Aristotle sets it forth that locomotion is the first of motions, of which there are three: motion over space, alteration, and growth/decay. In some earlier works, e.g. Categories, Aristotle had included generation and corruption as motions, but in what seem to be more mature parts of the corpus, he denies this. That's because the subject does not persist through generation/corruption. 

Locomotion is the primary motion, ἡ κατὰ τόπον φορὰ πρώτη τῶν κινήσεων, Physics 265b17; cf. IV.1, 208a31-32.

Does this entail that motion in space is necessary for alteration or growth/diminution? Yes.

If a substance undergoes growth or diminution, something moves to become part of it or moves away to cease to be a part of it. But for alteration, too, something has to move in space, since between substances that are composites of form and matter, the agent must be in contact with the patient. Cf. Istvan Bodnar:

"All other changes depend on locomotions, because any two entities involved in change, with their active and passive potentialities respectively, need to come into contact in order for the interaction to occur.[28]Contact, however, as a rule needs to be established by locomotion: either the entity to be moved, or the mover, or both, need to proceed so that they meet (Physics 8.7, 260a26-b7). Moreover locomotion is the form of change which can occur in isolation of generation, perishing and the other forms of change (Physics 8.7, 260b26–29). Other changes are indepedent kinds of change insofar as they can occur in an entity which does not perform any other change. Nevertheless all these forms of change include or presuppose that some other entity engages in locomotion.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/
    

@RomanJoe,

"However he does bring up a good point. When something is in uniform motion it moves from point A to B to C (theoretically ad infinitum)."

But things cannot move ad infinitum in a finite universe.  See Aquinas's commentary on Physics Book 6 around 881.
Uniform rectilinear motion cannot be infinite.



 

@bmiller
"Per Aristotle, the change of location of a materially existing object is also different than the object changing color (change in quality)"
--Aristotle was wrong.  Locomotion is necessary for every change of color.

"or the object losing hair (change in quantity)."
--Aristotle was wrong.  Locomotion is necessary to lose hair.  Isn't that obvious?  A physical object, a hair, must physically move in order for it to be lost.  How is this not apparent to all?

"Now I don't think Aristotle would classify the increase in my circumference was an actual change of location. I wouldn't either"
--Then you are both wrong.  How can a physical object change its size absent a physical motion?
 

@bmiller
You got sunburned because material moved.

Your GPS provided readings because material moved.

All change requires locomotion.  All those who have said differently are wrong.

The First Way is false as an argument for the necessity of a hierarchical first changer acting in the present moment because another changer in the present moment is not necessary to account for observed uniform linear motion.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

JT"True. That seems confirmation, if more were needed, he is a troll."
--Is that some sort of theistic groupthink thing?  The leader lacks the personal fortitude to engage a rational challenger, so he shouts TROLL, and all the followers chant in agreement?

It is telling you ignored the actual context of my comment. Trolls and trollish behaviours exist, so it can't always be wrong to make such accusations. You were offered this thread before you were banned from Fester's blog. Here you were free to discuss in peace, there you were shunned and Feser had already told people not to respond to you. That you chose to stay there is almost certainly the mark of a troll. That was my point and I note you didn't give any proper response to it.

Anyway, although you actually didn't take the bargain, and only came here when you were banned at Feser's, you may still post in this thread in your own inimitable style. I ask others to tone down denunciations of SP, from what was seen at Feser's blog. Not because I think most of that was wrong, but we all know what he is by now. Trolling posts on other threads will be deleted.