But a serious one.
Been talking to my co-workers again. 
If I sit still without moving, I’m stopped, right? So let’s suspend reality and say the Earth stops spinning. Hmmm. Am I stopder, or more stopped?
Relative to the moon (or whatever) doesn’t make any difference, because, as a friend once told me, the universe doesn’t recognize movement. Only time.
Peace.
mangeorge
There is no such thing as “stopped”. There is only “moving at the same velocity as _____”. Or am I misunderstanding the question?
No. You’re just in a reference frame where you appear not to be moving.
There is no universal reference frame that you can look at and judge everything else by. You might say that “it’s all relative”.
If you sit without moving you are “stopped” with respect to whatever you are sitting on, but that doesn’t mean that you’re not moving; in fact, the Local Supercluster, which includes the Local Group, thus the Milky Way Galaxy, the Solar System, Earth, and therefore you, is all streaming toward a structure known as the Great Attractor at several hundred km/s relative to the cosmic background. All inertial (nonaccelerating) motion can only be said to be relative to an arbitrary reference frame, and per Special Relativity there are no privlidged or special frames of reference.
The rotation of the Earth is a different case; objects that are under the influence of a rotating body are constantly accelerating; that is, the direction of their motion is changing, even though the speed (the scalar value of their velocity) may be constant. This gives you a certain intrinsic speed under SR. Objects in a gravitational field are also noninertial, and thus “in motion” and thus is “moving faster”, resulting in a time dialation. At the extreme, an object flying into a black hole keeps accelerating and thus (from the perspective of the object) time slows down, crawling incrementally toward c, at which point time would totally stop for it and for everything else as well, as this would only happen at t=∞, the radius of a black hole being infinite. Infalling light can’t accelerate because its velocity is always c, but escaping light is increasingly redshifted (by the amount of energy expended necessary to escape the gravitational field) until it disappears entirely.
Movement through space and movement through time are two components in the same continuum, the space-time continuum. You can think of this being a big sheet of graph paper, where motion in space (we’ll glob all spatial dimensions into one scalar value) is along the horizontal axis, and motion in time is along the vertical axis. If you are completely inertial, and not moving relative to a coordinate frame, your motion in space is zero, and your motion along the time axis is c. Yes, this means you are moving “at the speed of light”, but only on a time-like path, which is “very long” compared to spacelike paths; in fact, the relationship between them can be said to be exponential.
As you move along in space relative to a coordinate frame, you lose a little bit of speed in the time direction. When you are non-inertial–under acceleration–your motion is…strange. It is even possible, in theory, for your motion to make a loop; whereas we’d normally think of it as a invariantly upward trending graph with the slope changing slightly, but always a line, acceleration introduces curves, and in extreme situations those curves can even bend back on themselves, resulting in a time-like loop in space. We have reason to believe, however, that these loops are always non-intersecting, except at singular points, returning you to your start point without ever being able to “go back” to the same point in spacetime that you were at before.
So you can’t ever stop, and in fact, you can’t even slow down. And you certainly can’t go back. So, keep a lookout.
Stranger
See above, plus, if you were trying to define the Earth as “stopped”, it’d most likely be with respect to the sun.
>There is no universal reference frame that you can look at and judge everything else by. You might say that “it’s all relative”.
There is actually a reference frame based on the universe that you can look at and judge everything else by. Wherever you are, you have an average speed relative to other nearby objects. You also have a relative speed to more distant objects, but on average this depends strongly on how far away they are, because space is constantly growing. However if you subtract out this effect, you still have some remaining relative speed to each object. You can take the average of all these speeds and consider it your speed relative to the average of the universe.
The symmetry principle behind Einsteinian (and even Gallilean) relativity is that there aren’t any contained experiments you can do from inside a box to figure out an absolute speed. However, if you are allowed to measure things like doppler shifted light from distant galaxies, you certainly can figure out a speed with absolute and universal significance.
To bring this somewhat back to earth, let’s suppose you are sitting on a desk chair in the middle of the room, and your friend is standing over in the corner.
At this point, you are “at rest” with respect to your friend.
Now you give your desk chair a good spin and you start rotating in place.
You aren’t “translating” (moving linearly in the x-y-z axes) with respect to your friend however you are obviously rotating, and that means that you are at motion compared to him. It just happens to be angular motion, not linear. You are not stopped.
While spinning you even have momentum (angular momentum is the analog of the “linear momentum” that you have if you are running straight ahead, for example).
If you hit the brakes on your chair you’ll stop. Your angular momentum gets turned into heat and noise (via friction) and returns to zero. You are now stopped wrt to your buddy.
Does that help? Your question about are you “more stopped” when you aren’t rotating doesn’t really make sense - if you are not moving wrt your friend then as far as he is concerned you are stopped. If you are moving, whether linearly or rotationally (or both), then you are not stopped from his perspective.
If we look at anything outside of the little closed system that is the room then stuff goes all to hell since the earth is rotating in various ways, the solar system is moving around, so is the galaxy and the green grass grows all around all around.
No, you got it. And that’s exactly what I said, that there is no stop. He said “bullshit, george”. “In the sense of this conversation, using normal language conventions, you leaning there on that counter and talking to me, are essentially stopped”. And "if you move directly toward me then directly away from me, you must stop. He has a point.
But all this other stuff is very interesting. The idea that we’re moving, but don’t really know how fast or in what direction is interesting.
Just to nitpick, I’d say that even if sitting still on a chair, you aren’t “stopped” even with respect to the chair. If it wasn’t for friction between you and the chair, wouldn’t you take different paths thru the universe over time? Cf. Foucault’s pendulum.
Well, it’s all a matter of degree. The colloquial meaning of “stop” is something like not moving with respect to the patch of land you’re standing on. In that sense, asking what would happen if the Earth stopped is sort of meaningless, since the Earth is already stopped with respect to the Earth.
Not exactly, I say. You can be on that patch of land and be well aware of the Earth’s movement, esp. if you’re outside, and stopped.
And I’m pretty sure there’s no danger of sliding off Musicat’s chair.
Someone watching me and John from space would say we were stopped, wouldn’t they? Someone in sychronous orbit?
So, when you’re stopped, and the Earth is rotating, you’re moving. And if you stop the Earth from rotating, then you’re still moving, because the Earth is travelling around the Sun. And if you stop that, then you’re still moving, because you’re still orbiting the galactic center. Believe me, it’s turtles all the way down.
Is there a spelling error in here somewhere?
Everyone is writing very nice explanations of the concepts of “moving” and “stopping” in various frames of reference, but I want to know what the OP is asking, and I have no idea.
You’re kidding, aren’t you.
If not, I will try to explain my wordplay to you.
Nope, sorry.
I am usually a bit slow to “read between the lines”, but your use of the word “wordplay” suggests that you’re referencing a movie or some other work that I might not be familiar with.
Looking forward to your explanation and my realization of what a dummy I am! :eek:
Not a dummy, I suspect.
I forget the term that describes what I’m talking about, but there are some words that are the limit of what they express. “Top”, ‘Bottom’, “end”, and of course “stopped” come to mind. You can’t get any stopper than stopped.
So I’m trying to make up a word or two that expresses what I mean. Us of limited education get to do that. Unmolested. 
Here;
From m-w.com:
I like the “wit” part.
Now I get it. What you’re saying is that when the OP used the word “stopder”, it was a spelling error, as I suspected.
Right, he meant to spell stoppeder.