Originally posted by humy
[b] Originally posted by KazetNagorra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit
That only helps in a motionless system, i.e., the system itself is not moving.
NO, it sensibly defines the orbit of the Earth + ALL systems are moving relative to something so there isn't such thing as a "motionless system" in the absolute ...[text shortened]... at? (and perhaps another issue is how would we 'know' whether it was 'moving' or 'stationary'! )[/b]You’re making it harder than it has to be with a result of confusing yourself.
I have no misconception related to the universe; how I characterized it makes logical sense.
It can be likened to a room in the sense that it, like a room, creates a space with borders.
This room in view, however, has no walls, floors or ceilings, but rather, it simply ends.
Anything which exists must occupy space within the room.
Why?
Because it is there.
If the earth is in one spot consistent with its mass, it cannot be in a completely different spot without leaving its initial spot first.
The question put to you is: how would we know where the moon is going to be in three days under the following conditions.
1. The moon is revolving around the earth at 2,288 MPH
2. The earth is revolving around the sun at 67,000 MPH
3. The sun is moving through the universe at 450,000 MPH
What makes the proposition problematic is how that speed is determined, since nothing is fixed… well, except for the universe itself.
But if there is no reference point--- no line of scrimmage, no hash marks denoting yardage, no out of bounds or etc.--- we cannot know where we are or where we are going to be.
Launching a rocket to the moon sounds like the equivalent of the quarterback telling the receiver “Go long” and yet we have no idea where “long” is right now, let alone where it is going to be in three days.