your definition of 'stillness'

what is the meaning of stillness and would you define it?

I personally prefer to compare something to something else in order to define something.

I would say that stillness is the opposite of a movement/action.
Sitllness could be compared to tuning a noise/sound off a television set. so I would turn the sound from high to down/ silent or mute.
Low/mute in this instance is stillness.
Or like a zooming lense off a camera that one adjusts to zoom in and out.


what I would not call it however is nothingness because stillness is still there in the background and can be brought out to unstillness by a voluntary or unvoluntary movement.

Discuss:)

If it's all relative, then stillness is got when something is compared to itself. I am reminded of Newton's absolute space thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space), which Mach refuted by essentially asserting that you wouldn't know how the two bodies would behave because there was no frame of reference specified. For Newton, the frame of reference was implicitly in some correspondence with the two bodies' initial states...and to conclude from this that there is "absolute" space is to commit the logical fallacy of begging the question. Also, interestingly, if your reference frame started spinning at the same rate as the balls on the barycenter's axis, there would be no apparent spinning (the spinning only arises out of the discrepancy). However, if you pushed the two balls together, they would 1) give an opposing force to the applied force and 2) still move away from the barycenter after you stopped applying the force. Since this behavior is quite similar to that of a fundamental force (in fact, it's much like the opposite of gravity), which has no immediately obvious source, such a thing, in one way or another, could account for the existence of fundamental forces which apparently exist in "stillness". Anyway, yes, I think stillness boils down to frame of reference.

Einstein never grasped Newton.
"From our regions, we cannot determine velocity 0." I. Newton. It means that his relativity (from Galileo's, Kepler and Halley) was well stated in recurring to analytic geometry to establish frames, because with or without Albert, there was no other way of doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Einstein never grasped Newton.
"From our regions, we cannot determine velocity 0." I. Newton. It means that his relativity (from Galileo's, Kepler and Halley) was well stated in recurring to analytic geometry to establish frames, because with or without Albert, there was no other way of doing it.

---

I'm not sure I entirely understand your post. Of course references frames must be chosen, and choosing a reference frame and sticking with it is fine; but calling that arbitrary choice "absolute" is misleading and incorrect, which is what Newton implicitly did. Mach, in particular, spent a lot of time trying to point this out...moreover, Relativity is superior to Newton's description in part because it appreciates this.

Newton's bucket does make a compelling case for some special kind of reference frame, or a special case for a set of them, but I don't find it makes much of a case for absolute space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

I'm not sure I entirely understand your post. Of course references frames must be chosen, and choosing a reference frame and sticking with it is fine; but calling that arbitrary choice "absolute" is misleading and incorrect, which is what Newton implicitly did. Mach, in particular, spent a lot of time trying to point this out...moreover, Relativity is superior to Newton's description in part because it appreciates this.

Newton's bucket does make a compelling case for some special kind of reference frame, or a special case for a set of them, but I don't find it makes much of a case for absolute space.

---

If velocity 0 cannot be observed, there is no absolute space. Anything said MUST originate in a frame of reference which's makeup cannot be absolute. What Einstein never got is that Newton/Galileo was not an absolutist system of relativity. It was the dumbos that turned it absolutist and they accused Newton of making it that way. When Einstein said, "I'm sorry Newton," he was the purchaser of utter nonsense. Case closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

what is the meaning of stillness and would you define it?

I personally prefer to compare something to something else in order to define something.

---

In any case it depends on the purpose of the definition. In general I would define motion as a change in position with respect to something (you can either fix this "something" or not, depending on what are you trying to accomplish), and then define stillness as a complete lack of motion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

If velocity 0 cannot be observed, there is no absolute space. Anything said MUST originate in a frame of reference which's makeup cannot be absolute. What Einstein never got is that Newton/Galileo was not an absolutist system of relativity. It was the dumbos that turned it absolutist and they accused Newton of making it that way. When Einstein said, "I'm sorry Newton," he was the purchaser of utter nonsense. Case closed.

---

Do you claim to have a proof of this? It would put the history of science upside down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by /dev/null

In any case it depends on the purpose of the definition. In general I would define motion as a change in position with respect to something (you can either fix this "something" or not, depending on what are you trying to accomplish), and then define stillness as a complete lack of motion.



Do you claim to have a proof of this? It would put the history of science upside down.

---

With Einsteinean, so-called relativity, science stopped, not only upside down but in whateverwhichway. But that's another issue.
An elementary proof of what I said is easy. First, the quote by Newton. Then imagine standing on a planet from where it is obvious that the earth is moving relative to it. Then imagine a rocket leaving earth for space from velocity 0, as the launchers imagine. It is obvious that the moment the rocket leaves the surface, as accounted by the observation from the other planet, it could not have departed from absolute velocity 0 in the first place. The case Newton tried to point out, like it or not. With the rocket we only have a case of velocity 0 relative to earth.
Newton made a very correct, very general statement, when he said "from our regions." Perhaps "from any of our regions, anyone available" could have improved it.

Stillness, of course, exists, and is, a complete lack of motion. But it cannot occur except for a mass that is part of a larger mass, like the rocket on earth and relative earth and for earth.
Velocity occurs, of course as a change in position.

Hi Savy Lady- I saw this thread morning and didn't have time to reply. I wasn't think about stillness according to the current conversation, so I'm just going to just add my thoughts and I won't be joining your discussion.

Some examples:

Snow on the pine branched after a night of snow fall.

The rock in the middle of a flowing stream.

What it is not:

Wind blowing in the branches or a rain storm.

Noise of any kind or much movement.

In a more philosophical sense, I think of stillness as solitude but not loneliness. It is the time that comes AFTER the storm, crisis, or trauma. It is the time after, when things are calm and their is time for reflection.

Not sure if this is what you are looking for after rereading your question. Seems you are looking for a more scientific or technical understanding of stillness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

With Einsteinean, so-called relativity, science stopped, not only upside down but in whateverwhichway. But that's another issue.

---

Sounds fun. I'd like to hear what is you have to say about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

An elementary proof of what I said is easy. First, the quote by Newton. Then imagine standing on a planet from where it is obvious that the earth is moving relative to it. Then imagine a rocket leaving earth for space from velocity 0, as the launchers imagine. It is obvious that the moment the rocket leaves the surface, as accounted by the observation from the other planet, it could not have departed from absolute velocity 0 in the first place. The case Newton tried to point out, like it or not. With the rocket we only have a case of velocity 0 relative to earth.
Newton made a very correct, very general statement, when he said "from our regions." Perhaps "from any of our regions, anyone available" could have improved it.

---

By "our regions" he probably ment the Earth. No mystery there.

The example is a basic dynamics problem. Can't see the point, though. It's well known that classic mechanics does not require absolute space, only absolute time. BUT, Newton's original version of the theory assumed "absolute time and space" (probably because of theological reasons). Galilean invariance gives a hint about the relativistic nature of the theory, but it alone doesn't prove it. Newton just had that part wrong. It's not a big thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Stillness, of course, exists, and is, a complete lack of motion. But it cannot occur except for a mass that is part of a larger mass, like the rocket on earth and relative earth and for earth.

---

Counterexample: set the origin of coordinates as binded to any point you want. That point will be still through time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buh4Bee

...

---

Nice. You reminded me of this.

stillness-
in the depths of the lake
billowing clouds (Kobayashi Issa)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by /dev/null

probably because of theological reasons

---

Newton never mixed what he said scientifically with theological reasons. If I let you go on he'll soon be Gregory the Great.
If you must, have fun with Leibniz.

A point is an existential thing, a symbol. All symbols are still through time, but not so what they represent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Newton never mixed what he said scientifically with theological reasons. If I let you go on he'll soon be Gregory the Great.
If you must, have fun with Leibniz.

---

I have nothing against Newton. I personally think he is the most brilliant scientist in history. Most of our understanding of reality today is directly based on his theorical observations. I just found your remark about newtonian conception of space inaccurate. No big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by /dev/null

I have nothing against Newton. I personally think he is the most brilliant scientist in history. Most of our understanding of reality today is directly based on his theorical observations. I just found your remark about newtonian conception of space inaccurate. No big deal.

---

Oh yes it is a big deal. But let's leave it at that. "Cool, man. Cool. No big deal."

Stillness says there is something but that it carries no motion... but that it once had motion, or could move at some point in the future.

Further Explanation:
But it is just a section of time in which it is frozen in place. Stillness seems to me a fragment of time that someone has entered where you don't see movement becuase there is no other moment to relate this singular moment to... creating the absence of movement. Even though in forward motion or backward motion (along a timeline of course) there would be movement.

There's also the subjective definition of stillness regarding the stillness of the mind. In this sense, meditation is sometimes used to achieve a certain stillness in order to better contemplate the aim of the meditation - which might be generating compassion or understanding the negative effects of anger.

Unchanging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slipee

Unchanging.

---

well one needs unstillness in order to achieve stillness.

Stillness is not necessarily an opposite of noise. Happiness is not the absence of torment. This is a crude idea. You must go beyond these peripherals. Stillness is a state that can be experienced when one can go beyond the boundary of pleasures and pains. This is something that can be experienced when you can rise over and above worldly propensities. This is a spiritual state and wordiness cannot disclose the secret of the spiritual experience of stillness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

well one needs unstillness in order to achieve stillness.

---

We need unstillness for comparison, and of course to be able to observe the state of something, we ouselves have to be in a state of unstillness.
But even then, stillness itself has to last for eternity, and everything we perceive as still, is a mimic if it ever moves.

Pure stillness I suppose could never ever move or be moved in any way, inclusive of its environment moving, otherwise it moves relative to that environment.
Technically with the theory of relativity, nothing is still, even if on a molecular level it ceased to vibrate on the frequency of physical form, it would still be moving with the universe.

Conceptually, in my opinion, if it does not, will not, or cannot change, it is still.
:p

This discussion will never achieve stillness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Stillness is not necessarily an opposite of noise. Happiness is not the absence of torment. This is a crude idea. You must go beyond these peripherals. Stillness is a state that can be experienced when one can go beyond the boundary of pleasures and pains. This is something that can be experienced when you can rise over and above worldly propensities. This is a spiritual state and wordiness cannot disclose the secret of the spiritual experience of stillness

---

I see.
Stillness for it to be must have shape.