Recent content by Curious6

Our discussion has effectively led us to consider the issue from a metaphysical perspective, given that the example I put forth at the very beginning does not contradict SR, is in partial agreement with it, but also proposes a further point (i.e., that besides relative space there is also...

Hi, my definition of absolute space is simply based on the observation that we can all agree on where specific objects are, that is, they occupy only point in space. Even though an object can appear at different points on different coordinate grids, taking into account one another's position...

OK, I see what you mean; you're right - the laws of physics don't differentiate between frames of reference. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if we were to imagine a still Universe then if something within that Universe would move it would only be partially right to say both the person is...

Very interesting proposal. I'd like to take it up but given that I have raised objections to SR which I'd like to see debunked I'd like someone else to try it.

Good insight. I agree with that. What I would like to suggest though, and this differs from special relativity and is therefore controversial, is that one object IS actually moving whereas the other one is remaining stationary. Please take one minute to read the reasoning behind this statement...

I agree that there is nothing about a point that tells us where it is. We need to look at it with respect to other points in order to know where it is. Take point X. Point X's position cannot be known by just looking at point X. However, if you now take another point, point Y for instance, then...

No, translational symmetry is not what I am referring to. Translational symmetry refers to the mapping of one's coordinates upon the others, so that they both agree. This refers to one's coordinates taking into account the other's coordinates to understand why they have different coordinate...

Hi. Thanks for all the posts. I have taken a look at them and have thought some more about what I said yesterday. I am a little bit in a rush right now but I will address some of the points raised later on.

I have no evidence for that besides my thought experiment outlined above. I am actually not assuming there is an absolute space; my example derives absolute and relative space as notions. Clearly, from the thought experiment there seem to be relative and absolute reference points.

I agree with that and so does special relativity, but there does appear to be a sense in which an object occupies a certain position within absolute space, i.e., there are certain coordinates in the entirety of space occupied by certain objects; this is the opposite case to our relative...

JesseM, I think your question is another way of asking what I am trying to get at. What I proposed is that there are two ways to think of 'location in space': one relative, one absolute, as explained briefly below. 'Location in space' is an imaginary grid where you can place where objects are...

That is exactly the point. The same object appears to be at different distances and directions from different reference points, which suggests it has different locations in space (locations dependent on one's reference point), but in actuality it only has one location in space.

After posting it I realized that adding the 'where I am' bit might cause some controversy. Nevertheless, I don't see how that affects my main point.

Doc Al, they would disagree because from their perspectives on space differ, that is, their perspectives on space are relative to where they are. Nevertheless, they can find common ground and agree on where a specific object is (i.e., the location of the Eiffel Tower). The Eiffel Tower's...

Hi, matheinste. Well, I don't think it's necessary to refer to another point to say where the Eiffel Tower is. You can just say: 'it's 200 miles due South of where I am' or 'it's 10,293 miles NE of where I am'.