Are we teleporting?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I'm confused are you telling me that everything is in a state of rest?

Yes or No? :>

No, I'm challenging you to come up with a good criterion for what you call being at rest, and what you call moving. My point being that you say that movement is special, because it is teleportation, and I'm saying how can you distinguish between teleportation happening or not at a given moment if whether there is movement depends entirely on what observer you ask. You then tried to argue that absolute movement is defined as moving relative to "space" (your picture) and now I wonder how space provides you with an absolute criterion with which you could tell movement from rest. Only then would it make sense to argue that something special is going on during movement

Truth be told,i tried to answer that question and couldn't come up with a satisfying answer.
With my very limited knowledge on the subject:

Answer:
If the coordinates space of an object is fixed then it is in a state of rest.
If the coordinates space of an object is varying then it is in a state of motion.
In short,for an object to be in a state of rest it has to be in a fixed specific point on space(?) unaffected by anything else,affected by only itself.

I hope i'm not wrong when i say that we are in a constant state of motion(movement?),since you said that we weren't in a state of rest.If we are,then i have reasons to believe that this motion(movement?) is not "continuous".You're the Physicist,you'll know what i mean before i know what i mean 
My reasons being:





Consider that i want to move from: 
* x to x+(an infinitely small number)
* If there was an infinitely small number then i wouldn't be able to move.
* But i am able to move from x to x+1.
* If 1 is a collection of a group of infinitely small numbers then i shouldn't have been able to move from x to x+1.(Because a bigger thing is a concatenation of smaller things..)
* This lead me to think that maybe infinity isn't possible.

Get it?
I can move from x to x+1 but not from x to x+infinitely small number and assuming 1 is a concatenation of smaller things(union?) the statement seems contradictory..

(P.S I wouldn't suggest taking everything literally)