>> > And this is the problem, you see. Suppose there is a force acting on
>> > an object for a bit, and as a result of this force there is clearly a
>> > change in the motion. But what is the final state? Is there motion
>> > there or not? If there is motion, then Louis will tell you that needs
>> > an explanation (because that is something *happening* and according to
>> > him nothing *happens* without a cause). But if there is NOT motion in
>> > the final state, then what it is doing is ... nothing. Now surely,
>> > doing Nothing does not require an explanation, and even Louis would
>> > say this is the case. Or does Louis say that standing in one place
>> > needs a cause to explain why it is just sitting there in one place?
>>
>> You're stupid as fuck. But then again, you knew that. ahahaha...
>
> Ah, good, so you don't have any answers to these questions.

No. It simply does not matter to the universe whether or not you and I
can observe that an object is moving or is at rest relative to our
frame of reference. As I explain on my site, a universe where every
movement is relative is a self-referential universe. Only chiken
feather voodoo physicists like yourself would make such a stupid
claim. Truth is, only the absolute exists. The relative is abstract,
i.e., in your mind.  What matters is whether or not the object is
moving at any instant from the point of view of the object. If it is,
there must be a cause and that cause is an interaction. Dumbass!