The existence of gravitational, electromagnetic and other forces cause the movements of everything in the universe. Birth of new particles and stars prevents from the total equilibrium.

This paper analyzes least action equilibrium states in the universe:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

try to aply the inverse of m=m0/Square-root(1-v²/c²), i.e. M*S where v=c, what should mean a of mass, until M*0=0 and on the other hand use einstein`s m0/0 what is undefined! motion described by relativity is false!

on the other hand I agree with Gro Hovannisyan: birth of particles changes their energy.

The cosmological expansion creates the progression of time (as well as all the energy in the universe). This motion in time also induces the matter energy of particles. Therefore, all existence is motion.

I recommended this question but it's not perfectly formulated. You are asking about " every thing in the universe."  Is your question related to cosmology (to the science of the origin and development of the universe) or whatever size of the system (living being, cells, molecules, atoms)? 

"why is moving is the nature of things and being".  The objects in the system are moving to reach a thermodynamical  equilibrium. A contribution of gravity is negligible for small systems (such as nanopartical)

Dear D Yurii V Geletii 

 i found it is annoying to see every thing in the universe is moving from the smallest electron or quarks to the huge stars or black holes i know about the  thermodynamical equilibrium and the entropy is moving in one direction and cant move in the other for the real usual process every real process aim to go to have a higher degree of randomness   but what i see from the moving that only the universe expansion is moving to obtain a higher degree of random but the stars and electrons moves is not random at all its moves can be detected and predicted by the physics lows and it periodically repeat         the problem is in the moving it self why it cant be rest 

Dear D Marc Monsia

   I am still a student but i asked this question to my self but found even for the vibration it is also a sort of movement from which it can rise we could say that the vibration movement can rise from the internal movement of the particles but also from where the particles obtained its continues source of energy to move 

in the beginning i thought that every thing her on earth we can observe that it aim to be still and after that i know that it is for the Existence of the friction force which is not found in the space above and the cosmos so it is ordinary for every thing to be moving in the space without a reducing in its movement and every thing movement can be shaped in orbits due to the gravity so every thing talked its energy from the big bang and still moving till now with this energy and what helped for that is the absence of friction force  but also the Continuous movement of large objects i cant leave it for this reason only and for the movement of the smallest particles i couldn't found any reason for it may Because i still beginner in quantum and particular physics  

The cosmological expansion is in scale, not in space. The Big Bang model is simply wrong.

Such scale expansion induces spacetime energy - it is the "Dark Energy". The "Dark Matter", which does not exist, is also a consequence of the cosmological scale expansion. This has been published, but is still ignored in the West. However, in the spring of 2015 the Russian Academy of Sciences published a "Technical Monograph" of mine on this subject, which had been distributed to 50 universities, libraries and book stores across Russia.

You may find its translation under my name at Research Gate.

with my respect D Johan Masreliez 

but it have been harder for me to solve if i considered that the big pang is false i heard before about another models for explaining the universe creation but may it is disorder for me  to not to read about them so i will begin to read for these models and try to make one of them the starter for the universe movement as the fire witch started to make all the Ruin 

i understand about the scale expansion but what i didn't get with is why the "Dark Energy"and The "Dark Matter",  does not exist  i didn't found about the research your talking about 

Dear Ahmad,

I saw your comment that you wish to read about possible models other than the Big Bang to explain the universe creation. Then maybe you would like to read about this one, which is in the direction that Einstein himself suspected towards the end of his life, that is electromagnetism, titled "On the Birth of the Universe and the Time Dimension in the 3-Spaces Model":

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.17.pdf

Dear Ahmad, 

Hypothetically, there is no any movement at zero temperature. Any movement creates a gradient of something, which triggers another movement to achieve equilibria.  Different branches of science study the laws controlling the ways to achieve an equilibrium.  Such processes are not random. If a given system is in equilibrium, some movements are random, such as Brownian motion. 

Dear Ahmad,

I would rather ask as to why are we prone to notice movement, discerning it from rest. A detailed discussion of this topic can be found in:

http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2016-02.pdf

There are only and only two things in the universe. Their appearance as two is also apparent. In reality there is only one that exists without a second. These two things I mentioned are energy and consciousness (Spirit). The Spirit is is all pervasive infinite indivisible and perfectly motionless. When this Spirit begins to move, it becomes energy.

Both spirit and energy are indestructible and exist through eternity. More details in following articles.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262494186_Consciousness_and_energy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266618399_Unified_field_of_consciousness

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Big-Bang-Assumptions-Problems/dp/1613245777/ref=sr_1_5?

s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333360764&sr=1-5

Chapter Consciousness and energy

Article Unified field of consciousness

dear Yurii, you are right. I would even say: Hypothetically, there is no any movement at zero energy.

Dear Paul,

In practice, at the elementary particles level, even it there is no excess energy that could cause atoms or molecules to move, which would correspond to absolute zero. there would still be the minimal adiabatic energy permanently induced in all elementary particles captive in atomic and nuclear structures.

For example, in the electron captive into the mean ground orbital of a hydrogen atom at zero kelvin, the Coulomb force will still induce an amount of 4.359743805E-18 j kinetic energy adiabatically unreleasable, which is the cause of the resonance state described by the wave function.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

I think Max Born wrote a book about this, restless universe.

Recomended.

dear Andre, my own calculations say that, if e=mc² is correct, than mass must be a test function, i.e. its behavior out of a time interval must be symmetrically (when energy is zero). in fact I thought that would be improbably. 

“Why every thing in the universe aim to be moving ? ”

Any thing in Matter in our Universe hasn’t some aim to move – material objects cannot have some aims. However in Matter indeed every object moves in the absolute [5]4D Matter’s Euclidian spacetime [in physical theories] / [5]4D Matter’s Euclidian “empty container” [in the objective reality], what is quite natural consequence of the energy conservation law.

At that all/every material objects – particles, bodies, galaxies, etc. uninterruptedly move in the 4D sub-spacetime of the [5]4D spacetime with 4D speeds, which [the speeds] have identical absolute values that are equal to the standard speed of light; there is [if we don’t consider quantum mechanical effects] no other speeds in Matter.

And, simultaneously, all/every objects and the system “Matter” as a whole move along the 5-th coordinate of the spacetime [along the “true time” dimension/coordinate] with the standard speed of light also.

Correspondingly

“…Hypothetically, there is no any movement at zero temperature.”

that isn’t so, since relate to the 3D spatial motion of the material objects only; when the motion is only some [including observable] effect of changes of the objects. In Matter every object can change [and changes always; again, because of the energy conservation law] its state by two ways: (i) – when it changes its 3D spatial position, and (ii) – when the object change its internal state. Changing of internal state of an object is its motion along the 0-th dimension/coordinate, which is temporal, in Matter case “coordinate time” coordinate. Time is rather similar to Space - it is “the space for changes”, including when a changing thing doesn’t move in “simply space”.

So, for example, if an object is at the absolute 3D spatial rest, it moves along “coordinate time” axis with maximal speed, i.e. with the speed of light; and in this case its internal state changes with maximal rate. Since special objects “clocks” are made so, that they show the rate of changing of their internal states, clocks that are at absolute 3D rest tick with maximal rate. If an object moves in the 3D space, then its speed in  the coordinate time slows; since the coordinate time axis is fundamentally orthogonal to any spatial line, the slowing is in the reverse Lorentz factor, as that Pythagoras prescribed.

Etc. more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

 Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

 Dear Sergey,

I like your remark: "Any thing in Matter in our Universe hasn’t some aim to move – material objects cannot have some aims." This is the best answer to the original question. 

Second, before to discuss something we must clearly define the meaning of the key words. What is the definition of "motion (move)"

Concerning you answer. It's based on your enclosed publication. I'm not expert in this field and would like to rely upon opinions of other people working in this area. I did not find any citation of your work. 

Dear Yurii,

“…Any thing in Matter in our Universe hasn’t some aim to move – material objects cannot have some aims." This is the best answer to the original question. …”

-  that isn’t the best answer on the question since doesn’t relate to physics; that is rather inessential grammar remark. The answer on the thread’s question is the rest text of the SS  post above.

“…before to discuss something we must clearly define the meaning of the key words. What is the definition of "motion (move)"…”

-   it seems as rather probable, that the notion/phenomenon “motion” in the SS post above is the same as the notion/phenomenon “movement” in your post above.  That’s enough?

“…I'm not expert in this field and would like to rely upon opinions of other people working in this area…”

-   People can have a lot of different opinions relating to the same points; and so it seems as rather not too rational to relay upon sombodies opinions only, they can be rather strange…

More see the SS post on 2-th page and the linked paper; though if you aren’t an expert in this field, here you can have some problems with understanding.

Cheers