movement question

[holocene]

Picture for a second that the only matter in the entire univesre is a spacecraft, and that the universe itself is comprised of an empty void that goes on forever.<br /><br />Isn't it safe to say that, given these conditions, the spacecraft could never "move", even if was traveling at a very fast speed???<br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

Ah, one of those "without any reference" postulates.<br /><br />Yes, you are moving. The time/space continuum you move through still exists, even if devoid of matter. All of it's physical laws will still exist, and you will still experience time-dilation and so on.<br /><br />Does this help? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[holocene]

This is very confusing.<br /><br />Lets say that you DID "move", and traveled 100-Billion light years in one direction.<br /><br />In our example, the universe is infinite, and no other matter exists within it.<br /><br />Given these conditions, if you traveled 100-Billion light years in one direction, how have you actually moved at all?<br /><br />If the universe is infinite and without matter, the amount we actually moved should be INFINETLY small, no?<br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

Well, yes, your point is correct: we would move only an infinitely small distance compared to the total universe. But we have still moved.<br /><br />Really, the only difference you've postulated in this is that it's our universe (with all of it's inherent physical laws), save there is no matter in it except you and your ship. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

"<br />Isn't it safe to say that, given these conditions, the spacecraft could never "move", even if was traveling at a very fast speed??? <br />"<br /><br />you are correct. <br /><br />without another object relative to it, it is not moving. <br /><br />in outer space, there is only free-floating condtions. there is nothing but a void.

 

[yevaud]

You're physically in, existing in, moving through <i>something</i>, Bonz, not a total nothingness. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

outer space is a void. <br /><br />the thread's premise is no other thing exists except the space ship. <br /><br />relative to particles of dust, sure, the spaceship can be "moving." but space itself is nothing. it is something only in that it is outer space that defines things that are material and something. <br /><br />

 

[why06]

You dont understand. For time to pass you have to be moving....well I think...<br /><br />A better questio would be why move? If an experiment were even somehow done to show this what could be accomplished... Well I guess this is a thinking excercise. <br /><br />It depends what you call move... Your kind of asking "If tree fell in the woods" kind of question. The tree would make a sound, but no one would here it. Plus spaceship run on propellant so you would be moving in reference to something as soon as you started your engines... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

if the thread's original premise is played out in the thought experiment, without any other matter or particles but only the spaceship exists, it will not be moving. it may accelerate, but will remain stationary; nothing else exists in relative motion with it. <br /><br />it is only when another object floats past will a relative motion be detected. otherwise, the spaceship goes nowhere. from a hypothetical "outside" observer, the craft will appear to go nowhere. were the observer "within" this hypothetical void, then that observer would be the other thing relative to the craft, so movement would be observed.

 

[R1]

if the spaceship is nowhere,<br />(if it's in a void and absolutely nothing else exists)<br /><br />then the existence of the spaceship becomes immediately highly debateable too, <br />and therefore such experiment risks not taking place after all.<br /><br />but anyway, if the spaceship computer said it has burned 3 gallons of gas, then yes, the spaceship moved<br />and is probably thousands and thousands of miles away from the first fume of exhaust by now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Action reaction . . <br /><br />Very good point.<br /><br />Reaction mass will give you a reference and confirmation of your own motion.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

but the premise posits that there is no other particulate matter except the ship. dust, debris, fumes --are all objects with relative motion to the craft. <br /><br />therefore, in the hypothetical premise of the space craft existing only -soley without any other objects relative to it-- it cannot move.

 

[R1]

well if it's really in absolutely nothing, <br />in a total void, <br />absolutely nowhere, not even where there's quantum spacetime points,<br /><br />then it becomes immediately highly debateable that such spaceship even exists,<br />and therefore such experiment does not take place.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

the experiment does occur in thought. he is illustrating a point about relative motion and absolute movement --as there is no absolute movement in outer space. whether it can "actually" or not is not the point. <br /><br />as well, there is no proof of spacetime. the concept is incorrect and fake as is most of relativity theory. outer space is nothingness. it is not some "fabric." that is false.

 

[R1]

and I wonder too about time, clocks would tick very fast, in the absence of any matter to slow down<br />time gravitationally. <br />so the spaceship might exist, but maybe only for about 1 quantum time unit, if your premises allow<br />suficient quantum spacetime points for the spaceship to exist in, and then it's immediately non-existent,<br />because we're back to the beginning, where the ship is really nowhere<br /><br />if you don't allow specetime points for it to exist, then I suppose <br />that such spaceship only has a probabilty of existing at best. It's at best only a wave function and waiting<br />for spacetime points so there's really no time either, so the ship is evidently nowhere and without time to<br />exist.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Q-<br /><br />Where are we headed?<br /><br />A-<br /><br />Nowhere<br /><br />Q-<br /><br />Why are we going so fast?<br /><br />A-<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[R1]

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

ok bonzelite, in thought <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />thought is a high-level language, over matter,<br />just as matter is like a high-level language over subquantum mechanisms<br /><br />but right now they think that outer space is<br />not nothiness, but rather it's full of energy<br /><br />the fabric aspect is probably more than one level up from the subquantum disturbances and<br />pertains to the high-level matter level,<br /><br />but in thought I suppose space can be nothingness <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />but right now they think that outer space is <br />not nothiness, but rather it's full of energy </font><br /><br />think about what "they" are saying. they're not considering something very important. nevermind who they are for a minute. <br /><br />energy = matter so what you really mean to say is that outer space is full of matter. there is no "energy entity" or "energy existence" apart from matter. there is no energy-to-matter state of existence. it is only matter-to-matter. <br /><br />so outer space is nothingness. there is no quantum reality of matter to nothingness or a state of a void, which is outer space -- a frontier where material objects move relative to each other --a beautiful dance beyond words. <br /><br />by the way, you're a good sport and fun to read <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> i like your point of view and approach to reasoning.

 

[flyonthewall]

If you are using any type of propulsion that expels any waste whatsoever, then you will have a relative reference of movement. A streaming - comet like - tail of something' trailing behind you.<br /><br />And since you need to convert some form of matter into energy (at least according to our current understanding of energy/matter interactions) to make any movement occur (outside of time itself moving forward.) then there should be some residue left behind for reference to movement.<br /><br />Even if we could somehow contain all references of the energy we used to propel ourselves within the vessel, wouldn't there be some signature of space having been deformed in someway from our presence of being there to begin with? Some type of gravitational anomaly or wake*? no matter how imperceivable it may be to us.<br /><br />Since quantum gravity isn't well understood, if at all, space may be affected in ways we can not yet measure or possibly foresee. Which again could be a point of relative reference to movement. Indentations in the space/time fabric.<br /><br />And for those who say empty space is nothing* HOG WASH, it's a medium, or dimension if you will, which is a conducive environment for pure energy to have formed into the matter as we understand it today. And if people have even the slightest grasp of string theory, they wouldn't be so quick to jump on the space is nothing band wagon.<br /><br />So my answer to this hypothetical question is "yes, there would be movement".

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">Picture for a second that the only matter in the entire univesre is a spacecraft, and that the universe itself is comprised of an empty void that goes on forever. <br /><br />Isn't it safe to say that, given these conditions, the spacecraft could never "move", even if was traveling at a very fast speed??? </font><br /><br />What do you mean by "empty void"? No matter, no energy, nothing?<br /><br />It is virtually impossible to achieve perfect vacuum and the reason is that perfect vacuum is defined as a region in space without any particles. Now perfect vacuum space is what you are proposing.<br /><br />The problem is that the spacecraft itself will radiate photons (which in turn can create electron positron pairs in the vacuum) if it is not kept at a temperature of 0°K. Remember that a perfect vacuum has by definition a temperature of 0°K and reaching 0 °K is practically impossible because of the third law of thermodynamics:<br /><br />Third law of thermodynamics, about absolute zero temperature:<br />"As a system asymptotically approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value; also stated as: "the entropy of all systems and of all states of a system is zero as absolute zero" or equivalently "it is impossible to reach the absolute zero of temperature by any finite number of processes".<br /><br />Now imagining that absolut zero was the case in this perfect vacuum and according to the second law of thermodynamics which says:<br />"The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."<br /><br />The probably consequence to the spaceship would be to burn all the internal fuel while standing still with no possible movement and then decay into the perfect vacuum space until thermodynamic equilibrium is achieved a bit like the universe fated to a heat death since all the energy ends up as a homogeneous di

 

[unclefred]

This reminds me of an old episode of Star Trek. They were caught in a void in space. After zipping around and seeing absolutely nothing in any direction and not even sure if they were doing anything they hit on a great solution. The did an "all stop" and released a buoy marker. They then inched away from it and then blasted off at warp whatever keeping the marker directly behind them. Pretty inventive. After some time (I don't remember if it was days or what) then detected something directly ahead of them. It was their own marker buoy.<br /> To answer the original question about movement, yes there will be movement. All the laws of physics will apply. The only problem is we usually need other objects to provide a reference frame. What law of physics do you know of that requires objects outside the test environment?

 

[lukman]

What you mean is relative speed, yes, in your case, the spacecraft has a zero relative speed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

"<br /><br />What do you mean by "empty void"? No matter, no energy, nothing? "<br /><br />that is exactly what outer space is.

 

[search]

"empty void"...not only outer space...<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />