Misconceptions About Cosmic Motion

[Dovada]

Their seems to be a misconception held by many members of this forum that cosmic motion is not controlled by any sort of cosmic physics or order within the cosmic universe. This cosmic motion is generally denied as having any merit or purpose.

 

Statements have been made by some members that there is no reason for the pattern of motion by matter referred to as mass bodies made up of atoms. Clearly simple observation confirms this to be basically untrue, such that clearly there is a functional order occurring within astronomical physics. Planet orbital paths and galactic motions are generally in the same physical direction thus displaying a strong sense of order occurring for our modern day astronomical physics.

 

Such order occurring within astronomical physics needs to be accepted as having the potential of having a major influence on modern day physics. This influence or concept has also been rejected by some members of this community without a real valid cause. Reference to old outdated concepts does not explain the reason for the physical motion order occurring within our astronomical physics.

 

Observation using the Hubble telescope and other radio spectrometry devices clearly provides the evidence and supports this motion order occurring for the modern day astronomical physics.

 

Your opinion on this subject is extremely important and plays an important role for our future direction of research.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Dovada

[mississippichem]

Show where the current model fails with equations and quantitative reasoning. Then your model will be considered. You must provide the motivation first.

 

That's why scientists write introductions in their published articles...to motivate the audience as to why their project is needed/useful/appropriate.

[Klaynos]

Please present some data that shows this motion is relative to some universal rest frame, and analytically explain how this conforms with the experimental evidence for relativity.

[Dovada]

There is a strong tendency toward using general relativity to explain the physical activity of the cosmos. This is due primarily to a lack of reliable information as to where matter in the form of galaxies and stars are traveling from and traveling to. Without this information we cannot form a reliable universal rest frame to base our theories from.

 

The amount of knowledge being made available us continues to grow and supports the fact that astronomical physics has a very controlled order of events.

 

Ninety years after its publication, general relativity remains a highly active area of research into gravitation and cosmology. The problem of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of space-time singularities remain open, which means there are strong indications the general relativity theory is either incomplete or a new theory should be sought.

 

The one area that continues to be troublesome is the nature of gravity itself. The concept that gravity is a product of a mass body does not explain the cosmic motion of the matter that makes up the mass body itself.

 

Yet at the same time all matter in the form of mass bodies appears to be in a constant motion condition. This constant motion of all matter therefore can be concluded as being related to the formation of the underlying gravitational effect.

 

Possibly the best way to explain this constant motion of all matter is that cosmic motion of matter and the gravitational effect are directly related. This may be better explained by suggesting that it takes physical energy to move matter in an orderly way as observed by our telescopes etc. This suggests that space-time consists of more than just geodesic motion because whole galaxies comprising of billions of suns are in this state of uniform motion moving from point A to point B.

 

Trying to discover where point A is, is the difficulty. But the fact that point A, does exist somewhere and so does point B, suggests that we proceed with caution down the slippery slope we currently call general relativity.

 

We live in what we call a three dimensional universe that is supported by the flow of time. What is becoming clearer everyday, is that the time dimension indicates something is flowing and from scientific observation of the cosmos we notice the evidence is also becoming clearer to us our three dimensional universe we live in, is in constant physical motion.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Dovada

[divinum1]

There is a strong tendency toward using general relativity to explain the physical activity of the cosmos. This is due primarily to a lack of reliable information as to where matter in the form of galaxies and stars are traveling from and traveling to. Without this information we cannot form a reliable universal rest frame to base our theories from.

 

The amount of knowledge being made available us continues to grow and supports the fact that astronomical physics has a very controlled order of events.

 

Ninety years after its publication, general relativity remains a highly active area of research into gravitation and cosmology. The problem of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of space-time singularities remain open, which means there are strong indications the general relativity theory is either incomplete or a new theory should be sought.

 

The one area that continues to be troublesome is the nature of gravity itself. The concept that gravity is a product of a mass body does not explain the cosmic motion of the matter that makes up the mass body it

 

Yet at the same time all matter in the form of mass bodies appears to be in a constant motion condition. This constant motion of all matter therefore can be concluded as being related to the formation of the underlying gravitational effect.

 

Possibly the best way to explain this constant motion of all matter is that cosmic motion of matter and the gravitational effect are directly related. This may be better explained by suggesting that it takes physical energy to move matter in an orderly way as observed by our telescopes etc. This suggests that space-time consists of more than just geodesic motion because whole galaxies comprising of billions of suns are in this state of uniform motion moving from point A to point B.

 

Trying to discover where point A is, is the difficulty. But the fact that point A, does exist somewhere and so does point B, suggests that we proceed with caution down the slippery slope we currently call general relativity.

 

We live in what we call a three dimensional universe that is supported by the flow of time. What is becoming clearer everyday, is that the time dimension indicates something is flowing and from scientific observation of the cosmos we notice the evidence is also becoming clearer to us our three dimensional universe we live in, is in constant physical motion.

 

Hi Dovada

I notice that you are interested in cosmic motions, which are not adequately explained thus far.

For it is obvious that for anything to be bound to a motion that there must be a force that causes that motion. You already know that I introduced gravitation as two force system, all of which is mathematically proven that there are two forces of gravity, but all that is useless. Hence, how can you prove anything? even if you do come up with an equation, it will be discarded. For the truth is the hardest thing to swallow, because it destroys the lie, and you know where that leads. I do not know who is behind all this, but all these topics are just trowing the ball back and forth without any aim.

So do you think that we should continue to be ridiculed.

[michel123456]

(...) What is becoming clearer everyday, is that the time dimension indicates something is flowing and from scientific observation of the cosmos we notice the evidence is also becoming clearer to us our three dimensional universe we live in, is in constant physical motion.

Welcome to the club.

The club is something more than 2500 years old, its name is "Panta Rhei" (not to be confused with the world renowned restaurant in Bali island)

Edited December 2, 2011 by michel123456

[Dovada]

Hi Dovada

I notice that you are interested in cosmic motions, which are not adequately explained thus far.

For it is obvious that for anything to be bound to a motion that there must be a force that causes that motion. You already know that I introduced gravitation as two force system, all of which is mathematically proven that there are two forces of gravity, but all that is useless. Hence, how can you prove anything? even if you do come up with an equation, it will be discarded. For the truth is the hardest thing to swallow, because it destroys the lie, and you know where that leads. I do not know who is behind all this, but all these topics are just trowing the ball back and forth without any aim.

So do you think that we should continue to be ridiculed.

Motion, motion and even more motion. It is true, everything is in motion and in motion for a reason. Finding the reason for that motion is the key to success in modern physics, Unfortunately many try to ignore motion, putting it into the too hard basket, using temporary replacement theories like general relativity and presuming they will always be the final answer. Such concepts as the general relativity theory reminds me of physicists trying to created their own version of the universe.

 

Motion is the key to the natural functioning of the universe. Atomic structure, gravitation they all depend on and require motion to exist.

Divinum1: Your two force system model for gravitation is probably based on a single force system which crosses two independent dimensions simultaneously, thus giving the illusion that two forces apply. Motion being the link between those two dimensions. It is important that we use our minds wisely to reach as sensible as possible an understanding that explains as much as possible about how the cosmos and all things within it coexist using this continual motion.

 

Mankind has always limited himself into thinking that things must have a beginning and an end. Flat earth thinking is an example of this type of thinking. We know now of course, that if we travel on the surface of the earth in what we presume is a straight line we arrive back at the point where we started from. Not strictly true because the earth also has motion through the cosmos itself.

 

Flat earth thinking is still prevalent in the minds of physicists today and has reared its head in the form of the big bang theory, where everything that exists today was somehow contained in nothing but a pinpoint. This type of thinking presumes space and matter is formed out of nothing, which does not make sense. Until it was discovered that the earth itself was round, people where nervous about traveling too far and risking falling of the edge of the earth. This now known naive thinking has re-appeared in the form the big bang theory, where everything came from nothing. From this statement I made, it can be presumed I am not a believer in the big bang theory.

 

Consider the alternative to a big bang theory. A theory whereby if we had a bright enough light torch which we shone in front of us to see where we are going we would illuminate our back. Yes a universe that is also circular in which we constantly find we are moving in the same direction as that light. A universe where matter and energy continually have the ability to be converted into taking on both fluid and solid state forms. Such a concept is to me more realistic than any big bang theory.

 

Currently the fluid form that energy could take on (our space-time) is not considered as energy in a fluid state. Only the solid state of matter (atomic structure) which can be seen with the eyes is assumed to contain energy, according to the famous equation E=mc^2

 

Nevertheless it is all speculation at this time, being presented in a forum under the heading title called speculations.

 

As I said before: Your opinion on this subject is extremely important and plays an important role for our future direction of research.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Dovada

[Klaynos]

Please answer my question.

[Dovada]

Please present some data that shows this motion is relative to some universal rest frame, and analytically explain how this conforms with the experimental evidence for relativity.

Klaynos you are a moderator and possibly intent on closing discussions in this forum that do not conform to extremely strict rules. This is a speculations area of the forum and speculating should be allowed in the discussions for the benefit of all. Without speculating their is no progress in the scientific areas under discussion.

 

As you requested just now that you wish for me to answer your questions. I believe I have already fully answered those questions you asked.

 

question 1: "Please present some data that shows this motion is relative to some universal rest frame".

I replied to you "There is a strong tendency toward using general relativity to explain the physical activity of the cosmos. This is due primarily to a lack of reliable information as to where matter in the form of galaxies and stars are traveling from and traveling to. Without this information we cannot form a reliable universal rest frame to base our theories from."

 

Question 2: "analytically explain how this conforms with the experimental evidence for relativity".

I answered this question here:

"Trying to discover where point A is, is the difficulty. But the fact that point A, does exist somewhere and so does point B, suggests that we proceed with caution down the slippery slope we currently call general relativity."

 

and later on here

 

"Unfortunately many try to ignore motion, putting it into the too hard basket, using temporary replacement theories like general relativity and presuming they will always be the final answer. Such concepts as the general relativity theory reminds me of physicists trying to created their own version of the universe."

 

I realize this is not the answer you where looking for, because physicists do not yet know where the elusive point A is yet, to be able to contradict any mistakes in relativity theory.

 

It is important to keep things in their true perspective. Relativity theory is just that "A man made Theory" and currently it is being used to help explain concepts that cannot be described any other way. Eventually this man made relativity theory will be hopefully confirmed as conforming to a cosmic universe in motion. Until that time we continue to have an incomplete man made model of the universe a so called general relativity theory and the problems that this contributes in the area of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of space-time singularities.

 

What more can I say to you? It is important that we have the ability to recognize theory from reality.

[Klaynos]

Klaynos you are a moderator and possibly intent on closing discussions in this forum that do not conform to extremely strict rules.

 

The rules are not extremely strict. Take a look around at other forums. We also have internal policies in place to remove the aligation of a conflict of interests. If you feel this has been breached feel free to talk to an administrator.

 

This is a speculations area of the forum and speculating should be allowed in the discussions for the benefit of all. Without speculating their is no progress in the scientific areas under discussion.

 

This is partially true. Speculations must conform to scientific ideals, we are a science forums. Our speculation forum rules are freely avaliable for anyone to read. As you are posting here you have agreed to follow the forum rules, this includes the speculation rules, my assumption in replying is that you have read and understood them. If you have not done so, I propose you read them and direct your questions to the comments forum.

 

 

As you requested just now that you wish for me to answer your questions. I believe I have already fully answered those questions you asked.

 

question 1: "Please present some data that shows this motion is relative to some universal rest frame".

I replied to you "There is a strong tendency toward using general relativity to explain the physical activity of the cosmos. This is due primarily to a lack of reliable information as to where matter in the form of galaxies and stars are traveling from and traveling to. Without this information we cannot form a reliable universal rest frame to base our theories from."

 

I didn't ask for a comment on general relativity. I asked for some evidence that there is some universal rest frame. As far as I'm aware there is none. There has been a great many efforts (mostly around 100 years ago now) to find one. We can actually work out the direction of galaxy travel relative to us (note that this motion is relative as with all motion as far as we are currently aware).

 

You need to present some experimental evidence that trumps what has come before. If you fail to do this then your idea fails.

 

Science is not just random ideas made up by people. I strongly suggest you investigate the scientific method.

 

 

Question 2: "analytically explain how this conforms with the experimental evidence for relativity".

I answered this question here:

"Trying to discover where point A is, is the difficulty. But the fact that point A, does exist somewhere and so does point B, suggests that we proceed with caution down the slippery slope we currently call general relativity."

 

and later on here

 

"Unfortunately many try to ignore motion, putting it into the too hard basket, using temporary replacement theories like general relativity and presuming they will always be the final answer. Such concepts as the general relativity theory reminds me of physicists trying to created their own version of the universe."

 

I realize this is not the answer you where looking for, because physicists do not yet know where the elusive point A is yet, to be able to contradict any mistakes in relativity theory.

 

This is not analytical. Analytical approaches in modern physics requires maths.

 

Motion is not ignored, but it IS relative. General relativity matches experimental evidence very well, with two notable exceptions, which people are working on. For your idea to be considered you need it to match the experimental evidence better than general relativity. That is how science works, things need to work before they replace in the mainstream what currently works. As GR matches the evidence so well it is more likely that any future theories will be in addition to GR in a different regime. Similar to how GR simplifies to newtonian gravity in the situations in which newtonian gravity is known to work.

 

 

It is important to keep things in their true perspective. Relativity theory is just that "A man made Theory" and currently it is being used to help explain concepts that cannot be described any other way.

 

Please investigate what it means to be a theory in modern physics.

 

Eventually this man made relativity theory will be hopefully confirmed as conforming to a cosmic universe in motion.

 

You are yet to present any evidence that this is required. It seems to work just fine with relative motion.

 

Until that time we continue to have an incomplete man made model of the universe a so called general relativity theory and the problems that this contributes in the area of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of space-time singularities.

 

Yep, those are difficulties with general relativity, but as stated above it is most likely that the new theory will simplify to general relativity when not considering those situations.

 

What more can I say to you? It is important that we have the ability to recognize theory from reality.

 

I feel you need to understand that theories are not just random statements about how the universe works. They are complicated mathematical models which have continually passed experimental tests which have the objective of showing the theory to be incorrect.

[swansont]

Klaynos you are a moderator and possibly intent on closing discussions in this forum that do not conform to extremely strict rules. This is a speculations area of the forum and speculating should be allowed in the discussions for the benefit of all. Without speculating their is no progress in the scientific areas under discussion.

 

!

Moderator Note

Answering questions is one of those rules — we require that you present evidence in support of your thesis, or at least a way of testing it. That is what Klaynos has asked for.

[Dovada]

In the general sense, the absolute velocity of any object through space is not a meaningful question according to Einstein's special theory of relativity, which declares that there is no "preferred" inertial frame of reference in space with which to compare the object's motion. (Motion must always be specified with respect to another object.) This must be kept in mind when discussing the galaxy's motion says Einstein.

 

Astronomers now with the help of advanced tools like the Hubble space telescope, believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 630,000 meters per second relative to the local co-moving frame of reference that moves with the Hubble flow. If the galaxy is moving at 600,00 m/s Earth travels 51840 million meters per day, which is a massive distance.

 

At the very center of our Galaxy lies an object—in all likelihood a massive black hole which also appears to be the norm for most of the local group of galaxies. Because our galaxy and up to 50 other galaxies that form the local group of galaxies are being moved at a colossal velocity of around 500 times slower than the speed of light by a galactic force field referred to as a gravitational field.

 

The energy needed to move not just move the Earth, but the Sun and its solar system along with the local group of galaxies complete with their black hole cores at this speed defies imagination.

 

This quantity of energy completely swamps the energy stored in the atomic structure contained within the masses of the suns and solar systems of all the galaxies put together, including the contents of the galactic cores to such an extent that it is almost impossible to calculate.

 

This brings us to the underlying question which is the master or the slave? Is the atomic matter itself the master or the slave. Current physics refer to gravity as being the weak force, but in the scheme of things it appears that gravity is the master here. Nuclear forces have such a short range before becoming weak while gravity extends the length and breadth of the cosmos. No wonder it ends up as the winning master.

 

Because we as yet have not been able to establish a preferred inertial frame of reference in space with which to compare any object's motion, does not mean we should not try to continue into looking for one.

 

The failure of our relativity to explain quantum gravity and the length of time, ninety years after its publication, we continue to work with general relativity in this area of research into gravitation and cosmology. The problem of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of space-time singularities remain open, which as I said before, means there are strong indications the relativity theory is either incomplete or a new theory should be sought.

 

Speculating here again, our understanding of the physics of gravitational fields may require a review in that it may be an integral part of our space-time which we are always moving with. Our movement with space-time may give us the illusion of gravity being weaker than it really is. The experienced inertia of mass is a strong indicator that space-time (gravitational energy) is having a major influence on atomic structure.

 

We must remember that the force of gravity near the earth's surface 9.8 m/sec^2 is also a relative illusion if you consider the other gravitational velocities presently acting on any mass near the earth's surface. The actual path followed by a mass body as it falls to earth in one second is curved consisting of velocities associated with earth spinning vector and solar orbital vector and not in the least the larger galactic velocity vectors.

 

Answering questions is one of those rules — we require that you present evidence in support of your thesis, or at least a way of testing it. That is what Klaynos has asked for.

swansont sometimes there are no immediate answers to some of these questions. We only have the questions themselves, which we must ask before the science community can develop the necessary answers needed. Closing threads before members can discuss the questions is a little like putting the cart before the horse. Its great to have professionals around to get their comments and input, but don't block members who have many questions to openly discuss. Edited December 4, 2011 by Dovada

[swansont]

In the general sense, the absolute velocity of any object through space is not a meaningful question according to Einstein's special theory of relativity, which declares that there is no "preferred" inertial frame of reference in space with which to compare the object's motion. (Motion must always be specified with respect to another object.) This must be kept in mind when discussing the galaxy's motion says Einstein.

 

If you disagree you need to justify your disagreement.

 

Astronomers now with the help of advanced tools like the Hubble space telescope, believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 630,000 meters per second relative to the local co-moving frame of reference that moves with the Hubble flow. If the galaxy is moving at 600,00 m/s Earth travels 51840 million meters per day, which is a massive distance.

 

At the very center of our Galaxy lies an object—in all likelihood a massive black hole which also appears to be the norm for most of the local group of galaxies. Because our galaxy and up to 50 other galaxies that form the local group of galaxies are being moved at a colossal velocity of around 500 times slower than the speed of light by a galactic force field referred to as a gravitational field.

 

The energy needed to move not just move the Earth, but the Sun and its solar system along with the local group of galaxies complete with their black hole cores at this speed defies imagination.

 

Lots of astronomical data defies imagination. The universe is a big place. That's not an argument for or against anything, however.

 

 

This quantity of energy completely swamps the energy stored in the atomic structure contained within the masses of the suns and solar systems of all the galaxies put together, including the contents of the galactic cores to such an extent that it is almost impossible to calculate.

 

It's quite possible that the total energy is zero, if there is an equally large quantity of gravitational potential energy. Do you have evidence that shows one case to be true?

 

This brings us to the underlying question which is the master or the slave? Is the atomic matter itself the master or the slave. Current physics refer to gravity as being the weak force, but in the scheme of things it appears that gravity is the master here. Nuclear forces have such a short range before becoming weak while gravity extends the length and breadth of the cosmos. No wonder it ends up as the winning master.

 

Gravity wins because is only attractive and does not lend itself to cancellation, unlike electrostatics.

 

Because we as yet have not been able to establish a preferred inertial frame of reference in space with which to compare any object's motion, does not mean we should not try to continue into looking for one.

 

By all means look. But there's a limit to how far one can take this without any evidence, given the success of relativity. And wherever you take it, it still has to conform to proper science practices, i.e. you need falsifiability.

 

The failure of our relativity to explain quantum gravity and the length of time, ninety years after its publication, we continue to work with general relativity in this area of research into gravitation and cosmology. The problem of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of space-time singularities remain open, which as I said before, means there are strong indications the relativity theory is either incomplete or a new theory should be sought.

 

As opposed to thousands of years before any theory at all was developed, and hundreds of years where Newtonian gravity was in place? Any new theory is going to have to be consistent with relativity, so any new physics will be on scales we haven;t been able to test yet, which is what would be required for any new theory to be accepted. And who's to say nobody is looking?

 

Speculating here again, our understanding of the physics of gravitational fields may require a review in that it may be an integral part of our space-time which we are always moving with. Our movement with space-time may give us the illusion of gravity being weaker than it really is. The experienced inertia of mass is a strong indicator that space-time (gravitational energy) is having a major influence on atomic structure.

 

We must remember that the force of gravity near the earth's surface 9.8 m/sec^2 is also a relative illusion if you consider the other gravitational velocities presently acting on any mass near the earth's surface. The actual path followed by a mass body as it falls to earth in one second is curved consisting of velocities associated with earth spinning vector and solar orbital vector and not in the least the larger galactic velocity vectors.

 

 

Other gravitational velocities? Why should they have an effect? You need to either come up with a model that shows they should (which could then be tested), or data that shows they do. Simply railing about how physics is wrong and needs to be replaced doesn't get you anywhere.

 

 

swansont sometimes there are no immediate answers to some of these questions. We only have the questions themselves, which we must ask before the science community can develop the necessary answers needed. Closing threads before members can discuss the questions is a little like putting the cart before the horse. Its great to have professionals around to get their comments and input, but don't block members who have many questions to openly discuss.

 

The question that was asked is one that should be addressable. I would add another: you claim that "Planet orbital paths and galactic motions are generally in the same physical direction thus displaying a strong sense of order occurring for our modern day astronomical physics." I would like to see your reasoning behind this. It's certainly not backed up for galaxies; the famous Hubble Deep Field picture shows galaxies at a variety of orientations. For solar systems, one must realize that the method of detecting extrasolar planets relies on occultation, which limits our ability to detect ones not in our plane. There is a bias in our ability to gather data. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[divinum1]

Motion, motion and even more motion. It is true, everything is in motion and in motion for a reason. Finding the reason for that motion is the key to success in modern physics, Unfortunately many try to ignore motion, putting it into the too hard basket, using temporary replacement theories like general relativity and presuming they will always be the final answer. Such concepts as the general relativity theory reminds me of physicists trying to created their own version of the universe.

 

Motion is the key to the natural functioning of the universe. Atomic structure, gravitation they all depend on and require motion to exist.

Divinum1: Your two force system model for gravitation is probably based on a single force system which crosses two independent dimensions simultaneously, thus giving the illusion that two forces apply. Motion being the link between those two dimensions. It is important that we use our minds wisely to reach as sensible as possible an understanding that explains as much as possible about how the cosmos and all things within it coexist using this continual motion.

 

Mankind has always limited himself into thinking that things must have a beginning and an end. Flat earth thinking is an example of this type of thinking. We know now of course, that if we travel on the surface of the earth in what we presume is a straight line we arrive back at the point where we started from. Not strictly true because the earth also has motion through the cosmos itself.

 

Flat earth thinking is still prevalent in the minds of physicists today and has reared its head in the form of the big bang theory, where everything that exists today was somehow contained in nothing but a pinpoint. This type of thinking presumes space and matter is formed out of nothing, which does not make sense. Until it was discovered that the earth itself was round, people where nervous about traveling too far and risking falling of the edge of the earth. This now known naive thinking has re-appeared in the form the big bang theory, where everything came from nothing. From this statement I made, it can be presumed I am not a believer in the big bang theory.

 

Consider the alternative to a big bang theory. A theory whereby if we had a bright enough light torch which we shone in front of us to see where we are going we would illuminate our back. Yes a universe that is also circular in which we constantly find we are moving in the same direction as that light. A universe where matter and energy continually have the ability to be converted into taking on both fluid and solid state forms. Such a concept is to me more realistic than any big bang theory.

 

Currently the fluid form that energy could take on (our space-time) is not considered as energy in a fluid state. Only the solid state of matter (atomic structure) which can be seen with the eyes is assumed to contain energy, according to the famous equation E=mc^2

 

Nevertheless it is all speculation at this time, being presented in a forum under the heading title called speculations.

 

As I said before: Your opinion on this subject is extremely important and plays an important role for our future direction of research.

 

Hi Dovada!

May I give you just a good hint as where the center of the universe is; Since every system has its central point, so does the universe. To determine where that center is, (me and you can not) but the scientists who are using Hubble telescope should have no problem, simply by taking the measurement from our point of reference, in all three dimensions, adding up all six coordinates, and then dividing them by six, that would give an approximate center of the universe. Whether that center is one single star or galaxy, or a group of galaxies has yet to be determined. But the universe as a system in itself must have a central point, just like a galaxy has, or even a smaller system like our own Solar system.

According to my calculation the universe has a radius from; 6.75x10²⁶ m, to 1.35x10²⁷ m. The reason I put two radii is because the universe is expanding and contracting between these two radii.

However, the center of the universe is least important in finding the reason as why our own solar system is bound to a constant motion, which is circular in form, with some minor exceptions. Therefore, to determine any of these facts, one does not have to concentrate to the center of the universe, but rather to the system in question. And if such fact can be determined mathematically, this means that the solution to all motions has been discovered. And I firmly believe that I have done that, but nobody seems to pay any attention. They simply see all things the old fashion way, and always asking prove this prove that. Now if mathematics does not prove anything, then science shouldn't be called science, as far as I am concerned.

Nevertheless, when you look at the orbital motions of the planets in our solar system, you can clearly predetermine that the force of these motions is dictated by the Sun. And nothing can be in constant motion unless a constant force is acting upon them. Similarly, nothing would be standing still-being motionless unless a constant force is acting upon it as well. It is so obvious, why then thinking and believing that a body in a constant state of motion, will continue to do so for ever without any force acting upon it. For this reason, I firmly believe that there are two forces of gravity, and each one acts independent of the other, and they are directly proportional to one another, and the radius or the mass from which they derive. And since the speed of light (c/s), and G (u-g-constant) are limited factors, hence all things in the universe and within it are limited in accordance of such. Therefore, masses, their radii, and their forces (Fo&Fc), are also limited in accordance of such. None of them can extend beyond these limitations. All of which can be mathematically verified. And because of these limitations the universe became divided into 3.67x10¹³ individual systems, so called galaxies, many of which broke into smaller groups. Hence each galaxy was established by the same amount of mass; 4.955x10⁴⁰ kg. approx. Where in the beginning all that mass existed as one single star, whose radius was; 3.67x10¹³ m. At that point the Fo (orbital force) was equal to; c/s, while its Fc (centripetal force) was only 2,449 m/s/s.

And as the Fo imposed its action upon that mass from the very beginning of its formation, the mass became bound to a rotation, whose rotational velocity produced higher kinetic energy than the Fc did holding the mass together. And as a result, the mass broke apart into billions of smaller pieces. And this is how all galaxies came into being. Now if anyone wants me to prove this, then they should examine their own intelligence first.

The universe is limited both inward, and outward, what this means is that whatever apply to the outer dimensions, the exact opposite apply to the inner dimensions. Therefore the universe is limited in the smallest, as well as in the biggest, therefore the universe does not expand to infinity, nor does it contract to infinity. The limitations of the universe were predetermined as the light speed was determined, and the light speed was predetermined as the space was determined. And now these three quantities are directly proportional to one another at all the times. Is there anyone that can prove that this is not so?

[Dovada]

In the general sense, the absolute velocity of any object through space is not a meaningful question according to Einstein's special theory of relativity, which declares that there is no "preferred" inertial frame of reference in space with which to compare the object's motion. (Motion must always be specified with respect to another object.) This must be kept in mind when discussing the galaxy's motion says Einstein.

swansont: said, If you disagree you need to justify your disagreement.

 

When Einstein was still alive we had not yet discovered the galaxies main velocity (that other object) in his statement. I believe had he known this, he would have been influenced in his thinking.

 

The energy needed to move not just move the Earth, but the Sun and its solar system along with the local group of galaxies complete with their black hole cores at this speed defies imagination.

swansont: said, Lots of astronomical data defies imagination. The universe is a big place. That's not an argument for or against anything, however.

 

However it does bring things into perspective.

 

This quantity of energy completely swamps the energy stored in the atomic structure contained within the masses of the suns and solar systems of all the galaxies put together, including the contents of the galactic cores to such an extent that it is almost impossible to calculate.

swansont: said, It's quite possible that the total energy is zero, if there is an equally large quantity of gravitational potential energy. Do you have evidence that shows one case to be true?

 

When you say the total energy is zero, does not conform with observation. Are you saying all the galaxies with their solar planetary systems and galactic cores, just by chance, happen to be moving all in the same galactic direction?

 

This brings us to the underlying question which is the master or the slave? Is the atomic matter itself the master or the slave. Current physics refer to gravity as being the weak force, but in the scheme of things it appears that gravity is the master here. Nuclear forces have such a short range before becoming weak while gravity extends the length and breadth of the cosmos. No wonder it ends up as the winning master.

swansont: said, Gravity wins because is only attractive and does not lend itself to cancellation, unlike electrostatics.

 

If gravity was only attractive, how can galaxies move themselves at 600,000 meters second? Gravity is not just attractive, this is likely to be an illusion. Gravity (space-time) needs to be processed by matter in return for cosmic motion, this suggests gravity (space-time) has electrical properties which is not yet accounted for in quantum physics, hence, the problem of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of space-time singularities remain open.

 

Other gravitational velocities? Why should they have an effect? You need to either come up with a model that shows they should (which could then be tested), or data that shows they do. Simply railing about how physics is wrong and needs to be replaced doesn't get you anywhere.

If I drop an apple to the ground I see it fall in a straight line to the ground, but to another observer moving at a different velocity he sees a different motion for the apple which is curved. If both develop mathematical equations to describe what they see, the formulas would be very different as one would cater for the observed curving path of the apple. So who would have the right formula. This is the problem the scientist has and always will face. Simply ignoring the curved path can lead to incorrect conclusions being reached, such as gravitation is only an attractive force, when clearly it is not from that curved observation.

 

From both observers perspectives, each thinks he is right. I am not simply railing about how physics is wrong and needs to be replaced. I am being objective.

 

And I firmly believe that I have done that, but nobody seems to pay any attention. They simply see all things the old fashion way, and always asking prove this prove that.

divinum1 - It takes time for any form of new theory to become acceptable. Testing and more testing needs to be done before any new theory can be proven right or wrong. The one area that has become a stable reference for the scientist, is the accepted old way of thinking. It can take some time before new concepts can be proved correct and finally be accepted, and so discard the old for the new. Edited December 5, 2011 by Dovada

[Klaynos]

There are several problems here.

 

Shockingly science hasn't just gone "well einstein said this so it must be right" as you imply. Scientists are constantly testing and trying to prove the currently accepted theories wrong. That's the point of doing science. I suggest you investigate the scientific method.

 

divinum1, there is no centre of the universe, none of the experimental evidence points towards one. There is a lot of evidence that points towards the centre being everywhere.

 

Neither of you have a theory, you've some speculative ideas at best. Theories must make quantitative predictions and be falsifiable.

 

Dovada, at no point have you even shown a case for the requirement for a universal rest frame, yet keep making assumptions based on their being one. That isn't how the universe works, sorry but all the evidence says you're wrong.

[Dovada]

Dovada, at no point have you even shown a case for the requirement for a universal rest frame, yet keep making assumptions based on their being one. That isn't how the universe works, sorry but all the evidence says you're wrong.

What evidence says I am wrong to suggest a universal rest frame should exist. Can the singularity condition at the center of black holes of a galaxy still maintain their cosmic velocity? or are there other explanations we have yet to discover?

 

That isn't how the universe works

You are bold to say such a thing as this.

[swansont]

What evidence says I am wrong to suggest a universal rest frame should exist.

 

What evidence suggests you are right? It is YOUR burden to show this, not anyone else's to show you wrong. YOU have to come up with the tests that make it falsifiable, and the evidence that supports you. Those are the rules of science, and also of the speculations section.

[michel123456]

from http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html "How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB?"

The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!

 

However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics.

Bolded mine.

Not to be misunderstood: to me this statement should be an argument against the Big Bang Theory, not against or for Relativity. Relativity is thousand of times stronger than BBT.

Edited December 5, 2011 by michel123456

[swansont]

from http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html "How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB?"

 

Bolded mine.

Not to be misunderstood: to me this statement should be an argument against the Big Bang Theory, not against or for Relativity. Relativity is thousand of times stronger than BBT.

 

The big bang occurred at rest with respect to itself, so I'm not sure why this result should be surprising. The rest frame of the CMB is a convenient frame, but not an absolute one.

[Dovada]

I repeat my question:

Can the singularity condition at the center of black holes of a galaxy still maintain their cosmic velocity?

If a singularity condition cannot maintain any external environmental conditions then how can cosmic motion of galaxies which have a black hole at their core continue to move in any universal direction? (for example - The local group).