# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: The Solution To The Problem Of Motion In Space  (Read 5502 times)

#### NovaJoe

• First timers
• Posts: 2
##### The Solution To The Problem Of Motion In Space
« on: 02/11/2007 08:37:41 »
If you have two bodies in space, one in motion and one stationary, other than observing measurements of time dilation, there is no way to definitively define which body is in motion and which body is stationary. [?]  The only thing that can be stated on the motion of the bodies with any certainty; the bodies are moving relative to each other.  Which body is moving with what velocity is impossible to define outside of measuring time dilation.  The reason you cannot attach any meaning to velocity in space (other than time dilation) is because motion cannot exist without reference; there must be a third reference body in which all motion in space is defined relative to the inertia phenomenon or time dilation would not occur.  So when this paradox presents itself it is because this third reference body (the inertia phenomenon) has not yet been definitively defined and understood.  To definitively define the reference body of the inertia phenomenon would be to solve this paradox.  This paradox has been theoretically solved by the deductions of RHU Theory (Relativistic-Hyper-Unification Theory).  This solution becomes apparent when you think about this difficulty in this manner: Picture yourself outside the universe observing the rotation of the universes orbit around the black holes at the center of our universe.  Without a third reference body (the inertia phenomenon) it is impossible to know (without measuring time dilation) if the universe is rotating or not.  It could be that you are orbiting around the universe.  Outside of measuring time dilation, there is no meaning in velocity in space without a third reference body in which all relative motion is referenced proprietary to the inertia phenomenon.  As already mentioned, time dilation could not exist without the reference body of the inertia phenomena, which means there must be a reference body for the inertia phenomena.  The only motion that can be definitively defined without defining the reference body of the inertia phenomena or measuring time dilation, is the expansion of the universe.  There is no need for a third reference body to define the expansion of the universe because you only need two bodies to define expansion in space.  As meaningless as this fact first appears, it is fundamental in defining the reference body of the inertia phenomena.

If we were to use a supercomputer to create a virtual reproduction of our universe, we would need to define the reference body of the inertia phenomena for our virtual universe.  The previous deduction defining the only definitive motion in space as expansion or contraction because only two bodies are required to define these motions are fundamental clues on how we should go about setting up our virtual universe so that it has the same properties as the actual universe as we experience it.  Using this fundamental clue you will come to the conclusion that a universal spatial expansion of space time and matter would work as the third reference (inertia) of all other motion in space.  The problem with this assumption is the fact that the universal spatial expansion of all space-time and matter would be meaningless (could not exist) without a reference body for this expansion.  So we create a SINGULAR point (Singularity) that is without expansion as the reference body of the universal spatial expansion of all space-time and matter.  This universal spatial expansion would be the third reference unto which all other motion in space is referenced relative to the inertia phenomena.  We use the universal spatial expansion as our reference body for the inertia phenomena because no other reference body can be defined under the conditions of existence in the reference-less void of space.  We need a singular point without expansion to reference a universal spatial expansion of space-time and matter or the universal spatial expansion could not exist as motion does not exist without reference.  For this (motion does not exist without reference) same reason, the universal spatial expansion of all matter in the universe is required to reference the inertia phenomenon, which in itself is meaningless without reference.  So we create a singular point without expansion for the reference of the universal spatial expansion so that our virtual universe could function as our actual universe does.  With space-time and matter expanding uniformly, there would be no reference for the observation of this motion within the virtual universe.  The Singular point or Singularity would exist invisibly within our virtual universe leaving no reference body for the observation of the universal spatial expansion.  Now if we created intelligent beings that exist only in our virtual universe, and gave them no knowledge of the reality of their existence, the intelligent beings would be presented with the exact same difficulties in defining their universe and their experience of phenomena.  We would be gleefully amused at their confusion in defining motion in space as we would know the answer to their difficulty.  The point being, that this theoretical solution perfectly describes the reference of motion in space relative to the inertia phenomenon in a manner that logically connects reference with motion, defining the inertia phenomenon and the reference of the inertia phenomenon.  For more information on RHU Theory go to

#### another_someone

• Guest
##### The Solution To The Problem Of Motion In Space
« Reply #1 on: 02/11/2007 13:29:00 »
If you have two bodies in space, one in motion and one stationary, other than observing measurements of time dilation, there is no way to definitively define which body is in motion and which body is stationary. [?]  The only thing that can be stated on the motion of the bodies with any certainty; the bodies are moving relative to each other.  Which body is moving with what velocity is impossible to define outside of measuring time dilation.

Yes, but no.

You are correct that all velocity is purely relative, but you are incorrect in assuming that time dilation is absolute - time dilation is also dependent upon the observer, and different observers may well see different time dilations apparent in another body.

This solution becomes apparent when you think about this difficulty in this manner: Picture yourself outside the universe observing the rotation of the universes orbit around the black holes at the center of our universe.

This assumes that information is leaking out of the universe to allow an outside observer to observe anything about the universe (is it not a little like trying to work out what is happening within a black hole?).

Without a third reference body (the inertia phenomenon) it is impossible to know (without measuring time dilation) if the universe is rotating or not.

Even a third body will not help, since that too would be liable to the same issues of relativity as the other two bodies.

It could be that you are orbiting around the universe.  Outside of measuring time dilation, there is no meaning in velocity in space without a third reference body in which all relative motion is referenced proprietary to the inertia phenomenon.  As already mentioned, time dilation could not exist without the reference body of the inertia phenomena, which means there must be a reference body for the inertia phenomena.  The only motion that can be definitively defined without defining the reference body of the inertia phenomena or measuring time dilation, is the expansion of the universe.

But time dilation will appear to be different for two different observers, so measuring time dilation fixes nothing.

There is no need for a third reference body to define the expansion of the universe because you only need two bodies to define expansion in space.  As meaningless as this fact first appears, it is fundamental in defining the reference body of the inertia phenomena.

If we were to use a supercomputer to create a virtual reproduction of our universe, we would need to define the reference body of the inertia phenomena for our virtual universe.  The previous deduction defining the only definitive motion in space as expansion or contraction because only two bodies are required to define these motions are fundamental clues on how we should go about setting up our virtual universe so that it has the same properties as the actual universe as we experience it.  Using this fundamental clue you will come to the conclusion that a universal spatial expansion of space time and matter would work as the third reference (inertia) of all other motion in space.  The problem with this assumption is the fact that the universal spatial expansion of all space-time and matter would be meaningless (could not exist) without a reference body for this expansion.

It all depends on the geometry you are using.  If you are using an open geometry, then you should indeed have a centre for the expansion, but if you are using a closed geometry, then no centre is required within the manifold you are observing.

As for a virtual universe (which inevitably has to be a simplification of the real universe), the nature of the model must depend on the observations you feed in to the model (which is inevitably biased by your own frame of reference), and the assumptions you make in making that model.

#### thebrain13

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 442
##### The Solution To The Problem Of Motion In Space
« Reply #2 on: 02/11/2007 15:24:25 »
novajoe, could you please edit your post so its not in red. If you did that, I'd read it.

#### thebrain13

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 442
##### The Solution To The Problem Of Motion In Space
« Reply #3 on: 05/11/2007 22:28:48 »
novajoe, I found your post very confusing, and hard to read. it appears that you are trying to create an ether, in an attempt to define who is moving and who is not. I think, you think that if an object has accelerated in its past, that it changes the way time runs for it. That is not the case. If an object has accelerated more in its past, that does not cause the object to age less. Measuring time dilation, like anothersomeone said will do nothing, they will always be equivalent in every inertial(not accelerating) frame of reference. non-symmetrical time dilation, only occurs in non-symmetrical, non inertial frames of reference. In other words for an observer to view time dilation that is not equivalent to what the other guy sees of you, you would have to accelerate more or less than the other object, the acceleration breaks the symmetry. Also the acceleration breaks the symmetry when it accelerates, not after it accelerates. Or to put it another way, time doesn't run slower in a "moving" object compared to a "stationary" one. Time runs slower in an accelerating object, compared to a non accelerating one.

#### Scilleterate

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### The Solution To The Problem Of Motion In Space
« Reply #4 on: 15/11/2007 21:51:59 »
Or to put it another way, time doesn't run slower in a "moving" object compared to a "stationary" one. Time runs slower in an accelerating object, compared to a non accelerating one.

If one twin accelerates away from the other twin for many years, does he age less during this first period? If he then decelerates at the same rate for the same number of years, until he comes to a relative standstill, does he age more (by the same amount)during this second period? If he then accelerates towards his twin at the same rate, for the same number of years, does he age less (by the same amount)during this third period? If he then decelerates at the same rate & for the same number of years & comes to a rest at the side of his twin, does he age more (by the same amount)during this fourth period? Are they exactly the same age?

#### thebrain13

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 442
##### The Solution To The Problem Of Motion In Space
« Reply #5 on: 16/11/2007 23:07:38 »
Let me see if i can paint this picture in your mind.(cause its tough to understand) lets say an object was 20 light years away from you. It is possible for you to get there in 1 second(relative to you) if you had enough energy, and cozy enough seats. But when you got there the object would be 40 years and about a second older than when you left. When you accelerated towards the object, it became 40 years older relative to you.

Now if you turned around and went back, your acceleration would re order time again. Your starting point would be 40 years older than when you left, it would take you one second to get there. So if you traveled there and back it would take 40 years and a smidge relative to the people who stayed behind, and it would take 2 seconds to complete the trip relative to you.

the direction, distance, and magnitude of acceleration determines the amount of time that is re-ordered. The relative velocity determines how quickly each observer views the others time as traveling, but its always the same in both observers reference points, thus making it completely irrelevant in deciding, who ages more.

#### Scilleterate

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### The Solution To The Problem Of Motion In Space
« Reply #6 on: 22/11/2007 21:58:06 »
the direction, distance, and magnitude of acceleration determines the amount of time that is reordered. The relative velocity determines how quickly each observer views the others time as traveling, but its always the same in both observers reference points, thus making it completely irrelevant in deciding, who ages more.

The atomic clock aboard Concorde accelerates away from its twin, then decelerates & lands at the side of its twin. It is 'younger'; it has undergone fewer sub atomic particle events, because it has been travelling relatively faster than its 'stationary' Earthbound twin. Time is the count of sub atomic particle events in the caesium crystal of an atomic clock; it can also be the count of sub atomic particle events in a living cell. An identical twin aboard Concorde would have undergone fewer sub atomic particle events in his tissue, than his Earthbound twin brother, when they were reunited; he would be 'younger'.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### The Solution To The Problem Of Motion In Space
« Reply #6 on: 22/11/2007 21:58:06 »