Mitch Bass

 

If the plane and its passenger were the only things in the universe and all the passenger saw when looking out the window was blackness, would there be any way to tell if the plane was stationary or moving at a constant speed?

Let us say that the passenger's only means of knowing was sight and sensation, the answer would be an absolute "no". The passenger would have no way of knowing it was on a plane that was moving. Yet, if the passenger said the plane was not moving, the passenger would be wrong. do you agree?

Nature didn't design anything. Don't pretend that evolution had any kind of conscious.

 

Hmm…interesting…I could see how my words could be horribly misinterperted. I never meant to suggest that evolution had a consciousness, but did you or do you not agree that evolution is process?

How would you be able to tell if it was moving?

Could a person not looking out a window on a plane moving at a constant speed know the plane was moving? My point being, what does being able to tell if an object is moving have to do with the object actually moving?

Just because there is nowhere for the universe to translate to doesn't preclude the universe as a whole possessing rotational motiom.

What do you mean by the "universe to translate"?

All motion is relative to something else. What is the universe moving relative to?

 

If only one object existed, are you saying it could not move?

Not many thousands of years ago, there were two human like beings. One type being more savage than the other was able to dominate and reproduce. We are decendants from these more savage, hostile beings. Humans kill more of their own kind than any other animal. Does anyone disagree that nature has designed humans to be the most hostile animals on our world and only through how humans are raised do we seem to have anything like caring and kindness?

Well unless the walls move too, sooner or later the furniture is going to run into them.

(I did some editing of the post you responded to not knowing you had already given a response to what I had orginally written. This is the second time I did this and even though I am new to this entire forum I apoligize.)

Finally, setting aside the question of universal expansion for a moment, if you think the speed of light is related to the movement of the universe, I have to ask: What do you think the universe is moving with respect to?

Is it possible for you to clarify what you mean when you ask: What do I think the universe is moving in respect to?

Delta1212 so here comes the question to the very idea of whether or not the universe is truly expanding reversing the idea behind the metaphor you just wrote

 

 

It is not true that people think the universe is expanding because objects such as stars are moving further away from each other?

 

So my metaphor that asks if the univerese is expanding is as follows: Just because a person decides to alter the format of a room and move the furniture further from each other, does it mean the room itself is getting bigger?

If everything in the room is moving away from you with the furniture farthest from you moving away the fastest and this includes the walls, then the room is probably expanding.

I never wrote everything is moving including the walls as you wrote I wrote. I wrote only that the furniture is moving.

The point of the me starting this post was that my think tank team is trying to figure out whether the speed of the unviverse is the reason for the speed of light. Responses to this have had to do with the universe not moving but rather expanding. Why should anyone think the universe is expanding if all scientists have to go on is the observeable objects that are moving within the universe. The metaphor of the furniture moving away from each other, you have accurately suggested that the further the furniture is the faster it is moving. But since light takes 186,000 miles a second to move, that furniture observed at the furthest points might no longer be moving any faster than the furniture you are observing closer?

Delta1212 so here comes the question to the very idea of whether or not the universe is truly expanding reversing the idea behind the metaphor you just wrote

You would be correct. Just because I'm moving when I climb into the back seat doesn't mean that the car isn't in park.

It is not true that people think the universe is expanding because objects such as stars are moving further away from each other?

So my metaphor that asks if the univerese is expanding is as follows: Just because a person decides to alter the format of a room and move the furniture further from each other, does it mean the room itself is getting bigger?

ACG52 wrote what he wrote

Movement within the universe is not the same as the universe itself moving.

before I finished reediting my post. which ended up incuding me writing

 

I am just now guessing that Delta1212 would respond to my response to his response in a way which would suggest that just because our Soloar Sysem is moving doesn't mean the univserse is moving because our Solar Sytem is not the universe.

However, could it be that the movement within the universe is a result of the movement of the universe?

Or as Delta1212 wrote

The universe isn't moving. It's expanding, but that is quite different. Since the rate of expansion is given as distance per unit of time per unit of distance, it's not really comparable with a measure of speed.

Is the movement within the universe, the velocities at which things travel around each other, a result of what Delta1212 is saying is not movement but expansion, which he Delta1212 is saying is different than movement since "the rate of expansion is given as a distance per unit of time per unit of distance" which I am not quite comprehending. If no one cares to clarify what this means I would understand and will do my best to either research for an answer or deconstuct what has been written and make sense of it in a way which becomes a logical understanding. Regardless, I am brand new to this forum however I am quite postive to get personal in these posts is not proper, and I promise this will be the one and only time I will do so hoping not to get a penatly, but I do want to write I am both impressed and appreciative by the amount of energy and effort people have put into responding to the words with which I started this post. Thank you greatly.

The universe isn't moving. It's expanding, but that is quite different. Since the rate of expansion is given as distance per unit of time per unit of distance, it's not really comparable with a measure of speed.

I wish I had checked in earlier after posting my initial response. There is a lot for me to react to in terms of what has been written since I started this post. I will start with the the above quote about the "universe isn't moving".

I did some prelliminary research in response to the words of Delta1212 and found the following:

"our whole solar system orbits around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. We are moving at an average velocity of 828,000 km/hr."-Does the Sun move around the Milky Way??

Delta1212 and/or to whomever else I would appreciatevely get a response from, I now ask this: How is it that our solar system moving at 828,000 km/hr around the Milky Way is as Delta1212 writes "not really comparable with a measure of speed" because "the universe isn't moving. It's expanding."? Delta1212 writes "since the rate of expansion is given as distace per unit of time per unit of distance"…within these words is there an answer I am not comprehending.

I am just now guessing that Delta1212 would respond to my response to his response in a way which would suggest that just because our Soloar Sysem is moving doesn't mean the univserse is moving because our Solar Sytem is not the universe.

Darn, even as I am editng the first response to my intial post it is has been indicated that someone has added to this post….maybe to what I wrote but wanted to edit. I should check what has been written before I delve further into this subject matter/

"Clearing that up, there is so many models of the beginning of the universe, I cannot possibly describe them all. However they all break down into 3 essentialcategories. Universe from nothing, due to quantum fluctuations (Leanard Susskind supports this model)" --Mordred, his last post.

THe idea of quantum fluctuation, this has to do with the perception that there has been detected in quantum mechanics material that manifests into existence where there was once nothing? Is its being suggested that the universe could have come into existence from nothingness in the same way as what is considered quantum fluctuation? Is it fact or speculation that at the quantum level things are coming into existence out of nothingness?

Light has been measured to move at about 186,000 miles a second. In Einstein's special theory of relativity he explained what would happen if that ultimate speed limit was approached. His theory was proven correct when it was determined that there was an absolute differential between the time registered on atomic clocks on Earth versus the atomic clocks on vehicles orbiting our planet. My question is, does anyone have a theory as to why light maxes out at about 186.000 miles a second. I mean why specifically that speed? I am a part of a think tank that is of just recent trying to answer this very question. Our team is working on the idea that this speed limit has something to do with the speed of how fast the universe itself is moving. Has that question been answered? Does anyone know the speed of how fast the universe is moving?