The Metaphysics of Velocity (original) (raw)
Related papers
viXra, 2017
The theory of relativity’s concept o motion suggests that every observer must assume that his own frame of reference is always at rest; therefore, he must ascertain the state of the motion of all other entities in relation to his own frame of reference. In this article, we have shown that for every entity its own frame of reference actually behaves as if it is in the state of the absolute rest. Therefore, the motion of an entity has to be ascertained in relation to its own frame of reference. Thus, we have made only a slight but very significant change in the proposal of the theory of relativity. Our proposal is based on actual observations of how things behave.
The Argument from Motion Revisited
2018
I present and defend several formulations of the Aristotelian argument from motion, according to which the reality of change in the physical world ultimately requires the existence of a sustaining source of all change, a reality which can impart to all things the power to change and to undergo change, but which cannot itself be subject to change or undergo change. Second, I defend the Aristotelian project from a number of objections, including the viability of Aristotle's argument in light of challenges from modern physics, such as the challenge of inertial motion and special relativity. Finally, I show that an unchanging cause of all change must be such as to possess the attributes definitive of the God of classical theism.
The Metaphysical Roots of Cartesian Physics: the Law of Rectilinear Motion
This paper presents a detailed account of Descartes' derivation of his second law of nature-the law of rectilinear motion-from a priori metaphysical principles. Unlike the other laws the proof of the second depends essentially on a metaphysical assumption about the temporal immediacy of God's operation. Recent commentators (e.g., Des Chene and Garber) have not adequately explained the precise role of this assumption in the proof and Descartes' reasoning has continued to seem somewhat arbitrary as a result. My account better reveals the dependence of the second law on fundamental principles about time and causality.
On the Principle of Relativity
1992
In a recent article [1] MA Oliver argues there is a conflict between Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and Cosmology. In ascertaining this conflict (see below), Oliver finds allies in Bergmann [2] and Bondi [3]. To resolve this conflict, he proposes to restore “the classical (mechanical) concepts of space and time”[1, p. 666] and an absolute rest-frame.
Absolute Motion: Anathema or Reality
The General Science Journal, 2024
This paper includes several arguments that confront the absolute nature with the relative nature of motion, an old problem that for the reasons given here, and in spite of the absolutely prevailing relativism, is not properly resolved.
The Thomistic Theory of the Motion Principle
This paper proves the compatibility of the motion principle of philosophical physics that (everything moved is moved by another) and the postulate of Newtonian mechanics that is the principle of inertia (Every body perseveres either in its state of resting or of moving uniformly in a direction, unless that is compelled to change its state by impressed forces).
No space, no time, only substance in motion
An inquiry into logical inconsistencies in the wording of some physical concepts, hypotheses and theories By Reinhard Eichelbeck This paper considers only the linguistic aspect, since mathematical formulas and equations have their own rules. The various concepts are scrutinized in regard to their agreement with the laws of logic, practical experience and observable facts. Their descriptions are derived from various publicly available sourcesbooks, films, articles, internet [Wikipedia et al.]that reflect the common views of the scientific community and its implementation in the mass media. English is not my mother tongue, so please bear with me if my wording may partly be somewhat unusual.
Movingness and a proposed mathematic v02b
{original Claremont spec for papers is below; my 5k wd. paper (very rough) begins on the next pg.} Philosophers often require that any particular problem be worthy of argument. That is problems that, of necessity, deserve and require consideration. Worthwhile questions. Date: December 2-4, 2010 Location: Claremont, California Submissions Due: Friday, October 1 to Roland Faber http://whiteheadresearch.org In particular, we are asking students to focus on the challenges which face contemporary thought in accounting for the peculiar status of diverse things within a robust theoretical (metaphysical) framework which avoids essentialism or the creation of fixed categories of thought or being. Specific questions to address are: How can we account for the thingness of things within philosophies of becoming? What kind of metaphysics can meet both the demands of post-structuralist critiques of objects and subjects whilst also accounting for the diversity of things in the contemporary world? Submissions should be in the form of full-length papers and must make a philosophical contribution. Accepted papers will be distributed to the conference participants to be read prior to the conference. At the conference, students will have 15 minutes in which to present their ideas. Please include an abstract of no more than 250 words. All papers and abstracts should be sent to the co-organizer of the conference, Professor Roland Faber, no later than October 1st. Submissions should be sent electronically.