You are attracting the object on the other side of the universe

[Glizdka]

Have I made any mistakes?

---

"Gravity is relatively weak, but its range is infinite, meaning you are attracting the object, that you don't even know exists, on the other side of the universe right now."

---

I have a problem with ambiguity in this sentence. I want "that you don't even know exists" to be additional information about "the object on other other side of the universe". This information is interjected, so I separated it with commas.

"You are attracting the object on the other side of the universe." → "You are attracting the object, that you don't even know exists, on the other side of the universe."

You are attracting the object.
The object is on the other side of the universe.
You don't know it exists.

Without the commas, I think it could be read as "The object exists on the other side of the universe." → "The object that you don't know exists on the other side of the universe."

You are attracting the object.
The object exists on the other side of the universe.
You don't know it does.

I know they mean almost the same thing, but it matters to me.

 

[probus]

If you change "the object" to "an object" I think you can omit the commas without ambiguity, and the passage reads better without them.

 

[Tarheel]

As probus already noted, an object would be better.

(I am very attractive. I attract things that are extra-terrestrial. Indeed, I attract things that aren't even in this solar system.
;-) )

 

[bubbha]

You can also use "You are attracting objects on the other side of the universe".

If you use "the object", it implies that it is a known or previously discussed object.

Keep in mind that gravitational attraction is also limited by the speed of light, so I don't think you are attracting any objects that are more than 13.772 billion light years away. (I'm no physics expert, mind you.)

 

[Glizdka]

You can also use "You are attracting objects on the other side of the universe".

If you use "the object", it implies that it is a known or previously discussed object.

Keep in mind that gravitational attraction is also limited by the speed of light, so I don't think you are attracting any objects that are more than 13.772 billion light years away. (I'm no physics expert, mind you.)

I don't like plural objects at all. I want an examplary object, singular, to represent the idea. I'll keep it singular, but change the article to an as it has been suggested.

The speed of light is such a misguiding term... It has nothing to do with light other than it's the first thing we've observed to travel at it.

 

[Tarheel]

I don't like plural objects at all. I want an exemplary object, singular, to represent the idea. I'll keep it singular, but change the article to an as it has been suggested.

The speed of light is such a misguiding term... It has nothing to do with light other than it's the first thing we've observed to travel at it.

Three things. One, I've been looking for an excuse to use the word exemplary. Two, I have learned more about physics than I ever expected to on this site. Three, I forgot what number three was.
;-)

 

[Glizdka]

Examplary and explaination are one of those words I'm never going to learn how to spell correctly.

Because my country's been locked down due to the pandemic, I'm bored to death (and virtually unemployed). I think I could write something about physics to kill some time if you'd review it. Perhaps nuclear astrophysics?

 

[Tarheel]

Sure.

(That's two words. ;-) )

Teach me something about astrophysics.