More Relativity - Absolute Rest?

This looks like one for 'Jorrie'.

doing the math of E= MC²

C²=E/M

C² is a constant, Energy is made up of all the speeds of the matter, actual, potential energy etc (energy of spinning electrons + energy of moving atoms. )

Since the moving atoms are slowing down energy is decreasing, therefore the mass is decreasing.

Approaching Zero the nucleus of the atoms decreases in speed, their potential energy decreases, and thus their gravitational effect. The electrons will get a larger and larger orbit until they lose their cohesion

Also the less the mass, the less the possibility that light will re-radiate from the atoms and the more likely that the traveller will not be seen

At zero movement the energy is zero, and mass is zero. mathematically we are back to the divide by zero problem and the existence at the origin becomes questionable.

If he doesn't exist, he cannot see the original observer and cannot be seen

Mind you this assumes the center of the universe is not moving

I really like the thought about the expanding atom's electronic envelope and the thought that the electrons might not emit radiation, and thus the body would not be seen! No one has thought of that angle before! Cool!

Just a shot, but I don't think this is quite right.

While the Universe may be expanding, i.e., space is getting larger, things like the particles in atoms are not getting farther away from each other (Wow, the U4 is landing at Moffet Field right now - sounds cool) - Anyway, if this was the case, the expansion would be undetectable at atomic levels. In other words the space between the atoms in my meter rod is getting wider, so I don't notice that my meter rod is longer than it was before. Instead, we are aware of the expansion and so are atomic particles. In essence, you could say that electrons are getting ever so closer to the nuclei to compensate - but we're talking on the Plank-level. If the distance between two particles increases by, say 10^-40 centimeters because space is getting larger, the electrostatic and strong-nuclear force will act to pull things back together within nuclei and atomic structures. Also, within galaxies, stars keep their gravitational forces together - we do not see galaxies dissolving into arrant star clusters.

I know this sounds somewhat contradictory, but I think this is the case... Jorrie, any comments here?

Hi vermin,

I think you've got it right for the expanding space on the subatomic and molecular scales. There is some doubt on larger (gravitationally bound) scales, though. I dedicate my (roughly) weekly blog post to expanding space this week (tomorrow). So look out for it and lets discuss that aspect there.

"if the cosmologists are worried that if our acceleration continues, our velocity may actually, at some point, exceed the ability of star-stuff to "hold together"."

That's a new on me. I would think all the matter is moving as one will stay as one.

"Here's the poser: What does our "no longer traveling" observer see when he finally reaches the Universal Origin, comes to Absolute Rest (at least relative to the rest of the universe), turns about and looks at our "stationary" observer? Does our "no longer traveling" observer view the "stationary" observer as a "freeze frame" image? Does our "stationary" observer view the "no longer traveling" observer vanish into infinity time? (Assuming, of course that mortality issues don't interfere)."

There is no void of matter at the center of the universe. The observable mass of the universe is more or less evenly distributed. Yes, matter does clump together, but the universe is not a huge ball with an empty center or even a gooey, chewy center.

Wherever the travel stops things are going to look pretty much the same any way you look at it. Sure the stars will be in different places, but it will be pretty much like any other place in the celestial town. So, looking back at Earth you will only see the light that left Earth the number of years ago that separate you in light years. That is, if you are 7 billion LY away, you would be receiving light from the Earth that was 7 billion years old.

For an explanation of inertial reference points, relative velocities, and relativity, I would recommend Jorrie's blog. That will do a better job explaining what measure of times the two observers see of each other. The only slowing of time will be from the context of relative velocities, their frame of reference to each other, and gravity (Special and General Relativity).

Just can't be botherd any more.

All motion is relative, so the reference point would have to arbitrary. Let's say, though that there was absolute rest. If we leave a moving earth and stop, then of course the earth would appear to be moving to us.

Modern theory states that there is no center to the universe. Pick any point, and the galaxies on average will be receding from that point.

This reminds me that at one time (in the days of the Model T Ford?) people thought that if you traveled more that 18 miles per hour that your blood would boil.

OK, I'll take a crack...

The main flaw with all of this is there is no "Universal Origin." There never was. According to Big Bang theory, space was created and began to expand at that point in time. One cannot look into a telescope and say "Oh! That's the point where it all started." Each observer in the Universe sees themselves as the center of expansion. So, no matter what direction you head toward, you'll never be able to slow down with respect to the rest of the Universe. That is, of course, unless you go inside yourself.

Better, you should ask what someone hanging on the ragged edge of the event horizon of a black hole might see. In such a gravitational field, you will be ticking off time very slowly compared to the rest of the Universe. So, looking out from your precarious perch, would you see the Universe evolving at a super-fast pace???

Hi Architect3451,

Looks like your question has been adequately answered by others, so I will just add an additional bit that might help.

The closest thing to a global reference frame that we have is the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. When an observer measures the same mean CMB temperature in all directions, she is at rest to our observable universe. Our own galaxy is moving at hundreds of km/s relative to this background radiation, not because of the expansion of the universe, but because of gravitational attraction to a very large concentration of mass, call the "great attractor".

Does this mean that if we shoot a fast probe in the opposite direction to our movement, that its clock will tick faster than Earth's? The answer is no - we never detected anything remotely like that and there are plenty of probes shot in all directions from Earth!

I recommend that you also read my Relativity/Cosmology FAQ and responses to that to see if it helps to wrap your head around it.

Jorrie, You recently indicated on another thread that the universe was relatively flat. Since we know we are on a celestial body amongst many others, orbiting a central body in a relatively flat manner, (our solar system), and that the conglomeration of these (solar systems) are orbiting an even larger central body in a relatively flat manner, (our galaxy and supermassive black hole in the middle), wouldn't it be far more logical and concievable that our universe is shaped and ordered in the same manner? That the galaxies all orbit a central point or body (great attractor maybe?) at the center of our universe? Even a step further, could our universe be part of a "superverse" in the same manner and so on? the possibilities are endless, but for the point of this discussion, just the universe. This just seems to be the most logical and reasonable theoretical conclusion that could be drawn from our evidence. I do believe the big bang occurred, I just don't believe it was the origin of our universe, just a localized supernova or even galactic explosion.

When the term "flat" is used in cosmology, it's a little different than what we everyday mortals think of as flat...

Einstein postulated three possibilities for the shape of the Universe, and subsequently what type of geometry would work best within each. Three possibilities are: 1) Closed, where the Universe forms a sphere - This indicates if you travel far enough, you come back to where you started. 2) Open, where the Universe is curved, but the curves go on for ever - This is the well know Saddle shaped Universe, where the front and back curves are infinite, as well as the curves on the side. 3) Flat, where the Universe is again infinite, but euclidean geometry works best to describe positions/events.

All indications of what astronomers are coming up with seem to favor the flat Universe geometry.

Hi David,

I think Vermin has answered you adequately. Here's my little bit: everything up to clusters of galaxies seems to be in orbit around the centre of mass of the structures. For clusters, the larger structure is called a super-clusters. There is however no direct evidence that super-clusters orbit some point, i.e., the universe at large is not rotating measurably. Inflation theory also predict that: when space expanded by a factor of more than 10⁵⁰, any possible rotation was dampened out.

Outside of our observable universe there must be much more universe, but that's all part of our Universe. Multiverses are a possibility, but there is no evidence for it and little hope of ever finding any, so I rather ignore that. There's enough that we can detect that is still mysterious!

I once observed a curious cat sitting in a bathtub, swatting at periodic drops emerging from the leaky spigot and continuing the pursuit of drops to their point of departure at the drain. If only the cat had 20 times more dendrites and connections it might begin to understand the water cycle from waste stream to evaporation to cloud and rain to reservoir. Pipes and pumps. Hydrogen and oxygen. 40 times more dendrites and connections could conceivably allow the cat to ponder unity particles, string theories, multiple dimensions, symmetry and quantum communication.

Einstein's brain sections have been analyzed and found to contain more dendrites and interconnections than the average. NGF induces dendrite growth in lab rats, who get smarter at figuring out puzzles as a net result. A rat version of "Lawnmower Man"?

From another reference point, I am a curious cat in a tub, wondering how many dendrites and interconnections it will take to figure out the M at the center of the 5 competing string theories that appear linked. Perhaps M is the center that is sought?

I wouldn't worry about your cat. He has enough neurons to know that if he does stupid, cute, little things like this, you'll keep feeding him and cleaning out his litter box!!!

My 1st question: WHERE is the "Universal origin"? What direction from the traveler's launch point? How far away is it? We can apparently look in any direction and see "the Universe", filled with galaxies, etc. Are we inside a vast sphere of galaxies, something greater than 12 or 13 billion light years radius? If so, where is the center? I assume that someone has a "map" of the accelerating galaxies, and could theoretically be able to reverse the assumed direction of acceleration of all the galaxies to find a Universal origin. I don't think I've ever heard that stated before. I look forward to comments on your query.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way...

First, only a small fraction of the sky has had its galaxies mapped. Or neighborhood (as Jorrie said) seems to moving within a great river of galaxies toward a point in space dubbed The Great Attractor. No one knows what's there.

Second, if you could map all the motions of all the galaxies, you'd come out with an astounding revelation: Earth seems to be the center of the Universe, and the ghosts that haunt the Vatican would give out a great shout, "We told you so!!!"

Third, any species on any other planet in any other galaxy would come up with exactly the same results. Surprise!!!

The thing to remember about the Big Bang is that it didn't happen within a vast empty void of space. As hard as it is to imagine, space didn't exist before the Big Bang. When the BB happened, it created space, and that space has been expanding ever since. So who is at the origin of where space was first created? We all were. Metaphysically speaking, of course.

Architect3451's posed puzzle .... What does our "no longer traveling" observer see when he finally reaches the Universal Origin, comes to Absolute Rest (at least relative to the rest of the universe), turns about and looks at our "stationary" observer? Does our "no longer traveling" observer view the "stationary" observer as a "freeze frame" image? Does our "stationary" observer view the "no longer traveling" observer vanish into infinity time? (Assuming, of course that mortality issues don't interfere).

Perhaps we are all motionless at the Universal Origin center and moving away from it at the same time. The quantum world allows for multiple expressions in multiple locations. Concepts of speed, motion and distance rely on something called time. Remove time from the equations and vibration no longer exists and you are back to a pre-Big Bang state. If that pre-state is the center of the expansion, and everything coming forth from that state is "connected and aware" in a quantum manner and if time does not exist in the quantum world, then a quality which is a part of you is at the motionless origin and "influencing" (a form of viewing?) you here on Earth. The concept of vanishing from view at the motionless center then becomes a relative question as to what perception mechanisms are employed in the "viewing".

In summary, you are simultaneously motionless at the center and moving away from the center in N dimensions while remaining connected (form of viewing) on a quantum level. To some senses you have disappeared but to other senses you are visible.

First, we'd all disappear.

Second, what the heck are you talking about!!!

Why don't we start a thread on the metaphysics of Engineering. Then we could all wax unintelligible.

Interesting comments.

First. Apparent disappearance would depend upon sensory field and processing of related information. Psychic warfare experts can make the mountain looming ahead of you disappear from your consciousness and cause you to fly into it.

Second. Talk is about ultimate engineering. You came in pre-wired for ultimate engineering. Tough problem CR4 discussions such as this one, initiate NGF production (see previous comments) which in turn helps connect the wires.

Third. Metaphysics is a time-related misnomer. Many of your posted CR4 informational comments relating to lasers and other current technologies would be considered metaphysical not too many years in the past. Do you think of yourself as a post-metaphysicist? Wax appears to have been displaced by silicone and polymeric coatings. Polymerizing unintelligible would be more appropriate for the times.

Sorry! Sometimes my ears get so full of polymer that my brain can't hear what I'm typing!

It was late and I'd been on this other thread where my dyslexia was giving me real trouble trying to understand some really long postings. At the time it seemed funny, and I assumed everyone would understand that I was talking about my own problem. However, looking back at my own words, they do seem sort of rude. My apologies.

No need for apology. Your retorts add spice.

Regarding polymer in ears. You may want to change the ear cleaning solution. Food processing plants, employing the wrong cleaning agents, sometimes inadvertently convert simple oils or waxy buildups on floor surfaces to polymers which are much more difficult to remove.

Dyslexia can often be corrected through repetitive transcranial magnetic pulse stimulation combined with hypnosis. A college near you has offered its labs to do a collaborative project. Your knowledge base might prove beneficial to all parties.

I respect your knowledge and wit and see that you are a great asset to CR4.