Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:24:24.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Distinction Between Absolute and Relative Motion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Robert Rynasiewicz
Robert Rynasiewicz*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the issues dividing “absolutists” and “relationists” is the question whether all motion is relative motion or, in the words of Earman, spacetime has “structures that support absolute quantities of motion.” This paper argues that, despite the enormous literature bearing on the topic, it is problematic to formulate a general criterion for when a quantity counts as absolute in contrast to merely relative in a way that is not hopelessly parasitic on other, presumably distinct, senses of “absolute.” Furthermore, I suggest that the vicissitudes of the evolution of the concept of absolute motion have contributed to this difficulty.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 70 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD 21218.

‡

I would like to thank Mike Friedman and Don Howard for numerous and helpful comments concerning both substance and details. Also, I would like to thank Philip Kitcher for his tremendous, but fortunately not infinite, patience. A precursor to this paper was presented to the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh many years ago.

References

Alexander, H. G. (ed.). (1956), The Leibniz-Clark Correspondence. Manchester: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, James L. (1966), “Maximal Covariance Conditions and Kretchsmann's Relativity Group”, in Banesh Hoffmann (ed.), Perspectives in Geometry and Relativity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 16-27.Google Scholar
Anderson, James L. (1967), Principles of Relativity Physics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George ([1710] 1988), The Principles of Human Knowledge. Edited by Roger Woolhouse. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Descartes, Rene ([1644] 1905), Principia Philosophiae, in Charles Adamand Paul Tannery (eds.), Oeuvresde Descartes. vol. VIII. Paris: Léopold Cerf.Google Scholar
Earman, John (1970), “Who's Afraid of Absolute Space?”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 48: 287-317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John. (1974), “Covariance, Invariance, and the Equivalence of Frames”, Foundations of Physics 4: 267-289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John. (1989), World Enough and Space-Time, Absolute versus Relational Theories of Space and Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert (1927), “Newtons Mechanik und ihr Einfluß auf die Gestaltung der theoretischen Physik”, Die Naturwissenschaften 15: 273-276. Translatedas "The Mechanics of Newton and their Influence on the Development of Theoretical Physics", in Einstein 1954, 247-255.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert. (1954), Ideas and Opinions. New York: Bonanza Books. Page references are to the paper back imprint. New York: Dell Publishing, 1973.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert. (1983), Sidelights on Relativity. New York: Dover. Reprint of the translation by G. B. Jeffery and W. Perrett, first published by E.P. Dutton and Company, NewYork, 1922.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael (1983), Foundations of Space-Time Theories. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Huygens, Christiaan (1905), Oeuvres Complètes, vol. X. La Haye: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Kretschmann, Erich (1917), “Über den physikalischen Sinn der Relativitätspostulate, A. Einsteins neue und seine ursprüngliche Relativitätstheorie”, Annalender Physik 53: 575-614. Translatedby Frank Doringand Robert Rynasiewicz(ms.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mach, Ernst(1960), The Science of Mechanics, 6th American ed. Translatedby Thomas J. McCormack. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Maxwell, James Clerk ([1877] 1952), Matter and Motion. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Penrose, Roger (1991), “The Mass of the Classical Vacuum”, in Simon Saunders and Harvey R. Brown (eds.), The Philosophy of the Vacuum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 21-26.Google Scholar
Poincare, Henri ([1905], 1952), Science and Hypothesis. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Rynasiewicz, Robert (1995), “By Their Properties, Causes and Effects: Newton's Scholium on Time, Space, Place and Motion”, (in two parts), Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 26: 133-153, 295-321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynasiewicz, Robert. (1996), “Absolute versus Relational Space-Time: An Out moded Debate?”, Journal of Philosophy 93: 279-306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynasiewicz, Robert. (1999), “Kretschmann's Analysis of Covariance and Relativity Principles”, in Hubert Goenner, Juergen Renn, Jim Ritter, and Tilman Sauer (eds.), The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity. Einstein Studies, vol. 7. Boston: Birkhauser, 431-462.Google Scholar
Sklar, Lawrence (1974), Space, Time, and Space time. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wald, Robert M. (1984), General Relativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar