Is our universe stationary ?

Aside from Mr. Jack's answer there is an additional problem. In what sense can space be said to move ? Surely movement is a change in spatial location ?

I didn't read all of the previous thread - and when I looked again at the first page I didn't see anything of great relevance.But no, I don't think that defining movement as a change of spatial location requires defining space as an absolute coordinate system. To take a simple point unless there is an absolute zero point all measurements must be relative. Without an absolute coordinate system with a fixed reference point then we get the same results as Special Relativity - all inertial (non-accelerating) frames of reference are equivalent.But to say that space was moving you would have to define a measure of distance that was independant of space. Want to explain how you could do that ?

The objections raised have nothing to do with the possible existence of other universes. So rather than making baseless speculations about the motivations behind the criticism, perhaps you should try to answer the points raised against your first post.

The answers you were given directly relate to the subject of the first post. Your idea requires that we can meaningfully assign a velocity to our universe. If we can't even do that then the rest of your post has no relevance to reality.

You say "exactly my point" - but you don't offer an explanation of how it could be done. Again, how does it make sense to talk of space moving ? It makes no sense to talk of measuring distance independantly of space because distance is a spatial quantity.

Don't worry, I'm not lumping you in with the original poster who seems to just want an excuse to avoid discussing the issue.And I don't claim to fully understand the issues myself - I don't think anybody without a thorough grounding in General Relativity could make that claim, and my education stopped with Special Relativity.

If you weren't avoiding the issue you could answer the point without contradicting yourself.

quote:

---

I am not talking about space moving or time moving. I am talking about our space-time continuum.

---

If our space-time continuum is what is "moving" then you are indeed talking about space moving.And if all you are trying to talk about is the matter in the observable universe then you really have no point - because all it would be moving in is the space-time from the Big Bang.

So what you are saying is that pointing out the concept is meaningless is being "hung up on assigning an actual number". I suggest that you actually think about the issue instead of writing nonsense.

It's pretty obvius that you don't even understand Special Relativity. If all you want to do is to declare that the matter in our universe has a velocity then you can find the centre of mass, and then choose a frame of reference in which it is moving. That works whether or not there is anything outside our universe. And of course we wouldn;t get anything like "stars disappearing" happening on that basis.But if that isn't what you mean then you need to be able to explain what you do mean. Unless you are just trying to confuse people into agreeing with you when you don't have a clue what you are talling about.

If it's a "moot point" that you are unclear of what you mean by "our unvierse" or how it could be said to move than you have confirmed my suspicions. You don't really care whether what you are saying is meaningful or just gibberish.If you really want to make a case then you need to sort that out, And you could also consider how we could work out that whatever you mean by "our universe" is foinf whatever you mean by "moving" without already knowing about or directly discovering this other space it is supposed to prove.

[Duplicate]This message has been edited by PaulK, 08-27-2004 04:24 PM

The problem is that you're not consistent. You talk about "our universe as known to us as originating from our big bang" which would include space, but you also say you aren't talking about the space moving at all but you aren't talking about just the matter either.So you are talking about SOME subset of "our universe as known to us as originating from our big bang" but you won't say what it consists of. Nor will you explain how it can be said to move at all or how it could be identified as moving without first detecting or discovering your hyppothetical space it is supposed to move in, whihc would render your whole argument moot.

I think you are just confused. If the Big Bang singularity were not embedded in some other space-time it is meaningless to speak of it as stationary. Or moving.Secondly according to Special Relativity there are no fixed points of reference for motion. None. And since all our spacetime was within the singularity you can't use that as a fixed point of reference either.ANd if the singularity was moving you are talking about a region of space-time moving. Which is itself something you need to explain as I pointed out in my first post. Without ever getting a satisfactory answer.

In other words you can;t offer any explanation of how it makes sense to say that a region of space is moving.And we've still got the problem of how to detect that our universe is "moving" without already knowing about whatever it is it is supposed to be moving in.

Assuming you eliminate other cues (noise and of course the speedometer) constant velocity motion is not detectable. That's Special Relativity.