0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
My question is relevant to the idea of all uniform motion being inseparable from rest.
All motion, or absence of motion, is relative to something else. To define absolute motion you would need to determine "absolute stopped". I don't think that's possible.
If you imagine something moving, as defined relative its origin, we find that it express two kinds of inertia, as in 'refusal to stop'. One if hit from the side, another if we stop it 'head on'. We also have the objects invariant mass, that we expect to be the same in both cases. So it has to be the direction of its relative motion that creates it. That motion can be uniform or accelerated, and will in both cases vary the inertia with its relative speed.Why?And what is the difference between this and the idea of a 'universal absolute motion', existing? And if you find this as proving a absolute motion, what stops you from defining a absolute rest?And where does the energy, related to the motion situate in a uniform motion. Measurable in the object, or as a function (of its relative motion) but not measurable?Why can't we measure it on the moving object, if so?