# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?  (Read 26671 times)

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #25 on: 05/02/2009 16:24:38 »
Quote from: yor_on
So, if there was an 'expansion' your photonic atoms would be unaffected too?
I think the atoms as I visualize them would be affected the same as atoms composed of quarks and gluons as in QM theory.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #26 on: 05/02/2009 16:28:44 »
yor_on; you are a fast editor; I must go back and re-read your posts to be sure I didn't miss something

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #27 on: 05/02/2009 16:32:51 »
Quote from: yor_on
But if we had a cube that we heated to the same energy amount as what a comparable object 'starts with', when accelerating it, the 'gravitational' effect of that cube would be of a greater magnitude for the accelerating case as compared to a 'stationary' object heated.
I'm not sure I get your reasoning here. I don't see why the accelerating object must have a greater gravitational magnitude. Now I'm even having trouble making sense of what I wrote What is a gravitational magnitude?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #28 on: 05/02/2009 16:33:38 »
Why would it be only between galaxies?
Like the Universe would have 'weaker' points?
Geometrically seen.

Strange.

But we do have a difference between 'space' and 'matter'.
That give us a three dimensional space.
When 'time' comes into play.

Then we have times arrow.
That can go both ways quantum mechanically.
But macroscopically would create problems explaining how 'logic' and 'consciousness' might develop without it having a consistent arrow in time?

----

And you're right, I never express myself clearly enough:)
So I edit...

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #29 on: 05/02/2009 16:38:28 »
You think much more deeply than I. I usually just dismiss that which I don't comprehend, like going back in time. Times arrow always points toward the future for me.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #30 on: 05/02/2009 16:42:28 »
You can look at it this way.
In the twin experiment you have one twin staying on Earth.
The other one will travel at a uniform acceleration of one G to some star.

Now both of those frames will have the same amount of 'gravity'.
Which one will be older?
Or??

And my idea about that cube is that I see it in both instances as the same 'system' containing the same 'energy'
But the amount of energy in the stationary cube (transformed into mass, sort of (Black paper)) even though having an effect (gravity well/time) will be less than the effect we will observe from our accelerating cube where the gravitational effects (time difference) will be larger.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #31 on: 05/02/2009 16:43:56 »
If you engage in a little thought experiment and consider that space-time is flat as in the classical sense; then try to explain relativity phenomena; you will arrive at the Lorentz transformations only when you consider that the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

The only other way you can get there is to invent some new constituents of matter which must always move at the speed of light.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #32 on: 05/02/2009 16:46:57 »
It's you who have created a photonic universe Verne.
And then you have defined parameters that works for it.

I haven't created any universe:)

You're a 'God', or at least as near as we feeble humans might come::))

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #33 on: 05/02/2009 16:47:54 »
by 'flat' you mean two-dimensional?

---
Or are you referring to 'Minkowski space'.
That is what we have here?
Three dimensions plus time

----

Saying that spacetime becomes flat due to absence of gravity haven't been 'observed' yet?
That is a theoretical definition?

And 'flat' in what manner?
Two dimesions plus time or just not 'curved'??
If it's not curved then the universe would be transformed from 'infinite', as curved, to 'finite' when spacetime became 'flat'.
But I don't see how I otherwise would notice any difference?
As it would be 'invisible' to us.

To me it would become a very unique consistent 'frame of reference' all on its own though.
Without matter or motion.

As fast as you transfered in a motion/acceleration it would not be a 'flat' universe.
Likewise with gravity/mass.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2009 18:01:41 by yor_on »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #34 on: 05/02/2009 16:55:26 »
by 'flat' you mean two-dimensional?
No; I mean space that does not warp and an arrow of time that always moves toward the future at a constant rate in a special frame of reference that is at rest in the universe. I call that concept flat space-time.

Quote
Or are you referring to 'Minkowski space'.
That is what we have here?
Three dimensions plus time

I mean classic space-time as opposed to Einstein-Minkowski space-time. Since we have completely abandoned the flat-space-time concept, we will never find reality if flat space-time is the reality.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2009 16:59:08 by Vern »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #35 on: 05/02/2009 17:01:41 »
Quote
You're a 'God', or at least as near as we feeble humans might come::))
Gosh! I hope not! Just think of all the starving people of the world that I would have to feed

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #36 on: 05/02/2009 17:03:36 »
Do you see a 'golden standard' of time then Vern?
An arrow that is at rest with the whole universe and not frame dependent?

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #37 on: 05/02/2009 17:15:51 »
Do you see a 'golden standard' of time then Vern?
An arrow that is at rest with the whole universe and not frame dependent?
Time would not be frame dependent, but would seem to be by any observer in their frame. The reason is in the construct of matter.

In this thought experiment time is only frame dependent because matter must distort to move. The only way to force matter to do that is to consider it constructed of something that must always move at the invariant speed of light.

Einstein discussed this with H. Ziegler back in 1909. The link points to the discussion.
H. Ziegler: If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter like states and electrodynamic phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2009 17:18:32 by Vern »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #38 on: 05/02/2009 17:28:49 »
Yes, I read you stating that matter 'distorts' when traveling.
How would you describe that process without using your schematics Vern?

What do you see as the 'force(s)' acting on 'matter', when traveling?

---------

(Just as a 'by side'!
We seems to have a 'karma' residing at our 'controls'?)

Sounds dangerous:)
« Last Edit: 05/02/2009 17:43:41 by yor_on »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #39 on: 05/02/2009 18:27:33 »
I like your new Avatar; I couldn't find out how to make one when I last looked at my profile.

To explain how matter must distort if space-time is flat and matter consists of a most elemental thing that must always move at the invariant speed of light; the constituents of matter would be moving in patterns. The constituents of matter couldn't move faster than light; the constituents of matter must squeeze together some to remain in the patterns when the matter moves.

I don't know if that is any more clear; it seems clear to me I guess because I have been thinking of it that way for so many years.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2009 23:59:40 by Vern »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #40 on: 05/02/2009 19:02:05 »
Quote
(Just as a 'by side'!
We seems to have a 'karma' residing at our 'controls'?)
seems those pesky s's keep getting in the way of your perfect english

It would be: we seem to; but it would also be; it seems that; I can see how that can be confusing. But don't worry about it. It make no differences.

Yes; I noticed we are now getting karma. I looked around and the karma number seems to be related to the posts per day. And the avatar seems to be related to the total number of posts.

Edit: Okay; karma is a peer rating; the little buttons under karma are for voting. I thought it was an avatar at first.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2009 00:00:52 by Vern »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #41 on: 05/02/2009 23:35:53 »
And now they're gone again?
Karma?

Illusions all of it:)

#### Chemistry4me

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 7709
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #42 on: 05/02/2009 23:42:51 »
When did this karma business pop out of the blue?

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #43 on: 05/02/2009 23:48:18 »
When did this karma business pop out of the blue?
First I saw of it was today; you're doing well; seems folks like your posts

#### Chemistry4me

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 7709
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #44 on: 05/02/2009 23:51:20 »
It seems that you can only exercise your karma prowess once every hour (on one person that is)!
« Last Edit: 05/02/2009 23:54:07 by Chemistry4me »

#### Chemistry4me

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 7709
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #45 on: 05/02/2009 23:52:47 »
Hmmm...it appears that my hour has worn off because I have just executed my karma prowess. But now I'll have to wait another hour (before I can rate your posts Vern)!
« Last Edit: 05/02/2009 23:54:44 by Chemistry4me »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #46 on: 05/02/2009 23:57:12 »
Hmmm...it appears that my hour has worn off because I have just executed my karma prowess. But now I'll have to wait another hour (before I can rate your posts Vern)!
I too exercised mine twice within the last five minutes; I think it has to do with the post. Only one hit per post; but it is good; I find some very rewarding posts occasionally and it is good to be able to reward them.

#### Chemistry4me

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 7709
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #47 on: 06/02/2009 00:00:26 »
I don't know why they decided to put this karma business in, copying from other forums perhaps? But at least they could have picked a better word than karma I think!

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #48 on: 06/02/2009 00:04:16 »
Karma is probably built into the board software and they simply activated it. I used to host a few message boards using software I downloaded from the internet and all of them contained a karma button that could be activated by the administrator.

#### Chemistry4me

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 7709
##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #49 on: 06/02/2009 00:07:50 »
Okay.
Anyway, I'd better let you get back on track (after this minor sidetrack).

Hmmm...I see the thread title is: If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
I don't know, would it?

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
« Reply #49 on: 06/02/2009 00:07:50 »