Is our universe stationary ?

I start this thread to tackle the argument made by many that the Universe cannot be truly infinite because Einstein’s theory of general relativity shows that space and time is limited or bounded by that which was created from our big bang Any other argument for or against the big bang as a point singularity creating a space-time continuum that is "all there is" and "all there will ever be" are better suited for another thread in this forum.The stationary or non-stationary nature of our relative pocket of space-time may never be known. I am only proposing the hypothetical what-if scenario that questions what we could deduce should we someday find that our known universe does in fact have its own velocity.If it was not stationary then it would have had velocity and to have velocity it would need to move distance A in a time frame of B. So for our point singularity to not be stationary it would need to exist inside a larger pocket of space time in order for it to move a certain distance during a certain time frame, yes?So if there was such a velocity at the point in time our singularity began to expand and create the space-time continuum that we experience now then it would logically follow suit that our entire known universe would not currently be stationary but instead is moving through a larger space-time continuum with a current velocity.So then lets for a moment say that it is possible that our point singularity had velocity then this would mean that there is another space-time continuum outside the one we know of, yes?So the next question is if our universe has velocity, can there be 2 and only two space-time continuums or does the existence of a second space-time continuum provide the foundation to logically deduce there must be many many more, possibly an infinite number of pockets of space time? I use this logic (I think correctly) that one of the big arguments against the truly infinite Universe is because we think there is only one space-time continuum and it was created from our big bang, yes?If we conclude or observe something that tells us our universe has velocity then would that produce the logical assumption that our pocket of space time is most likely one of an infinite number of such pockets of space time?To me I think it does. I think that if we observe something that tells us that our universe is moving through the void of space and has velocity then the point singularity that created our big bang could not have been stationary and therefore the universe must be infinite.I can’t quite explain why yet, just a gut instinct but I think that if such a velocity exists then it may be much greater than the velocity of anything contained inside our universe. We jump from 30KM/s for Earth’s velocity to about 230KM/s for our solar system’s velocity to 300-600 KM/s for the Milky way’s velocity to 600+ KM/s for the Local Group’s velocity so for no other reason than the apparent increase in velocity as we expand into each larger orbiting self-relative cluster of matter it would seem that it is logical to assume that if our known universe has a velocity it is much greater than anything contained inside it.Lets say that our universe is in motion. Would we be able to detect anything different about the stars at the very front of the trajectory or at the very end of the trajectory? In theory if a star was moving through our space time towards the ending edge of our universe that being the point of our universe farthest away from the front of the trajectory could it break free from the overall gravitational attraction of our universe and be left behind. I suppose it could also look like someone throwing a ball in the air and then having gravity pull the ball back if the two velocities were close enough. So since I believe in an infinite universe and a cataclysmic collision being the actual reason for our big bang and not a point singularity then I submit that in the next 300,600, or maybe 900 years we will have the tools at our disposal to map out so much more of our universe than what we know now. And I think what we may find is an area on the outer edge of our universe where things are happening that will be unexplainable without the velocity of our universe being the culprit. And when that happens it will prove that the universe must be infinite.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-24-2004 04:45 AMThis message has been edited by nipok, 08-25-2004 01:55 AM

Before rushing out to pick my question apart please step back a moment to reflect on the question at hand. I read the replies so far and not one of them grasps the concept at hand. I blame myself for not stating up front the scope of what I was trying to discuss.My point for this post was solely for the purpose of tacking those who question the possible infinite nature of the universe based solely because of observations related to the theory of General Relativity. ALL OTHER discussions as to the finite or infinite nature of the universe that are not based on the theory of General Relativity as a reason for their argument are better suited for another thread.People are comfortable with our space-time continuum as The Space-Time Continuum because it gives them comfort. They do not want to speculate as to what is outside the pocket of space-time created by our big bang because it offers too many unknowns. So instead they use our space-time to justify a logical limit to space or a limit to time because of that which is relative to us. So really all we need to do to open up their minds is to provide for a second space-time continuum or pocket of self contained space time and we can negate any argument for our known universe being all there is or all there ever will be.Maybe they are right. Maybe our space-time is the only space-time and nothing exists outside the boundaries of what we have been able to detect to date. The general consensus of the scientific community is that the big bang was a point singularity because everything we see in all directions is expanding as if from a central location.I submit there has not been enough time involved in the tracking and analysis of data to even come close to making an accurate assessment of the true catalyst that brought forth our pocket of space-time. So if we can find a way to observe that our space-time continuum is not alone in the entire Universe then we negate any argument against an infinite Universe based solely on the space-time relative to us.So if velocity of our point singularity existed prior to the initial expansion then it must have been traveling inside of another space-time pocket. That is my point. Once we can prove the existence of another space-time pocket outside our known universe then all arguments against an infinite Universe because of the theories of General Relativity become null and void.

Lam, Paul, Tony, et al. [b]My point for this post was solely for the purpose of tacking those who question the possible infinite nature of the universe based solely because of observations related to the theory of General Relativity. ALL OTHER discussions as to the finite or infinite nature of the universe that are not based on the theory of General Relativity as a reason for their argument are better suited for another thread.[b]

My point is that many people, "many smart people", feel that our space-time as created from our big bang is all there is.I am trying to question the likelihood of that being true.They use space-time properties provided by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity pointing towards a beginning of our time line or time frame as an excuse to say our space-time is all there is.I am trying to argue that they may be wrong.Time existed before our big bang and time will exist for an eternity after our speck of dust we call a universe has been gone for an eternity.If I can more smart people with closed minds that are fixated on a closed space time continuum with no space or time existing outside of our pocket of space time to accept the possibility of at least one other space time continuum then I think most of them would accept the likelihood of an infinite number of other STC’s.So I am trying to get a bunch of smart people to question the likelihood that space and time most likely exist outside of the pocket of space time created by our big bang.

But to say that space was moving you would have to define a measure of distance that was independent of space. Want to explain how you could do that ?

Exactly my point. In order to be able to do the above then our pocket of space-time must exist inside a larger pocket of space time. I am not talking about space or time moving. I am talking about our space-time moving. GR. General Relativity. Our frame of reference. Our space-time. AKA The argument against an infinite Universe and time or space outside of the cosmic event we call our big bang.If the point singularity was moving at the time it began to expand then it must have moved inside a larger frame of reference thus a space time continuum that exists outside our pocket of space time. So there could not be nothingness or an empty void that our point singularity expanded out of.If however the point singularity was not moving at the time it began to expand outwards and create our pocket of space-time, that does not negate the existence of an infinite Universe. That just leaves us right were we are now, unknowing of the truth.It is only if there was original velocity and if we can detect it that I submit that to be proof of an infinite universe.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-25-2004 04:50 AM

Aside from Mr. Jack's answer there is an additional problem. In what sense can space be said to move ? Surely movement is a change in spatial location ?

Paulk,I am not avoiding the discussion of issues raised. Just clarifying the intentions of the original post. Some people think that our space time continuum created from the big bang is all there is. They argue that it is all there is because there is no time or space outside of the big bangs byproducts. They argue that our big bang created all space time. It is that group of people and only that group of people that I am asking a question of.I answered your question twice already but you buzz right past it in haste.I am not talking about space moving or time moving. I am talking about our space-time continuum. Please read up a bit on General Relativity and you’ll see that I am using the phrase space-time continuum or STC to refer to the area of our universe we have seen so far. The group of galaxies and stars that demonstrate the properties of having been spawned from a single cosmic event, our big bang.I am not talking about space moving. I am talking about the space around our planet. Our solar system has an orbit. Our galaxy has an orbit. The local group most likely has an orbit. Our solar system is traveling through space right now in it’s own orbit. The same concept of our solar system and our galaxy having measurable velocities is the concept of moving that I am referring to.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-25-2004 09:35 PM

The answers you were given directly relate to the subject of the first post. Your idea requires that we can meaningfully assign a velocity to our universe. If we can't even do that then the rest of your post has no relevance to reality.

Sure does, for those able to read. If at the outermost edge at the end of the trajectory we some day see stars disappering from existence and can not explain it by any other means then I say they are getting left behind thus there is velocity. You are hung up assigning an actual number to this velocity. Nowhere did I say we need to determine what the velocity is. We may never know that. But you don't need to measure the velocity in order to claim that there could be a way to find out if the velocity exists.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-25-2004 09:34 PMThis message has been edited by nipok, 08-25-2004 09:35 PM

but seeing as how we are trapped in our 3d + 1d(time) bubble universe we can never have an accurate frame of reference to measure anything

With enough scientific precision or our ability to watch this from a closer vantage point we might be able to measure the speed with which a star moves away from the edge of the bubble membrane. It would not provide us necessarily with the speed our universe is moving relative to the next larger frame of reference but it might give us a ball park estimate of speed relative to our measured cosmic velocities. So then maybe it could in fact be possible to measure the velocity our bubble is traveling.I guess one way to look at this is to be on a moving train facing backwards on the last car of the train. If you drop a ball the ball goes down and you move further away from it. To an observer standing off the train on the side of the tracks the ball would go down but also seem to follow the train a little bit in its descent. This is because the ball already had forward momentum at the time it was let go from the train.So if you are able to watch enough of the descent of this ball to make some calculations you could in theory determine the speed that our universe moves through the unknown. And yes this is all speculative we don’t yet know if we are moving or not. I am not saying we are moving (even though I believe it). I am saying that if we are moving maybe we might see an observable event that could lead us to deduce that the universe is infinite.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-25-2004 10:50 PM

You know. If this was true, then maybe a star dropping out of the membrane would descend at an angle away from the central gravitational attraction that our universe might be orbiting. The inverse square rule could produce a gravitational attraction unable to act on a single star but strong enough to act on our membrane with its own cosmic mass equal to the sum of all mass inside.So then our membrane could continue in an orbit but the star would continue as if it was going in a straight line. There would not be a strong enough force to act upon that star to have it obtain an orbit so it would be launched away from our orbit and in doing so we could in fact calculate the arc of our orbit and thus the approximate diameter of our orbit. This is based on the far-fetched idea that we could watch the path of a star that breaks free from our membrane (if that is even possible) for a long enough time frame to have meaning. This is all theory, but in theory, given a star left behind and 50 million years of data on its trajectory we could approximate the diameter of the orbit of our membrane, STC, pocket of space time, or universe.

Here's the problem and I will try to use small words. Paul, you can't have it both ways. Either space is the backdrop with which matter exists, ie the X,Y, and Z coordinates that we can use to determine width, height, and length, OR space is the area between planets and stars. You can't argue against both of these points and still expect an answer to your question. Either you have no idea what the theory of general relativity states or you just plain have no idea.

It's pretty obvius that you don't even understand Special Relativity. If all you want to do is to declare that the matter in our universe has a velocity then you can find the centre of mass, and then choose a frame of reference in which it is moving. That works whether or not there is anything outside our universe. And of course we wouldn;t get anything like "stars disappearing" happening on that basis. But if that isn't what you mean then you need to be able to explain what you do mean. Unless you are just trying to confuse people into agreeing with you when you don't have a clue what you are talling about.

I did not in any post "claim" that our known universe was moving. I stated (pretty clearly I thought) that this was a question "If our universe was moving prior to begining to expand." Nowhere did I claim to known if it is or not. My point was pretty simple. If it was moving prior to the big bang expansion then it must have existed inside another space-time pocket. It could not have been moving and also have been the creator of space and time. That is my argument. Those who feel that our big bang created all space and all time would have to think otherwise if we found some proof that our point singularity prior to expansion had velocity.You seem set on arguing a mute point over and over instead of reading the posts. I answered your question 2 or 3 times now. If you still can't find my answer to a specific question you have then rephrase it again and I will try my best to provide a response you can understand.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-27-2004 09:44 AM

Which part of "our universe as known to us as originating from our big bang" and not the Entire Universe are you having a problem with? Explain to me what part of the question you feel is gibberish. I've broken all the big words down nice and small for you but you still seem bewildered. Since you are incapable of even contemplating in your head the possibility of the point singularity that created our solar system, our galaxy, and everything else that we know exists may have had an original velocity I suggest you find somewhere else to banter as your replies are getting more and more repetitive containing less and less substance. changed table tags to quote tags...table tags were playing havoc on my browser for some reason - The QueenThis message has been edited by nipok, 08-28-2004 08:23 PMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 08-28-2004 08:25 PM

Yes I use the universe in two places but so have many other philosophers and scientists. I did not make up the usage and I'm sorry if the concept is too foreign to comprehend. It seems to be causing a lot of grief. There are those that feel that the big bang created the entire Universe and those that feel our known universe as created from our big bang is a much smaller part of a much larger possibly infinite fabric of space and time.Many like to think that our big bang created the entire Universe because then they don’t feel as insignificant. Once you realize that our big bang could be one of a huge number of other big bangs then we each become even more insignificant then we already are. Our lifetime and the space you or I take up is nothing compared to the size of our known universe and its lifespan. Make that entire time and space a drop in a larger bucket and I can’t blame most folks for not having the mental capacity to even consider its possibility.I refuse to accept the model of the universe that science has generated so far because it is full of holes. Quantum mechanics and relativity have known discrepancies that seem to nullify the possibility that they can both be right in 100% of the situations. There are uncertainty principles, renormalization of Feynman diagrams, perturbation, accounting for imaginary vacuum fluctuations or particle-antiparticle annihilations that appear out of nowhere, 10+ dimensional string theories, and a big bang that created all matter in the known universe once being a smaller than a grain of sand. And you ask why I question the paradigm. Read some of my other posts. The current paradigm is flawed and needs more than band-aids to make sense.I only posed the question, what if our point singularity was moving before expansion. A very simple question. Something to ponder. Seems that it is too simple of a question for some to ponder.

OK, I think we are getting somewhere. I am going to try to simplify my point as clearly as possible to see if I can get the point across. Rather than being hung up so much on what we have been unable to observe to date or limiting your scope to only that which we have been able to observe step back for a second and really think about the likelihood of there being so much more out there that we have not found or seen yet. It is foolish to think that we already know everything there is to know about the size of the Entire Universe.SpaceTime as relative to us would be that spacetime that we can observe because it exists with us and thus is relative to us. It was created from the same process that put our galaxies and solar system into being and into motion. Time and Space are relative and my time and my space as I observe them are different from the time and space relative to someone on a rocket going at 1/2 the speed of light. Similarly time and space would be different to someone in another galaxy that sees the light from our sun a billion years after it goes nova. But relative to all points of reference inside our universe there is still the common spacetime that has the original moment of expansion of our big bang as a single frame of reference that is global to all other frames of reference inside our known universe. Everything created from our big bang may observe time and space or be acted upon by time and space relative to itself but there is still a spacetime relative to the initial moment of expansion that is a fixed frame of reference that all other points of reference inside our space time pocket have in common. Does this make sense? Do I need to elaborate on this in more detail?Now I never claimed that the point singularity that our big bang was spawned from was in fact moving. I only questioned what if. But lets step back for a second and stick with the obviously more likely option that the point singularity was stationary. Thus our known spacetime continuum, or our known universe, or whatever term you want to give to all that was created from our big bang expanded outwards in all directions from a point that was initially at rest and not in motion. That seems to be the more logical and more accepted paradigm. We still know that our Sun and solar system has velocity. We know that the Milky Way has velocity. We know that the Local Group that our Milky Way is contained in has velocity and we may very well know now or someday may find out that the Local Group is contained inside a larger cluster that itself may have velocity. It is this type of movement that I question What if?. If you can accept the possibility that our solar system and galaxy are moving then you should be able to close you eyes for a second and picture in your head the concept of our entire known pocket of space time that we call our known universe as possibly moving. Again I am not asking you to believe it is moving, I am asking the readers to picture in their heads the possibility of it moving.That is the whole point in a nutshell. IF it was or is moving then that in my eyes negates the big bang as being the creation point of time itself. It may have created the space time that we observe but if there was initial velocity then the point I am making is that there must have been a larger frame of reference or larger pocket of space time that our point singularity was contained in.If you are up to this point and are too close-minded to picture for a moment something other than what you already believe then so be it. I am surely not going to change your minds. But if your mind is open enough to conceptualize the possibility then maybe you might agree that there could be a point on the outer edge of our known universe where a star could leave the confines of our known STC and be left behind if it’s trajectory was 180 degrees from the trajectory of our STC. The existence of such a point on the outer edge of our known universe is likely something that we may never find.We may never find it because our STC was in fact stationary at the point in time of the original expansion or because we will not be able to obtain an adequate amount of data to process for a long enough period if time and are in fact looking for a needle in a haystack.Now I am sure you will quote me again and call all this gibberish and claim I am avoiding your questions and not making any sense. I don’t know how much clearer I can try to make the point. If you are unable to ponder the movement of our point singularity then so be it. I am curious if any real astronomers that study the nature of the universe regularly have ever thought about this possibility and the inherent difficulty in proving it one way or the other. The same difficulty I may have in presenting an argument for an initial velocity would seem to me to be no different then the difficulty someone might have in presenting an argument for it not having an initial velocity. Both are speculation that are almost impossible to prove. I happen to think however there could be a way to prove it as mentioned multiple times.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-30-2004 03:27 AM

I think you are just confused. If the Big Bang singularity were not embedded in some other space-time it is meaningless to speak of it as stationary. Or moving.
Yes, IF it was embedded in some other pocket of space-time then our big bang would not be the catalyst that created time, just our time.Secondly according to Special Relativity there are no fixed points of reference for motion. Yes againNone. And since all our spacetime was within the singularity you can't use that as a fixed point of reference either.
That is part of issue at hand. How do we know "ALL" spacetime was within the singularity. My exact point is that All we know of spacetime was within but that does not prove that "ALL" spacetime was withinAnd if the singularity was moving you are talking about a region of space-time moving. Which is itself something you need to explain as I pointed out in my first post. Without ever getting a satisfactory answer. I am unsure how I can phrase my question differently to explain motion any other way. Motion is item A being in spot A at point in time A then being spatial coordinate B at point in time B thus traversing a length of measurable distance during a measureable length of time. To think about what I propose you need to let go of the fact that we can't prove it is not moving for a second and accept that we can't prove it is moving either. Think about our space time as a pocket of self-contained self-relative space time with a begining and an eventual ending. But don't confuse this finite pocket as the Entire UniverseThis message has been edited by nipok, 08-30-2004 10:21 AM