I love science although I've never actually read a book .gif thread

I love science although I've never actually read a book .gif thread.

>I make a thread about the same concept as that gif
>Talk about the nature of motion and location
>Talk about the potential for an object that's stationary from all reference frames
>Everyone complains and claims I must be brain damaged

No matter what you think about anything more granular, the universe itself is inarguably the stationary object.

not Veeky Forumsduck
but Veeky Forumsama

I dont think that gif depicts the inclination of our solar system accurately.

>Everyone complains and claims I must be brain damaged
Maybe because you talked about "stationary objects" on a scale that big

Finite state machine.

If the object wasn't moving at the speed of light, then a reference frame with a different velocity must have the object moving at a different velocity, so the object must be moving at the speed of light. Since we need the object to be stationary, we need a (shit) universe where c=0. In this case, everything (like you said, the whole universe) would be stationary in all reference frames.

I mean the universe as a whole, in the same way you talk about a cardboard box as a whole. Not everything in the universe, just the universe itself.

I don't think objects are actually moving at different velocities from different reference frames, they're just experiencing time differently. Apparent relative rate of change must be derived from some underlying wave-like mechanic.

Seems to me you are gladly accepting the time part of special relativity while pointlessly dismissing the space part of it

I think space is probably in some way quantized, and this is what we consider location. The universe does not allow existence in an infinite number of places two arbitrary points, there are finite positions. If quantum field theory is correct, I bet the energy state of a given at a given position is quantized as well.

This is what "motion" is. A change in the energy gradient distributed along any given cluster of cells. Directionality naturally follows with multiple spatial dimensions.

Max Planck, is that you? Next time try timetravelling into the past. Your thoughts dont sound that new and impressive around here

>potential for an object that's stationary from all reference frames
That's just not possible. Pick two reference frames that are in motion relative to each other.
Any object stationary relative to one MUST be in motion relative to the other.

>the universe itself is inarguably the stationary object.
Apparently you don't know the definition of "inarguably".
But in this sentence at least, you do have a lot in common with most of Veeky Forums.
Many people here love to cling to classical mechanics.
And while most of them are better at it than you are, they're still ultimately just as wrong.

>Any object stationary relative to one MUST be in motion relative to the other.
These two objects are omniscient and are judging their speed via their change in location, and direction, relative to the universe as a whole. ie, the universe as if it were a box with some bent around lattices in it.

>Apparently you don't know the definition of "inarguably".
My definition of inarguably is that it is seemingly impossible to create a valid argument, from my perspective. Any other definition renders the word useless.

>Any other definition renders the word useless
same thing with applying the word "stationary" to the whole universe

>These two objects are omniscient
Any explanation where objects or particles are required to 'know' something is immediately suspect.

The universe as a whole, not the whole universe.

difference?

The universe as a whole is omniscient. It is judging their speed via their change in location, and direction, relative to itself.

>seemingly impossible to create a valid argument, from my perspective
Wow.
Just wow.
You seriously need psychiatric help.

thats meaningless

it is also misleading, since even empty space is expanding

The whole universe is everything in the universe. The universe as a whole is the whole thing, whole universe included.

There is no absolute reference frame where you can say 'relative to the universe as a whole'.

It's supposedly not adding new points, it's just expanding its already existing points.

Then there is no motion, location, or direction. There are no spatial dimensions either.

ITT: Opie tries to hand-wave a century of physics (relativity) away.

>The universe as a whole is the whole thing, whole universe included.
OP, your "whole thing" can be described/observed in an infinite number of frames of reference.

There do not exist infinite frames of reference. The universe does not allow infinite states.

What are you even trying to say here? "points" as in the geometrical definition?
Either way, we get additional space through expansion. If you call it adding or expanding boils down to semantics. I'm not talking about mass/energy within space, btw

Points as in potential locations. Space is quantized, and there are not infinite positions excitations in an underlying quantum field can occupy. For something to exist in a location, something must allow it to be there. The universe does not afford infinite precision, or infinite subdivision of space between two arbitrary points.

>There do not exist infinite frames of reference. The universe does not allow infinite states.
>All of GR is completely wrong. source? because I said so.

Opie please.
You might consider switching to philosophy where there are no objective truths, and anyone can declare themselves a genius.

wew fucking lad

p.s.: Infinite frames of reference does NOT imply infinite states.
You really don't seem to get GR at all.

Infinite frames of reference requires infinite potential states. There are not infinite potential states. The universe is a finite state machine.

The universe itself is quantized. There is 1.

You are pretty much desribing the concept of Planck lengths. I know about this. But where are you going with this?

It does, else there do not exist infinite reference frames to be considered.