Does zero exist as material, immaterial or both?

I didn't say anything about motion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Motion isn't activity? Can you imagine ANY activity/energy that doesn't involve motion?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Motion requires an object and space which is seperate from it for it to move in, but if the universe is a unified whole, which Einstein believed GR implied, then there is no motion. Einstein said that within GR, there is no place for the concept of motion, and that particles are just an area of the unified whole with high energy density.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Once again, how can activity/energy exist without motion?

 

Hm, let me try another approach here.....

If the universe is a unified whole with no separate things as Einstein believed GR implied, then what can be said to be moving? The universe? Where is it moving to, and in relation to what?

 

That's like asking if a car is a unified whole, then what can be said to be moving? The car moves in space as does a unified whole universe move in space. Where is it moving to? That's not the question. The question is what distance did it move in space, and for what duration of time did it move? That is motion - distance and time.

If the universe moves in space it is in relation to the point it was in space before it moved...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Zero is the point between positive and negative.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- <-----.-----> +

 

No, if space and matter were separate, the universe wouldn't be unified. In a unified universe, which is implied by GR, space is seen as a part of the unified whole and there is no separation between what you see as material objects and the space surrounding them, the two are continuous.

"According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables-the coordinates of space and time. It is just this particular kind of dependence that expresses the spatial character of physical reality. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."
--Albert Einstein

GR does break down at small scales, and Einstein failed to come up with a working theory of a unified field that he believed GR implied, but string theorists have picked up where Einstein left off, so to speak, and have unified GR with QM, at least on paper.

 

Space is 3 dimensional distance. Matter is objects that reside in space. Two different animals. Objects travel and space does not! They are two totally different concepts. The concept of space is independent of the mass occupying that space.

 

You're talking about Newtonian physics, which is pre-GR. If Einstein was right and the universe is unified as GR implies, then there are no objects or motion, those things are just an illusion.

 

Are you familiar with M-Theory? If so, I'm curious, what do you think matter is within the context of M-Theory?

 

So if Einstein was right and there is no motion then there can be no work or no energy, as work=force*distance, power=work/time, and energy=power*time. In order for there to be energy there must be power, which means motion occurred over a duration of time.

...or are you saying work, power, and energy are an illusion??

 

If the universe is a unified whole, it can have energy within it, but it can't be said to be moving, because there is nothing for it to move to, or in relation to, because it's everything. The idea of motion requires there to be separate things.

 

Right, the idea of motion requires there to be separate things, distance and time. You say the universe is a whole (1) but at the same time you say the universe can have motion within it. So which is it...is the universe a whole (1), or is it an object comprised of many components in motion in space like all objects are? What is the difference between the object the universe and the object a car? They are both comprised of components that are in motion in space, no? So why is the object the universe not allowed to be in motion like a car, or sun, or moon, or black hole at the center of a galaxy? Why is the object the solar system in motion but the object the universe not in motion?

 

I didn't say that. I said if it's unified, it can have energy within it, but can't be said to be moving, because that would require it to change it's distance in relation to something else that is not it, and because it is everything, that's impossible.

 

Changing distance to "something else" does not necessitate another object. Changing distance simply means the object was at one point in space and then a duration of time later the object was at another point in space, so the object changed position over a duration of time in relation to space (motion). Changing distance over a duration of time compared to other objects would be a closing speed, but we aren't talking about that, we are talking about the motion of the universe, not the closing speed between the universe and another object.

The universe is an object and is capable of motion in space like all objects are capable of motion in space.

 

What do you think would be left of the universe if all space were removed? If space is separate from the universe like you believe it is, something should be left when you remove it.

 

Space is not an object so it can't be removed. Space is infinite volume. There is nothing to remove. Space is infinite 3 dimensional distance (volume), which exists with or without mass. Space is inevitable! There is always infinite space, regardless of the objects contained in that space. You speak of space as if it were an object that could be removed. There is nothing to remove, it's simply 3 dimensional distance defined by light travel time.

 

Space isn't nothing, it can bend, stretch, warp, and wave, and it's pushing down on your right now keeping you on the Earth.

 

Saying space bends and warps is like saying nothing bends and warps. There is nothing to bend and warp, it is simply distance. Can you bend and warp distance from point to point? Does the radius of a light sphere bend and warp?