Motion doesn't exist just reference frames of space

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

I tend to agree with them. I think the only thing that moves is light and everything else is reference frames relative to the speed of light.

Your argument fails as soon as you close your eyes.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


It's night time and I'm sitting in my house in the dark, and I start moving my arms, doesn't that debunk this theory that there is no movement without light?

reply to post by Matrix Rising

In relativity the speed of light is the fastest speed right? OK then. If two photons move in opposite directions in space, what is the speed of one relative to the other? Is it twice the speed of light?

reply to post by Pimander


No the speed of light is always the speed of light, also nothing that has mass can reach that speed.

At a speed close to the speed of light the object will experience time at a serverely reduced rate, this allows the observation of the object coming towards you to still be below the speed of light even though the combined speeds would be more.

Thats how I understand it anyway.

reply to post by DJOldskool

Finally. It took all those hours though.

I was interested to see whether anyone posting on this thread had a clue what they were talking about.

I'm going to call this Ockham dude and ask him to lend me a razor. The idea proposed by the topic starter just sounds like an overly complicated substitute for the current model, allthough it could make a great premise for sci-fi stories. Anyway, why would light be the only thing that moves? What observation has led you to this conclusion? Are there any experiments that can verify the observation as true?

If motion doesn't exist, then how does the universe exist in its current state? In order for all the objects in the universe to exists at such massive distances (which can be proven empirically) from each other, things had to move at some point in time, unless of course the universe was allready like this when it was born. If motion doesn't exist, then the Big Bang could not have happened. How does the motionless universe explain "the beginning"?

Thanks for the posts.

It was asked how do things appear to be moving away from each other if there's no motion. The only thing that's moving is the expansion of space which is driven by light.

Take a piece of chewed up gum and put two rocks on it. Stretch the gum out and the motionless rocks never move, just the expansion of the chewed up gum. So the only thing that changes is the distance between objects due to expansion. This gives us time and now imagine trillions of motionless objects in an expanding space and it's easy to see how nothing actually has motion.

Everything is just at different points in space relative to light.

This is why at every point in space all objects are at rest. They speed of light will be constant in every reference frame of space. So light changes are reference frames in space relative to the speed of light so rapidly that it appears continuous.

So if light projects 100 different reference frames for an object, that motionless object would appear to have motion but the only thing that's changing is the objects reference frame in space relative to the speed of light.

Someone asked about Achilles and the tortoise. This is a case of biology and it helps to prove my point. A human will experience these reference frames of space at a different rate than a tortoise and this would be based on biology. So neither Achilles nor the tortoise is moving, they just experience these reference frames of space at a different rate.

There's been some interesting work in this area that shows these reference frames of space are synchronized in the brain. So a person with a brain tumor might experience time at a faster or slower rate even though their not "moving" any faster or slower than anyone else.

Here's two of Zeno's paradoxes that illustrate this point.

Suppose Homer wants to catch a stationary bus. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.

This description requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is an impossibility.

This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to run, for any possible (finite) first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin. The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.

Here's the arrow.

In the arrow paradox (also known as the fletcher's paradox), Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (durationless) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not.[11] It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.

This is what quantum mechanics tells us. Say you have a space made up of three eigenstates. The particle could only be in 1 of these three eigenstates and it doesn't travel in any space in between these eigenstates. There's just the probability of finding it in one of these three eigenstates. Now how does the particle get to one of these states if there's no motion between these states?

It's simple everything is a reference frame, within a reference frame, within a reference frame relative to the speed of light down to planck's constant.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Could you please answer the question I asked on the previous page?

I take it you are capable of answering?