That’s not how legal systems work… Plenty of things are legal in one place and illegal in another. No Christians are worried about blasphemy against Zeus or Jupiter. Like wise a Zoroastrian is only concerned about blasphemy against Ahura Mazda and not Allah.
I’m claiming that the accusation or blasphemy presupposes a frame or reference. In this frame of reference, you can make objective statements. Not that this frame of reference is absolute.
In your line o reasoning, velocity would be subjective.
I disagree. IMHO, the accusation of blasphemy presupposes a dogma to actually make sense.
Okay… Which one?
… Any dogma? It’s like the claim “that’s illegal” presupposes a body of law. No matter which one.
That’s not how legal systems work… Plenty of things are legal in one place and illegal in another. No Christians are worried about blasphemy against Zeus or Jupiter. Like wise a Zoroastrian is only concerned about blasphemy against Ahura Mazda and not Allah.
I’m claiming that the accusation or blasphemy presupposes a frame or reference. In this frame of reference, you can make objective statements. Not that this frame of reference is absolute.
In your line o reasoning, velocity would be subjective.
Velocity is not suggestive because it is defined as speed in a direction.
In your example you are only taking speed, assuming direction and stating velocity.
Velocity needs a frame of reference, though, since there is no absolute frame of reference.