Completely Still

[why06]

When Einstein proved special relativity something interesting was brought up. if a craft was to accelerate to light speed than the time around it would stop. This means light is a constant and that time isn't. If that was the case then time could be bent. as a craft accelerate the slower time goes at that spot while the outside world speeds up.<br />This is where I come in...This anomale has brought up an amazing scenario that exist. Things experience time in Einstein's case because they move. If you think about it, it makes sense. we are zipping around at thousand's of miles per hour around are sun. The Earth is rotating. Our solar system revolves around are galaxy. All the galaxies are spreading apart.<br /><br />To move at absolutely zero velocity compared to everything else would take a tremendous amount of force and, here's the cool thing. Everything around this point would be moving at light speed. while it moved well very slow. Is this absolute zero? <br /><br />This is as great an idea I think as the black hole was to gravity. Sense it does not pas threw time it has no space and therefore no mass.<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">To move at absolutely zero velocity compared to everything else</font><br /><br />Unfortunately, while your velocity would perhaps be zero relative to"everything else"(from your perspective), you'd be moving at a velocity nonetheless from the point of view of everything else. In order to achieve what you desire, you'd have to do if from <b>outside</b> 4 dimensional space/time that we exist in.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Everything around this point would be moving at light speed. while it moved well very slow.</font><br /><br />Not correct. Everything would be travelling "away" from you at varying speeds dependent on their "normal" velocity. I think. One of the experts will be along shortly to render an opinion, I'm sure. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[siarad]

It's always a bit of a problem.<br />Take the satnav satellites spinning around the Earth which gain 38 micro seconds a day but they see a common point, say Eiffel tower in exact synchronism. There's no speeding-up of the Earth only its clock, the time around it is unaffected & as said above there's no way to ascertain 'standing still'.<br />I'm no expert so perhaps a better explanation will follow.

 

[nova_explored]

absolute zero means no energy. no radiation. even we radiate energy. In context of Einstein's GR, as it was said, its all relative. Everything would be moving away from you, but your reference point in relation to every object would not be C. In terms of GR this is already happening in relation to the photon, or C. It's so fast that everything in reference to C is not moving at all. This is where the great theoritical physics of C have stemmed from. Achieve it, and you're infinite. It doesn't matter how fast anything is moving, even 99.9999% C, still appears very very slow, it appears stationary to C.<br /><br />but absolute zero velocity has no kinetic energy and cannot function as a reference point, it has no way of gathering information. On the other side, At C, time stands still because there is no change in its state, no change, no internal clock, no internal clock, no sense of direction or time...and thus, a photon cannot change.<br /><br />if an object were to maintain structure with zero velocity, you're right, it would require an amazing amount of energy, because were talking about stopping electrons. You see the problem though right? No electron spin, no structure. It would be destroyed. Freeze an ojbect to absolute zero, is the only way to give it zero velocity, because now no electrons move. No radiation. nothing. No information. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ag30476]

No molecule can be completely without motion, Quantum uncertainty predicts this. So absolute zero can't happen.<br /><br />But beyond that absolute zero is not a state where "everything would be moving away from you" nor does it take a "tremendous amount of force".<br /><br />Absolute zero refers to the temperature of a system. We can get molecules in a closed system, say a sealed vessel in a laboratory on Earth, near absolute zero. This takes work (to remove the heat) but not a "tremendous amount of force". Near absolute zero means much of their motion stops within the system. But the molecules are in the vessel and the vessel is on Earth and the Earth is moving through space so the molecules are moving through space at thousands of miles per hour (relative to say the Sun). <br /><br />As for "moving at absolutely zero velocity compared to everything else" that's not possible since the universe is expanding. If as Dragon04 said you were somehow outside of space time...

 

[why06]

light moves at C, if anyting else tried to they could exceed C in reference to time ,but not reference to space. In this it is hard to place a speed on C since the light would still travel at C even through the compressed time, but everything around you should be drawn out so theat time seems slower. at absolute zero velocity no time would be compressed therefore time would slow down to a halt, while the outside speeds up ,but light here may would be trapped to the outside universe a time constantly slowed untill it was zero. If gravity was deleted from the universe this might be possible. Gravity is what keeps things moving if it was not for this time would stop. in this sense you know after the big bang ther's a big crunch..well time might slow down enourmously in reference to the outside universes while to us everything might seem normal. Due to this we may never stop increasing only slow down untill everything freezes.<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

If the universe was perfectly symmetrical and we could determine the exact mass and find the exact center from which gravity is equal on all sides, it is plausible you might find the 1 spot that is not expanding. I suppose you could have zero velocity here. In other words, my guess is it is impossible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[why06]

But from this one spot the field of it's zero movement would expand as more things get aught inside. this one point would grow and the closer you got to it the more time slows down. You can not effectively measure light from any other point than this due to the compression of time. The speed of light might seem different to us wile in reality it is always the same. light would travel at the same speed through any compression of time, but as time slowed down it would seem slower to the outside world. This one point would expand so that nothing could reach the center of it. as you tried time would slow down to a complete stop. All time of the outside universe would pass before something reached it's center. Is it possible that all that gas in between our galaxies is antimatter and it slows down time so much that the universe still looks like it's accelerating?<br />Gravity is what keeps time going, but at the half life of are universe time might slow down so much that everything would stop. Maybe the antimatter spreads out instead of coming together. <font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

That's OK we just want it to slow down enough that it would seem like the thing is moving in a slower time frame. If we could produce some kind of antigravity field it would go to the exact center.<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[plutocrass]

the original poster might win a nobel prize if they could demonstrate that a type of matter exists, which is just matter that is sitting still. still matter, as opposed to dark matter.<br /><br />this is like the tachyons analogy. it's said that a slow-moving particle can never accelerate to reach the speed of light. so its been proposed that a hypothetical particle exists that is always moving faster than the speed of light but it can't decelerate to the speed of light.<br /><br />maybe there is still matter. matter that started out still, and is at absolute zero, but it will never move.<br /><br />how would you design an experiment to detect it? <br /><br />

 

[cygnus1]

Well, if you pick out a set of objects and decide on what you consider as absolute zero volocity you can enter into that volocity. The point is there is no special one to<br />initially decide as absolute zero. Ofcourse it is completly<br />natural for the brain to choose a absolute zero volocity<br />frame of reference.

 

[cosmictalk]

Usually I do not post but read the posts! This however is one of the bests threads ever! Trying to think outside of the box and not getting lost in the grooves of what we may falsely believe as truth.<br /><br />absolute zero means no thermo energy...right? Motion is achieved without thermo energy as magnetic phenomena has proven, so maybe what were looking for is kinda in the details of Lie Super Algebra. How we can allow quatum to broaden are knowledge of inner workings and take note that thermodynatics only applys to thermo energy and not all of natures working are require to have motion and existance through thermo energy.<br /><br />Magnetic phenomena tends to have inner workings with electro phenomena and both tend to have inner workings with time.<br /><br />I strongly believe that if time can speed up or slow down considering thermo energy into the workings and electro tends to stimulate time while magnetic tends to slow it down its very possible time could stand still.<br /><br />But I do not believe in the existance of infinity! <br /><br />Just because something stops being what it is doesn't mean it will stay constantly in that change reguardless if it's no longer thermo energy, because kinetics the potential for change is there.<br /><br />CosmicTalk <br /><br />

 

[ag30476]

Calling the Mission Control Team...<br /><br />Speculation is wonderful but at some point things make no sense. What do you mean by absolute zero velocity?<br /><br />As I've said, you can take a closed system and remove heat until you get very near absolute zero temperature. This means the molecular movement of the particles is near zero. Quantum fluctuations prevent an actual reaching zero velocity. However these particles are still moving through space with the Earth. So with respect to some objects in the universe (say the Sun) they don't have zero velocity.<br /><br />Maybe you mean zero velocity with respect to some universal, absolute frame of reference. Such a frame of reference does not exist.This has been verified and accepted by mainstream physics. If you are saying that there is an absolute frame of reference and you could have zero velocity with regards to that frame then say so. But that will also be objected to here. <br /><br />

 

[cosmictalk]

Are you talking to me or the original person starting the thread? ag30476<br /><br />I hope we are not still stuck in thermodynamics!<br /><br />CosmicTalk

 

[ag30476]

> I hope we are not still stuck in thermodynamics! <br />I hope so too. That was two semesters that I did not want to take. Luckily I was math major not physics.<br />

 

[cosmictalk]

Dragon mentioned!<br /><br />In order to achieve what you desire, you'd have to do if from outside 4 dimensional space/time that we exist in.<br /><br />Sorry but I have to smile and laugh when people actually believe things to be fact when nothing about space/time is absolutely understood, far from being.<br /><br />For instance! Are we really only 4 dimensional?<br /><br />What about space actually being a form of matter that holds matter?<br /><br />There is pressing evidence that can be proven that light has actually been recorded in the past at a certain speed and now is being recorded as being faster! If your wanting the scientist name and book I'll be happy to look it up for you!<br /><br />Time could actually be a form of space holding matter that to electro generated phenomena would consider to be infinitely still compare to us.<br /><br />Here's that scientist name: Joao Magueijo who wrote the book...Faster than the Speed of Light.<br /><br />CosmicTalk<br /><br />

 

[dragon04]

I should have added the word "perhaps" to the end of that statement. It's purely an opinion.<br /><br />But it stands to reason that it would not seem likely to be able to have zero relative velocity with respect to everything else from inside the system. <br /><br />Think about just the physical 3 dimensions that we are certain of. Everything is moving either towards or away from us from an essentially infinite number of directions. How could one possibly move in any way within those dimensions to negate the relative motion of everything?<br /><br />I can oversimplify and try to imagine matching the speed at which the universe is expanding from the outside of it to maybe achieve zero relative motion maybe, but there's no way to prove that.<br /><br />Which brings me back to my original thought. Absolute zero velocity with respect to everything in our space time would not be possible.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[yevaud]

I would have to agree. As space itself is what's expanding, there is no (as far as we know, that is) "point in space" that isn't in relative motion versus other points in space. No one point in space within the universe is preferential with respect to another. I suppose this is, expressed in other terms, the concept of "where is the exact center of the universe, where the Big Bang occurred."<br /><br />And that's quite true, Dragon. For there to be no molecular activity whatsoever implies we've achieved the total heat-death of the universe. Everything, everywhere is at complete stop, absolute zero everywhere. <br /><br />Edit: However, that being said and done, this topic seems to be reasonably well debated, so I see no reason for you to cease. Just be aware that the above points I made are known as "true," insofar as we can state that with any certainty. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

I am not talking about absolute zero, but zero velocity. <br />you said<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="orange">Maybe you mean zero velocity with respect to some universal, absolute frame of reference. Such a frame of reference does not exist.This has been verified and accepted by mainstream physics<font color="white"><br /><br /><br /><br />Zero velocity can only be viewed from another point of zero velocity all other perspectives in the universe are distorted by time. You are right in saying no frame of reference exist this is only hypothetical, but at the big bang if equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created this might explain it. Is it possible that antimatter would not only have opposite charges ,but have antigravity wich might explain the expanding.<br /><br />At the Big bang everythig would be blasted away form this one point at the same time from all directions this would have caused this point to be at zero velocity. judging from this time should vary from the center of the universe outward. From zero time in reference to everything else to where time increases in speed.<font color="yellow"></font></font></font></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>everythig would be blasted away form this one point at the same time from all directions this would have caused this point to be at zero velocity. judging from this time should vary from the center of the universe outward.</i><br /><br /> Please reference my above comment about there really being no such point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

If there is no point at the center of the universe tha that would mean that the Big Bang would have never occured because the Big Bang was at the center of the universe, please explain your self because you have just contradicted yourself<br /><br /><br />Thanks for everyone's input so far!<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Er, no, I haven't. If space itself expands, then there is no "center." All is in expansion relative to each other. I refer you to the "surface of an expanding balloon" analogy. Where is the center? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

Is there not an interior to space time. I thought it opperated in four. demensions. Could the beloon not be ripped symetrically and layed down flat? I'm not sure were you are getting at. <br /><br />As space expands the center should be stretched the most possibly forming a hole in the center. The otside should be more compress. Since space and time are supposedly linked time would slow or speed up based on how space is pulled or pushed<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Space is expanding <i>everywhere</i>. There is no singular point you can state is the center. Everything we see and know exists on the "surface" of that balloon, which is an analogy for spacetime as we understand it. When it expands, it expands everywhere, and no point is preferential to another. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

What I'm saying is when you blew air into that balloon (<font color="orange">namely the Big Bang<font color="white">) the air came from one point and the balloon expanded from here outward to every point on the outer edge in refernce to the center. If you suddenly released all the air the rubber move inward and colapse toward a center at velocities relevant to the center. I don't understand how any object could not have a center, especially when gravity is involved. <br /><br />The beggining of time is the center.<font color="yellow"></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>