Is our universe stationary ?

You know. If this was true, then maybe a star dropping out of the membrane would descend at an angle away from the central gravitational attraction that our universe might be orbiting. The inverse square rule could produce a gravitational attraction unable to act on a single star but strong enough to act on our membrane with its own cosmic mass equal to the sum of all mass inside.So then our membrane could continue in an orbit but the star would continue as if it was going in a straight line. There would not be a strong enough force to act upon that star to have it obtain an orbit so it would be launched away from our orbit and in doing so we could in fact calculate the arc of our orbit and thus the approximate diameter of our orbit. This is based on the far-fetched idea that we could watch the path of a star that breaks free from our membrane (if that is even possible) for a long enough time frame to have meaning. This is all theory, but in theory, given a star left behind and 50 million years of data on its trajectory we could approximate the diameter of the orbit of our membrane, STC, pocket of space time, or universe.

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.

Thanks Paul. I often worry that I may come across the wrong way. I try to look at an idea from all possible angles, and in doing so, I may come over as arguing for a point that I'm not. I'm glad you understand this. Myself, I don't have any formal education in either; all I know is what I've read. That's why I appreciate the help of those, here, more educated on the subjects than myself. Aside from that, I just try to understand things within the (limited) framework I already have. Like the man said, "Just doin' what I can with what I got."

Well lookie there...Brad, I think I understood something you wrote! Was this a reply to my question in this post? If so, thank you.Personally, I think you just need to slow down a bit and perhaps proofread what you've written before you post it. Or even break it down and deal with one point at a time. I understand that you're short on time but you seem fairly intelligent and it's a shame that much of what you say probably gets passed over because, by and large, people just can't understand it.Anyway, I'm off topic so I won't continue this here. My apologies to Admin.

Yes that was in reply to that post of yours.Yes, I will slow down- the explanation.Part of the problem IS NOT MINE, however.
Most of the participants here do not THINK through as many "issues" before they repost so I am often caught with more thoughts than words.
At present I need to respond in a rather lengthy way to the issue of Monod vs Stanely but Ook has already appreciated where I am heading and I have not finished this 'issue' sniwk issued.Sometimes I am at a public terminal with only 1 hour to get everything I want to say said and I find that I am pressed in internet time to get it all OUT so I do make some short cuts at that time. You might notice that my last posts in a session are often less comprehenisble in this regard than some of earlier ones. For that, indeed, I am to blame.What happens is that most of the posters here are interested in the the turn from a Creationist to and Evolutionary perspective and most really only want to see THIS, whatever it is, in print. I have no problem showing this but showing it both within a reasonbale amount of print & remaining in the weave of a particular thread head is often difficult.In this case I could probably do something in your issue about a stationary vs nonstationary UNIVERSE but I have so many more, and I hope more practical things, to write as I get to this point that you are correct it is best for sake of this threads continuity to hold off on this a bit more. I will be around. Simply remind me again once I start to talk about state trasitions. First I must figure out if whomever is communicating with me is thinking of the first equilibria I started to discuss or the Mt. Improbable I am trying to climb up in your isses or mine of universality.Bon Voage.We were talking about the difference of measurements of inertia vs relative inertia. Just think, it was not until the 1960s that we had the technology to disapprove of Maxwell's ideas of magnetic inertia (I think it was in the Bates book on Modern Magentism) which he thought quite a bit before but in the issue of SENSING the motion of our"" Universe we would need a device, other than our understanding, able to discrimate these small values relative to each other and not absolutely. I doubt there is any way to do this. There may be. I do not know as much objective physics as I do subjective biology.I see the spelling errors. Do you really think it would change my posts signficantly if I was to correct those in here?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-26-2004 10:22 AM

Hi brad. I'm new as a poster here but i've been reading the boards for a while. I just thought I'd say that breaking up your post into sections like that made it very much easier to read. If it's all one big paragraph it's easy to get lost, especially if its on a complex topic. Personally I'd say the breaking into paragraphs will make more of a difference than correcting spellings.

Hi Brad. Rather than continue off topic in this thread, I've made my reply to you here.

Here's the problem and I will try to use small words. Paul, you can't have it both ways. Either space is the backdrop with which matter exists, ie the X,Y, and Z coordinates that we can use to determine width, height, and length, OR space is the area between planets and stars. You can't argue against both of these points and still expect an answer to your question. Either you have no idea what the theory of general relativity states or you just plain have no idea.

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.

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.

I did not in any post "claim" that our known universe was moving. I stated (pretty clearly I thought) that this was a question "If our universe was moving prior to begining to expand." Nowhere did I claim to known if it is or not. My point was pretty simple. If it was moving prior to the big bang expansion then it must have existed inside another space-time pocket. It could not have been moving and also have been the creator of space and time. That is my argument. Those who feel that our big bang created all space and all time would have to think otherwise if we found some proof that our point singularity prior to expansion had velocity.You seem set on arguing a mute point over and over instead of reading the posts. I answered your question 2 or 3 times now. If you still can't find my answer to a specific question you have then rephrase it again and I will try my best to provide a response you can understand.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-27-2004 09:44 AM

I think the 'problem' is that your questions assume that our current world-view is radically incomplete.In answering the question 'does our universe move' you need a point of reference outside out universe. The way we see the universe now it is impossible to find a point of reference outside our universe, hence the question makes no sense given current scientific knowledge.What would be needed is the discovery of something radically different, not outside our universe but merely far away from the galaxies and such. However, such an idea has no basis in the real world, and as such your questions and ideas sound like you are just coming up with stuff.I guess you could answer the question with "All relevant point of reference gives a velocity of 0" which would be the same as saying that the singularity can't move.This message has been edited by Melchior, 08-27-2004 09:58 AM

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

I just discovered Peter Lynds work and now i don't feel like such a dumass cos it's stuff I'd taken for granted......stuff about 3d coordinate objects right down to string level or right up to brane/bubble level not being "fixed" in space as time is always moving them forward......BTW Peter Lynds is a NZer as well, it must be sopmething in the water down here I mean that too