion in relation to something. The moon around the earth, the earth around the sun and so on. Another take at your question would be if you meant can something be at absolute rest in comparison to another object. If that is what you meant to ask I would have to say I do not know.

[analog]

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.

[dleviwing]

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.

I suggest you read my blog unless that's where you got the idea.

[N0B0DY]

I don't believe there is such a thing as absolute rest anywhere. I base this on the belief that everything is in motion in relation to something. The moon around the earth, the earth around the sun and so on.

The absolute rest would be the absolute reference between a clockwise and counter-clockwise revolution or rotation. When we consider this absolute point, it is fairly easy to realize that massive bodies don't really move anywhere but are incrementally recreated according to mass; and if we say that mass and motion are exactly the same, we can know that the cause for both is the missing link of time which Einstein linked in perhaps a too-complex fashion.

[analog]

I suggest you read my blog unless that's where you got the idea.

Thanks for pointing me to your blog.

I must admit, from what I gather from your writings, we both have chosen a similar sword to fight this beast with. However, rest assured, I am not the type of person to tag my name on the hard work of another. My conclusions have come from many headaches and endless days of working through a system (theory) just to watch it fall apart by contradicting itself. I have made it further within my own mind, with my current theories, than I have with any of the many failures that clutter my past.

I have seen you around the forum and I do respect your apparent knowledge. My bipolar side had started to take effect a little with my current views, as I have lost a little hope in them. I must admit. It is a definate encouragement to know that someone as intelligent as yourself shares similar views to mine.

I did see some major differences within our frameworks though, and this definately sets our two proposed theories apart, but I do have some questions for you, if you would help me on them.

I apologize if this is a dumb question to you, but I can't pass up the opportunity to converse with someone who is already intune to this type of framework. You may have explained it within your blog, but I don't recall seeing it.

If absolute particle motion exists, then, it is a property of the particle as we both agree, and no energy is needed. But, to admit to absolute motion with no variable energy would have to be admitting to absolute speed of particles. Therefore, if particles are identical in speed and size, what is your mechanism to apply to group (planetary) motion. By definition, the characteristics of a rotating sphere means that the particles near the center are covering less distance in the same amount of time as particles that maintain their relative position to them further out along the edges of the sphere. This would seem to imply different velocities between the two, but we said that couldn't be.

I was just wondering would this effect the system you were describing and do you have a mechanism such as a change in resonate frequency to explain this. I have my own approach to it, but I was curious on your thoughts. Or have I gotten way off on your system?

[analog]

The absolute rest would be the absolute reference between a clockwise and counter-clockwise revolution or rotation. When we consider this absolute point, it is fairly easy to realize that massive bodies don't really move anywhere but are incrementally recreated according to mass; and if we say that mass and motion are exactly the same, we can know that the cause for both is the missing link of time which Einstein linked in perhaps a too-complex fashion.

Am I wrong for interpretting a reference to propagation by replication? It kinda feels like that's what you are getting at.

[N0B0DY]

I love your signature and your site, Analog.

Like they say, "It takes two to tango." and to find absolute rest we have to divide the two relative frames by two to give us one absolute frame. For instance, the two poles of the earth have to be flipped so that the two opposing persepctives - North-South counter-clockwise and South-North clockwise - meet and negate motion.

Because all frames are n-1, the one absolute frame is the equivalent of a zero-dimensional point. In other words, the one frame equals none; absolutes, that are repeatedly proclaimed, cannot exist, inclusive of absolute motion.

[analog]

Thanks for the compliment. It's nice to have someone of your intellect to talk to.

Would I be correct in thinking that the defintion for motion that you gave above implies that nothing actually moves, it propagates by being replicated from space/time point to space/time point?

If so, I have opinions on this and have thought on it before. That's why I'm asking.

If this is not your definition for motion, please explain it to me, and forgive me for my shortcomings in terminology and such. I have no formal training in all this. The little knowledge I do hold is merely from a refusal to give up on knowing. I've found if you wrap your mind around something long enough, to the point it physically hurts, by God refusing to tell you, he is endangering your health. lol.

[N0B0DY]

The absolute point is moot (debatable), and it is the cause for any sense of motion. The way you explain yourself - replication - and on your site is fine from where I'm standing. Otherwise I wouldn't have offered a compliment.

The way I look at it, absolute rest by default divides itself by zero to allow for an infinite number of points and an infinite number of velocities because the points are points of time, not space. Absolute rest is the equivalent of absolute velocity (call it one), which using inversely-proportionate laws, shrinks space to zero. From this point we reduce the velocity according to spatial density which allows a decrease in velocity from one to zero. Because space and time are the same, the spatial density is not intrinsically made of matter, but consists of the time points you referred to; density equals mass (not matter), which equals motion, which equals gravity. This is how we can say that gravity equals time and the incremental extensions of time equal space.