traveler

I'll take that to mean that you can't give me an example of an object that "stands still." That's what I thought.

Can you give me an example of an object that "stands still?"

The universe is mass, distance, and time (motion). Mass is concentrations of distance. Distance is inevitable. Time is a standard of duration that allows a means of comparison for all motion to be measured against.

What do you mean they don't move?? The term "move" means that the object being measured using the standards of distance (meter), and time (second) traveled a distance in a time period (d/t). That IS MOTION. That IS what "move" means. Of course they "moved," every object constantly "moves."

Not predetermined, it's the past examined as measured, with error.

What problems? I already explained that in my previous post with reverse acceleration.

Getting lost sounds like a personal problem. Lack of information is no excuse to make stuff up. That's no different than bible thumpers saying "God must have done it because what else could it be?"

--->10 m/s <--Reverse thrust. When the velocity reaches 0 m/s and the direction changes, with a fixed power thrust system, the "changeover" point is a fixed point for the measurements to be calculated against, at which point the entire event can be calculated and graphed.

If you had thrusters you could reverse thrust until a change of direction of travel occurred, and graph the entire event with accelerometers so that you had a printout of velocity and accelerations, and which direction of travel at all durations of the event desired to be measured. All measures of motion are of the past because the time has to have elapsed in order to complete the distance traveled per time interval measurements. You can't measure the future.

Immaterial according to who?

I agree, it's impossible to say, but that doesn't mean there isn't a truth of the reality. Compare those objects to other objects, and their velocities and accelerations, geometrically in all directions, and there is a reality which could never be known or calculated, because time never began and will never end. If one of the balls impacts another object of known velocity and mass, which reaction occurs? If one ball's frame of reference is assumed to be zero velocity, surely if that ball is impacted upon by another object, the reconfiguration of mass, distance and time will concur as to if the ball actually had a zero velocity? NO, it won't, because there is no object in this universe that is motionless (an object with a zero velocity).

No object has a zero velocity, PERIOD!

No, just accurate.

In reality, no object has a velocity of zero.