[mkirkpatrick]

Everything within the relative universe moves,the illusion of motion,that hypnotises mankind with its miragal dance! Is everywhere to be "seen"!

But at the back of all this illusary dancing,there is absolute motionlessness.To move implies a reason to shift,to go from A to B,when you are already there and are ominipresent,then the very notion is totally absurd and ridiculous.



regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Dear Mr. mkirkpatrick:
Can you please tell me what your perspective is, what the similarities and differences are between and regarding a Grand Unified Theory and a Theory of Everything? Does the former more or less represent the Western Civilization approach to science, and the latter more lor less represent the Eastern Civilization approach to science. Is there a middle ground?
RSVP
Best regards, RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

Dear Mr. mkirkpatrick:
Can you please tell me what your perspective is, what the similarities and differences are between and regarding a Grand Unified Theory and a Theory of Everything? Does the former more or less represent the Western Civilization approach to science, and the latter more lor less represent the Eastern Civilization approach to science. Is there a middle ground?
RSVP
Best regards, RP

Thanks RP,Yes I think there is indeed a middle ground,but as yet both sides are very
wary of stepping onto it!There needs to be a mediator of sorts,within the middle ground
who will reassure both camps,that it is safe to venture farther in,and closer together.
Prehaps someone with the skills and versatility of one such as you RP?How about it?



regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by SinJin

Basically my question is - Does everything in the universe move?

Until if and when ZEROo Kelvin is observed or achieved: yes. Everything moves. I think.
(One way or another, every which way but loose?)

Regards,
-RP

[N0B0DY]

If everything is moving in all directions, including opposite directions, at the same time, wouldn't all motion be negated before anything could move? I don't see how the universe could even do the Heisenberg jiggle, let alone gain momentum.

Perhaps all the motion is due to racing minds.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

If everything is moving in all directions, including opposite directions, at the same time, wouldn't all motion be negated before anything could move? I don't see how the universe could even do the Heisenberg jiggle, let alone gain momentum.

Perhaps all the motion is due to racing minds.

__________________________________________________ ____

Dear Nobody:

Consider a center source of omnidirectional motion.
Bisect it through the middle.
180o of it is moving in incrementlaly opposite directions, relative to the other half.

Quadrasection into 90o segments, same same. No?

Refer Newton's 3rd law (For every action there is a reaction, equal and opposite).

Post Script.
Another temporal example: Portions of a river running north to south sometimes move in a northerly direction, on their way south to the ocean.

Regards,
-RP

[N0B0DY]

That is true, RP, but we have to consider an infinite number of omnidirectional sources bombarding all directional motions with equal force, not just one source. Perpendicular and even spherically, to the degree that the centers are overlapping.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

That is true, RP, but we have to consider an infinite number of omnidirectional sources bombarding all directional motions with equal force, not just one source. Perpendicular and even spherically, to the degree that the centers are overlapping.

___________________________

Dear Nobody:
With the qualification that no two things (corporeal systems - in accordance with Locke) can occupy the same space simultaneously:

Is not your allotment the status quo?

Regards,
-RP

[N0B0DY]

The qualification would be moot I think, if the universe is void of corporeality. The infinite number of sources, being non-dimensional, would render the universe as a single non-dimensional point which is the same as no point at all.

Though I was exaggerating, when I said the sources would overlap. If my position is that there is no motion, there can be no such thing as a literal source of it.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

The qualification would be moot I think, if the universe is void of corporeality. The infinite number of sources, being non-dimensional, would render the universe as a single non-dimensional point which is the same as no point at all.

Though I was exaggerating, when I said the sources would overlap. If my position is that there is no motion, there can be no such thing as a literal source of it.

___________________________

Dear Nobody:

A singular source of motion? I don't see any such phenomenon either, Nobody. I think we're corroborate on that note. On the other hand, with the center being everywhere as it is observed to be, there are sources in each apparently expanding concentricity we call a sub atomic particle, no?

RSVP

- RP