Is the Universe in Motion

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

How can one prove it ?

[KipIngram]

That's a meaningless question. I assume you mean "in its entirety," and you can assign all parts of the universe a shared constant velocity and it changes nothing.

Ok, maybe not "meaningless," but irrelevant.

[swansont]

In motion with respect to what?

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

In motion with respect to what?

well;One member said ,that it was in motion ; so I asked him to prove it...it is relevant with the law of relativity.

got to go ../

Edited June 1, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[DrP]

When one says the universe is in motion.... don't they mean that the galaxies are all rotating and flying about around and through each other? That we can see by looking at the night sky with a telescope and the patience to watch and plot the movement of the stars and galaxies in the sky, no?

 

 

But if you mean the WHOLE universe as an item... then, how could you possibly know seeing as we can't even see the edge of it? And as swansont said - moving relative to what?

[studiot]

well;One member said ,that it was in motion ; so I asked him to prove it...it is relevant with the law of relativity.

got to go ../

 

It is often forgotten that a 'body' can execute six types of motion.

 

1) Rigid body translational motion

 

2) Rigid body rotational motion

 

3) Non-rigid body translational motion

 

4) Non-rigid body rotational motion

 

5) Some form of oscillatory or repetitive motion.

 

6) Some combination of these

 

So when anyone says The Universe is in motion, the first thing to ask them is what sort of motion they mean and also what they mean or include in 'the Universe.'

 

My definition of the Universe roughly corresponds to 'everything there is including empty space'

 

So that immediately rules out any form of translational motion as there is nowhere else for the Universe to translate to.

 

But that still allows the universe to be constantly churning like a washing machine or tumble drier.

[swansont]

well;One member said ,that it was in motion ; so I asked him to prove it...it is relevant with the law of relativity.got to go ../

Produce the quote. If you aren't going to give the context of the question, it's really difficult to give a proper answer.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Produce the quote. If you aren't going to give the context of the question, it's really difficult to give a proper answer.

The Universe is the set of all that exists; with the exception of the speculation of dark matter present.

Produce the quote. If you aren't going to give the context of the question, it's really difficult to give a proper answer.

I like that ! very much the formation of a cocoon.

When one says the universe is in motion.... don't they mean that the galaxies are all rotating and flying about around and through each other? That we can see by looking at the night sky with a telescope and the patience to watch and plot the movement of the stars and galaxies in the sky, no?

 

 

But if you mean the WHOLE universe as an item... then, how could you possibly know seeing as we can't even see the edge of it? And as swansont said - moving relative to what?

well let say we are all a part of it

[swansont]

The Universe is the set of all that exists; with the exception of the speculation of dark matter present.I like that ! very much the formation of a cocoon.

The universe includes dark matter.

 

You did not address my post. Where is the quoted passage?

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

The universe includes dark matter.

 

You did not address my post. Where is the quoted passage?

My definition of the Universe roughly corresponds to 'everything there is but! ''not including empty space''

[studiot]

My definition of the Universe roughly corresponds to 'everything there is but! ''not including empty space''

 

Does this exclude from the Universe the empty space inside atoms, between atoms, between the Earth and Mars, between the galaxies and so on?

Edited June 1, 2017 by studiot

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Does this exclude the empty space inside atoms, between atoms, between the Earth and Mars, between the galaxies and so on?

every thing in the cocoon Universe ) is included .

[studiot]

every thing in the cocoon Universe ) is included .

 

That was no answer, don't mess about.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

That was no answer, don't mess about.

Does this exclude the empty space inside atoms, between atoms, between the Earth and Mars, between the galaxies and so on?

You Tell me if it does

Edited June 1, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[swansont]

My definition of the Universe roughly corresponds to 'everything there is but! ''not including empty space''

Sorry, you have to use the same definitions as everyone else.

 

Where is the quote you referred to?

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Sorry, you have to use the same definitions as everyone else.

 

Where is the quote you referred to?

To me _ I see the Universe as a big round body like the earth as an example and why would the Universe have a different shape, and we are parts of it.

So !~ my question << ''Is the Universe in Motion''/ and if so!~ what is the evident proof:

Edited June 2, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Well, if you need to change mainstream definitions to make your ideas work, they can't stay in mainstream sections. You realize, hopefully, that students will fail their courses if they read what you write and think it's correct?

 

Moved to Speculations, be sure to use evidence to support your guesswork.

[swansont]

To me _ I see the Universe as a big round body like the earth as an example and why would the Universe have a different shape, and we are parts of it.So !~ my question << ''Is the Universe in Motion''/ and if so!~ what is the evident proof:

Where is the quote on which this was based? Why do you refuse to provide it?

[Strange]

Where is the quote on which this was based? Why do you refuse to provide it?

 

 

Apparently, it was me (yeah, I was surprised too):

 

 

 

<< well !~ to tell you the trough about my understanding of ''Motion'' for the Universe to be in motion as a singularity the sun as to be the generator of the vectors to be set in motion ;and that is from the beginning of motion at the formation of the Sun;the birth of what we know today.

 

The universe, including black holes, existed (and was in motion) for many billions of years before the Sun was formed.

 

So, what was in motion (before the existence of the Sun) was the contents of the universe.

 

To say the universe (as a whole) is in motion would seem to be pretty meaningless.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Strange

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Apparently, it was me (yeah, I was surprised too):

 

 

 

So, what was in motion (before the existence of the Sun) was the contents of the universe.

 

To say the universe (as a whole) is in motion would seem to be pretty meaningless.

1e__I cannot find any vector that makes me believe ''any other wise''

2e_Not at all. It would prove that you do not belong to it.

[Strange]

1e__I cannot find any vector that makes me believe ''any other wise''

 

 

I have no idea what that means. Perhaps you could use Google Translate to translate the sentence from your native language.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

1 I cannot find any vector that makes me believe ''any other wise'' = from Google

Posted Today, 07:29 PM

Strange, on 02 Jun 2017 - 7:09 PM, said:

Apparently, it was me (yeah, I was surprised too):

 

 

 

So, what was in motion (before the existence of the Sun) was the contents of the universe.

 

To say the universe (as a whole) is in motion would seem to be pretty meaningless.

1e__I cannot find any vector that makes me believe ''any other wise''

2e_Not at all. It would prove that you do not belong to that Universe and the law of relativity is not valid in space .

Edited June 3, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[swansont]

Apparently, it was me (yeah, I was surprised too):

 

 

 

So, what was in motion (before the existence of the Sun) was the contents of the universe.

 

To say the universe (as a whole) is in motion would seem to be pretty meaningless.

Which is what I suspected.

[Strange]

1 I cannot find any vector that makes me believe ''any other wise'' = from Google

Posted Today, 07:29 PM

Strange, on 02 Jun 2017 - 7:09 PM, said:

Apparently, it was me (yeah, I was surprised too):

 

 

 

So, what was in motion (before the existence of the Sun) was the contents of the universe.

 

To say the universe (as a whole) is in motion would seem to be pretty meaningless.

1e__I cannot find any vector that makes me believe ''any other wise''

2e_Not at all. It would prove that you do not belong to that Universe and the law of relativity is not valid in space .

 

 

You have just repeated the same thing. Oddly, that doesn't make it an clearer.

 

 

 

I cannot find any vector that makes me believe ''any other wise''

 

What does "vector" mean in this context? Do you mean direction of movement? (I assume "1e__" is just more of your weird random punctuation)

 

And what is "any other wise"? Do you mean you cannot see anything that suggests that the universe existed, and that things were moving before the Sun was created? How would the Sun be created if nothing were moving?

 

 

 

Not at all. It would prove that you do not belong to that Universe and the law of relativity is not valid in space .

 

Which is exactly why it is meaningless. You cannot be outside the universe, because there is no "outside" and so there is nothing for the universe as a whole to move relative to.

[imatfaal]

Btw 1e = première= 1st , 2e = deuxième= 2nd French ordinals are (can be) formed in shortened form by the digit and the letter e