Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
Followers 0

# Absolute Motion

## 5 posts in this topic

Einstein's general and special theories of relativity insist that there can be no absolute motion, only the motion of one thing relative to another. But, even if there is no aether, if the entire universe was considered as a single immense object why would it not be possible to move relative to it? And if the universe is everything, that would, almost by definition, constitute absolute motion. You can move relative to a tank of air, even though its molecules are moving around relative to one another. You can move relative to a crowd of people, even if they are milling around in a given area. Why then could you not move relative to the entire universe, even if its stars and galaxies are moving relative to one another? And why would this not constitute absolute motion? William B Stoecker

##### Share on other sites

The Aether(Ether) is, WE are already moving Relative to the Universe, are we not? Absolute motion is, faster than the speed of light is, Science is understanding, learning and taking on board previously unaccepted thought..Space,Time and Motion are weaved in mysterious way's, but that is NOT the full equation..

##### Share on other sites
Einstein's general and special theories of relativity insist that there can be no absolute motion, only the motion of one thing relative to another. But, even if there is no aether, if the entire universe was considered as a single immense object why would it not be possible to move relative to it? And if the universe is everything, that would, almost by definition, constitute absolute motion. You can move relative to a tank of air, even though its molecules are moving around relative to one another. You can move relative to a crowd of people, even if they are milling around in a given area. Why then could you not move relative to the entire universe, even if its stars and galaxies are moving relative to one another? And why would this not constitute absolute motion? William B Stoecker

There is no absolute motion because the universe is not in motion, think of it as a background.

Picture it like this, lets say you are in space and you climb into a box and moving at some constant velocity, v. The box is windowless and doorless. To you, you cannot tell you are moving with nothing to compare yourself too. The only way to gage whether or not you "have" velocity is to find a reference frame outside of your own to compare too.

I can understand the confusion your tank of air example creates. It is a bad analogy for the universe, because the universe is not a tank of air and does not have molecules. Its more appropriate to think of the universe as a blank page, it is background. The same thing with a crowd of people. There are molecules in space you can move relative too, but the molecules are not the universe they are part of it, a piece that "sits upon the page".

There is no aether either. This was found out back in the 19th century by Michelson's first experiments at attempting to calculate the speed of the earth through the aether. Then later confirmed by Michelson and Morey and confirmed with even greater precision over the next 40 years. This won Michelson the 1907 Nobel for good reasons and is really a foundation of relativity. The luminiferous ether has been falsified for the better part of a century now.....Might be time to catch up to modern physics?

##### Share on other sites
But, even if there is no aether, if the entire universe was considered as a single immense object why would it not be possible to move relative to it?

Older thread that might interest you.

##### Share on other sites
Einstein's general and special theories of relativity insist that there can be no absolute motion, only the motion of one thing relative to another. But, even if there is no aether, if the entire universe was considered as a single immense object why would it not be possible to move relative to it?

...

Why then could you not move relative to the entire universe, even if its stars and galaxies are moving relative to one another?

Well. It would still be 'relative' to the universe. But I do get your point.

But thing thing is, although the universe is finite, I don't think there is any start/end/corners of the universe. Or at least I think that's the most commonly held view by scientists at the moment. And if that is the case, you can't even move relative to the universe really.

Edited by Ins0mniac

## Create an account

Register a new account