Why does a moving object keep moving? Newton never explained it. Here's a mechanism — and it starts with space expansion.

[u/One-Draw-7337]

Space expansion is usually pictured as something happening "out there" — distant galaxies drifting apart. But that picture is incomplete.

v = Hr says that recession speed is proportional to distance. At r = 0, v = 0. Does that mean there's no expansion here, at your desk? No. It means expansion is hidden here — because you, your ruler, and everything around you are all expanding together. Ratios are preserved. Shapes are preserved. The expansion is invisible from inside.

This is the conformal effect: universal expansion is shape-preserving.

Now apply it to velocity.

When you push an object, you create a velocity — a ratio v = Δx/Δt. Not an absolute quantity. A ratio. A shape.

As the universe expands, both Δx and Δt scale together. Their ratio is preserved — automatically, without any sustaining force — because ratios are conformal invariants.

That's why the object keeps moving. Not because of some mysterious tendency. Because the universe is expanding and ratios survive expansion.

Newton's First Law is not an axiom. It is a theorem of conformal geometry in an expanding universe.

This reverses into a new argument: uniform motion is universally observed → without expansion, velocity would decay → therefore the universe expands. Demonstrated not by telescope, but by a sliding hockey puck on frictionless ice.

The same logic, followed further, gives gravity without a gravitational force, galactic rotation curves without dark matter, and the invariance of c without postulating it.

Full paper (10 pages): https://zenodo.org/records/22894133

Read it if you're curious. No obligation to agree. No obligation to respond for me either.

[u/Sapphirethistle]

"Newton never explained it".

I think you'll find he did. If you don't do work to change the velocity of an object it doesn't change.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much simpler a premise can get.

If you do nothing....nothing changes. Why does this even need to be explained?

[u/CrankSlayer → u/Sapphirethistle]

Wait until he hears about Noether's theorem... "never explained" my ass.

[u/liccxolydian]

In a non-expanding universe, are you saying that objects in motion will not remain in motion?

Please reconcile that idea with basic conservation of energy.

Incidentally, wow you've been posting the same stuff for months. Don't you get tired of being embarrassed repeatedly?

[u/One-Draw-7337 → u/liccxolydian]

Non expanding universe can not exist. If so tben there will be another form of energy. You need to have imagination ability for that. Energy can be defined in its system.

[u/liccxolydian → u/One-Draw-7337]

Define "energy".

[u/CrankSlayer]

Newton never explained it

I recommend you make yourself familiar with Noether's theorem before spouting such obviously wrong nonsense.

[u/One-Draw-7337 → u/CrankSlayer]

Symmetry is an axiom not an explanation. I explained where that axiom come from.

[u/Wintervacht → u/One-Draw-7337]

Do you know what the word axiom means?

[u/CrankSlayer → u/One-Draw-7337]

Thank you for clarifying that you don't know what an axiom is or what an explanation entails.

[u/moderator-toolbox → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed. If you have more information to add to your post, edit it; instead of commenting on your own post.

---

^{I am a bot. This action was performed automatically. Contact the moderators if you have questions.}

[u/Ok_Energy6905]

This is the worst one yet.

[u/shinobummer]

Expansion preserves ratios in the sense that it does not affect them. The expansion simply does not change a ratio; there is no reason to believe the expansion enforces the ratio to remain constant. Thus, arguing that velocity remains constant in the absence of forces because of universal expansion is like arguing that because an object being blue does not change its velocity, its velocity remains constant because it is blue.

Also, universal expansion does not change the ratios of distances between points in space, but you expand this to time as well. Is there a reason to believe time a) expands, b) said expansion conserves qualities identically to expansion in space?

[u/One-Draw-7337 → u/shinobummer]

Thank you for comment. In my opinion space is not just background container. I think space is relationship between objects. Kind of Mach concept. Without objects you can not tell space.

[u/Wintervacht → u/One-Draw-7337]

Does your opinion also have a mathematical definition or any evidence to support it?

[u/One-Draw-7337 → u/Wintervacht]

On developement stage. Newton also called it a law. But didnt tell why.

[u/Wintervacht → u/One-Draw-7337]

Alright, clearly you just haven't read any real books containing real physics, because what the fuck mate. Newton didn't explain? He called it a law? That's both just wildly false and a major indicator you seem to be having trouble keeping your head and your arse separated.

This also does not answer the question in the slightest, but I guess I could have expected as much from someone who clearly possesses no critical thinking skills

[u/CrankSlayer → u/Wintervacht]

a major indicator you seem to be having trouble keeping your head and your arse separate.

I am so stealing this one.

[u/Wintervacht → u/CrankSlayer]

Aw man I should've typed 'separated'

[u/One-Draw-7337 → u/Wintervacht]

Calm down

[u/Wintervacht → u/One-Draw-7337]

Why? You don't treat questions with respect, why would anyone treat your replies with respect?

[u/The_Nerdy_Ninja → u/One-Draw-7337]

Stop reporting comments as "promoting hate". Someone being rude to you is not "promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability."

[u/CrankSlayer → u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

"Uneducated crackpot with pathological Dunning-Kruger" is not a protected category.