existence in motion eerything we see in the universe is moving, each in their own time dimension. If we could achieve absolute sstillness could it be possible that it would no longer exist?
Everything in the universe has been in motion eversince the big bang; each particle has its own space & time/velocity existence. However, what if a particle was made to have no motion relative to all the existing motions in the universe. Would it still exist?
If you had two particles moving in opposite directions it would be impossible to position a third particle in a way that would give it no relative motion to both.
If there exist a least two objects in motion with respect to each other, then nothing can be motionless with respect to BOTH. You question simply has not sense.
Motion is relative. No motion implies no acceleration. Why would it not exist? I suppose you could contend this as the inverse to the constancy to the speed of light. All bodies measure the same value of c. But to say that something is at rest with respect to everything implies the existance of something reminiscent of an aether, which certainly does not exist. So yes, something which is at rest to everything else fails to exist Thus the conclusion is that the question is logically flawed.
Time? When I read the question I hit some odd hitch that has to do with time. Some element of Zeno that has to do with the arrow, and also some metaphysical nonsense tidbit from Crowley's Naples Arrangement. But essentially it leads me to question whether or not such a particle would have to "exist outside of time" in order to maintain an unchanging relationship with the rest of the Universe, and whether that equals an actual relationship at all?