From you, maybe it is.Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:10 pmIt's the only answer you'll get.You say, any thing can be considered stationary and be that against which time is computed, or measure if in the presence of the measurement.
1. What can 'stationary' actually be measured against in real and true Life? (Of course one thing can be said, or considered, to be "stationary" against another thing, but that is NOT what I am asking here).
That might be all YOU can do. But that is NOT what all of us can, and do, do.
But there is NO test for being stationary, yet. Well, that is, not until we can measure 'stationary' against some thing that is ACTUALLY stationary. Only when the only thing that IS ACTUALLY stationary is discovered by, or revealed to, human beings, then human beings can look at it and test how much actual velocity there is relative to that. Until then the use of the word 'stationary' relative to some other thing is only an imaginary scenario.
That question may be irrelevant to you, for reasons that you may or may not yet be consciously aware of, but that question is certainly NOT irrelevant to the overall picture. You may choose to only look at, and see, some things, but others are more interested in looking at, and seeing, the whole picture and understanding how ALL things fit perfectly together.
Counting, relative to human beings conception, "regularly occurring things" is NOT measuring 'time', itself.
Counting regularly occurring things IS just counting regularly occurring things.
Nothing there that answers the actual question.
If you are somewhat bewildered, then surely, by now, you would KNOW what to do in order to gain a clearer understanding?
But the truth is it does NOT remain stationary at all.Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:10 pmI left of the part where there should be no acceleration, something that is detectable. An accelerating object is stationary for no more than a moment in any particular inertial frame, but remains stationary in its own accelerated frame.Being "stationary" in or to a thing, which itself is NOT stationary at all, does NOT sound pretty stationary, to Me.Noax wrote:Ah. An attempt at stating a contradiction, coupled with the refutation you seek no less. The traveler is stationary relative to his ship for instance. He's in his seat, and a while later, still in it. Sounds pretty stationary to me.
If some human beings want to conceptualize a stationary frame, then that is fine. But that does NOT mean that there is in fact an actual stationary position nor frame.
What is the definition of 'stationary' that those people who are labelled as "physics" use?Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:10 pmYou're not looking up a physics definition there.The first definition I found for 'stationary', which was, not moving or not intended to be moved, sounds very contradictory to 'traveler', of which the first definition I found for 'traveler', was, a person or thing that travels, with the first definition of 'travel' I found, being, make a journey, typically of some length. The word travel and traveler usually referring to moving, which is in stark contradiction of not moving or not intended to be moved.
Are you proposing that a particular type of study of some particular type of things is NOT a biased position, in and of itself?
And, what are the actual biases, which you are suggesting that I have been given?
Changing and or using a DIFFERENT definition, other than the "everyday human language" of any word, sounds very BIASED behavior to Me.
I look up a word whenever I want to. Contrary to what you BELIEVE, or are suggesting, I do NOT look up a word when I think it suits My purposes.
And, EVERY time I look up a word, the definition given, supports Me further anyway.
Looking at and using, so called, "everyday human language" and its definitions is all I need anyway. I do NOT need to use CHANGED definitions, like specific vocations use, in order to show and see what they BELIEVE is true and correct. Any person can CHANGE the definitions of words, so that things will then fit in with what they already BELIEVE is true. I much prefer to just look at see things how they really are instead.
Would this suggest that when some human beings talk about what happens with, or compared to, stationary things, then really they are NOT actually seeing nor talking about what IS but rather they are seeing and talking about some imagined conceptualized thing or situation?