movement question

bonzelite · Mar 6, 2007

ok clarification: empty void = theoretical, doesn't really exist as far as we know; ie, outer space is full of "stuff" outer space = backdrop of "nothingness" containing all of the "stuff." outer space, ie, "nothingness," itself would otherwise be an empty void were none of the "stuff" in it. i posit that "outer space" is not this fabricated idea of "spacetime," ie, a "thing" or substance. it's a deep and infinite abyss of nothingness containing "stuff."

yevaud · Mar 6, 2007

Nothingness traditionally includes such factors as no substance, no dimensions, no time, no quantum fluctuations, no propagation of energy. In fact, no physical laws whatsoever. By those definitions, you and I would not and could not even exist, let alone be sitting here chatting with each other. Or in a ship travelling through the "Nothingness." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

chesh · Mar 6, 2007

"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 deg.(sic) K." Unless the spacecraft is giving off gamma rays, which seems rather unlikely, as that would kill the passengers, some visible light, some radio/microwave and MOSTLY IR photons are going to be given off. Altho if it's as well sealed and insulated to survive a very long space voyage near Zero K., it's going to giving off very little radiation at all. ONLY gamma rays create e-/e+ pairs, at 0.511 Mev's. IR does not. and most of those recombine anyway to form more gamma which often then simply cascades down to a lower energy making further e-/e+ pair formation highly unlikely. It's highly unlikely such would be even detectable. Let's try to visualize what's going on with the spacecraft hull. The loss of electrons from the hull materials would be a far, far more likely source of such particles, as the density compared to innate gamma radiation would be enormous. But e- are 1/1839 the mass of protons anyway, and depending on the speeds, the collision of the hull materials with that 1 atom of hydrogen/cu m. of space, the atom moving at high speed relative to the craft is going to dislodge a LOT more materials from those high energy mini impacts than will gamma rays. and most of that would be shed into interstellar space, as the lateral blast of the impacts would necessarily accelerate most of the particles blasted away from the hull. when we try to visualize what's actually going on on the space scraft hull, we get usually a much better more realistic few of what's going on. BTW space is NOT empty. The Casimir effect shows it's full of virtual particles as parts of quantum processess all over. Space is NOT empty. The Casimir effect shows this. It's full of fields and quantum space.

yevaud · Mar 6, 2007

I've always felt that the misunderstanding about "Space" versus "Void" to the layman is that the former word has similar connotations to the latter. But space, in the physical meaning, denotes limits, which are provided by the physical laws that govern our universe. Void means the utter lack of anything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

chesh · Mar 6, 2007

When I read Bonzelite's posts, most of the time I get the impression of no real depth of understanding or knowledge in the sciences, and simply many made up guesses which are wildly at variance with carefully established scientific facts. Why his posts should continue to make these wild, silly and usually very mistaken sentences is quite peculiar. It does remind me of trolling. Just pointing out an observation.

chesh · Mar 6, 2007

"I've always felt that the misunderstanding about "Space" versus "Void" to the layman is that the former word has similar connotations. But space, in the physical meaning, denotes limits, which are provided by the physical laws that govern our universe. Void means the utter lack of anything." Sort of a nice way of saying that most laiety really don't have very much of an idea what's going on in physics. That seems very true around here. Chehehs

yevaud · Mar 6, 2007

Unfortunately so at times. But then again, we do have a fairly astute and knowledgeable crew here as well. I think that compensates well for the effect. I'd spend more time here again, except I'm quite busy at the present. (Got to finish the "This Day in Science History" thread one of these days...) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Mar 6, 2007

"Nothingness traditionally includes such factors as no substance, no dimensions, no time, no quantum fluctuations, no propagation of energy. In fact, no physical laws whatsoever. By those definitions, you and I would not and could not even exist, let alone be sitting here chatting with each other. Or in a ship travelling through the "Nothingness."" in my opinion you're adhering to quantum mechanical theory too closely. the deep abyss of outer space is nothingness. what you suggest is an intellectual-only "state." in other words, it's great for conversation but entirely untenable, itself non-existent. yet this does not connote the existence of "spacetime," which is what you are suggesting. for example, there are no "quantum fluctuations" confirmed to exist, nor explained by physics. those are made up. nothingness of the void is what material existence is measured against, with void itself not being of any material structure. spatial dimension is defined only by material objects; motiion defined only by objects releative to each other. you remove these conditions from the void and you have nothingness. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

yevaud · Mar 6, 2007

Nope, this is a strict definition, not a debateable thing. Nothingness as you propose it, couldn't support you, your atoms, the forces holding you together, hell, the very formation of those atoms. There are literally no physical laws involved in a void. You're proposing an object from a defined physical space trying to exist in a region where there are no physical laws that allow that object to even exist at all. It just plain cannot occur. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Mar 6, 2007

There are literally no physical laws involved in a void. the physical space itself has no material structure. if you introduce einsteinian spacetime, this implies physical structure, but this is never defined in physics. You're proposing an object from a defined physical space trying to exist in a region where there are no physical laws that allow that object to even exist at all. physical laws apply to physical objects within the space. the space itself has no structure. just the same as there is no actual absolute movement that exists. you have only one object in space, it cannot move. it can accelerate but it will not move (in a theoretical existence where no other particles or objects exist but one). you add another object relative to the accelerating one then "movement" exists. you remove both objects, "no-thing" exists --nothing, as there is nothing to define x, y, z coordinates. It just plain cannot occur. in my opinion, it's occurring right now: a coexistence of nothing with something; each defines the other.

bad_drawing · Mar 7, 2007

Wow...this is interesting.. and I'm amazed at how fired up people are getting! What if we defined the universe as a two dimensional white circle, and the space ship as a black dot that can move either direction (CW, CCW) at any speed around the white circle. I would say in this hypothetical that it is unknown if the spaceship is ever in motion because it is never any closer or further from any reference point. Even if one had a "God View" of the circle "universe" from the outside, you could not distinguish if the spaceship was in motion and the universe was stationary, or if the whole universe was in motion and the spacecraft stationary, or some combination. Of course that's a very taylored hypothetical. When it comes to more realistic hypotheticals using known physics, I can see how it gets much much MUCH trickier... This whole thread makes me think of those old video games where the spaceship would sit in the middle of the screen, and the environment would scroll past you, giving you an idea of speed and location.

vandivx · Mar 7, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />This is very confusing. Lets say that you DID "move", and traveled 100-Billion light years in one direction. In our example, the universe is infinite, and no other matter exists within it. Given these conditions, if you traveled 100-Billion light years in one direction, how have you actually moved at all? If the universe is infinite and without matter, the amount we actually moved should be INFINETLY small, no? <hr /></blockquote> you set up invalid, falacious conditions - universe of 'infinite extent' and I tell you if you used infinity like this in math class you wouldn't pass your exams and that's a fact, no math teacher would allow you to use infinity as if it was a number and could denote the length of anything (as numbers do), I take it you are too young to have taken math classes that teach one to use infinity think of what you are suggesting there when you are hinting what answer we should give you in your quote - I mean if 'you traveled 100-Billion light years in one direction' and then you see yourself that the conclusion should be that you didn't move at all ("how have you actually moved at all?"), doesn't it come to you as paradox (ie., result of illogical or invalid argument) and don't you think something is badly wrong with your querry if you get such nonsensical outcome? if something like that happened to me the first thing that I would do would be to go and check my premises, in your case that is the 'infinite extent' of universe... in early days of computing programmers invented acronym GIGO which means Garbage In Garbage Out and it applies here exactly the absence of matter in your question is about another thing still (about meaning of relative motion) and I don't quite see why you mix those two ideas - in the absence of other matter around you can't tell if you are moving or not (more exactly you can't determine una <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Mar 7, 2007

you set up invalid, falacious conditions - universe of 'infinite extent' his conditions are valid. they are provocative thought experiments just as are the many ideas, if not most, that einsteinian relativity theory posits --as thought experiements-- with mathematical theoretical models albeit, yet nonetheless hypothetical --if not nearly entirely erroneous in the case of STR and GR. this is a relativity thread in disguise. his thought experiement posing as a question raises extremely valuable points that are left unexplained in our physics, as we are supposed to swallow hook, line, and sinker the idea of a finite spacetime fabric that is not only unbelievable, but never explained nor defined in physics --actually breaking it's own laws when convenient. regardless, his quesiton eloquently illustrates relative motion between objects --without any absolute motion. this is very far-reaching, as this can continue on to gravity and Newtonian "law" that posits the "natural" state "tendency" of objects is to remain in a straight-line path when there is no such possession of such an absolute state in existence. there is no motion at all "really" or "actually" --only relatively created and interdependent upon other objects to define motion and actual and literal existence of material itself, as outer space is not comprised of anything. this thread reveals as well the very high likelihood that no such expansion of "spacetime" due to a "big bang" exists either, as our cosmos, the abyss and void that it is, possesses no absolute structure of definition; it is not comprised of gravitons, does not possess inherent "wrinking" or "curvature around objects" --implying actual physical structure.

search · Mar 7, 2007

Let's try to visualize what's going on with the spacecraft hull. The loss of electrons from the hull materials would be a far, far more likely source of such particles, as the density compared to innate gamma radiation would be enormous. Absolutely. The spaceship would eventually decay into the "empty space" (perfect vacuum) complying with the thermodinamic laws described. BTW space is NOT empty. The Casimir effect shows it's full of virtual particles as parts of quantum processess all over. Space is NOT empty. The Casimir effect shows this. It's full of fields and quantum space. Off course is not empty...I was joking (pulling is leg) with bonzelite...empty void...not only the outer space...got it?!<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Just a reminder of the initial question: 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. Isn't it safe to say that, given these conditions, the spacecraft could never "move", even if was traveling at a very fast speed??? Empty:containing nothing, nor filled nor occupied. Void:In astronomy, voids are the empty spaces between filaments, the largest-scale structures in the Universe that contain very few, or no, galaxies. Voids typically have a diameter of 11 to 150 Mpc; particularly large voids, defined by the absence of rich superclusters, are sometimes called supervoids. Voids located in high-density environments are smaller than voids situated in low-density spaces of the universe. Based on this I must assume that the spacecraft is somewhere in the Universe and that it is assumed for the purpose of the mental exercise that this imaginary universe is empty. <</safety_wrapper>

chesh · Mar 7, 2007

Because your posts are the ones which claimed that protons are made out of electrons, meaning the proton has a charge of 1840 electrons, your posts are rather devoid of scientific meaning and substantiation. Why such unscientific nonsense is tolerated is rather mysterious. One doubts from your posts that they show any real evidence of quantum mechanics information. So that your posts mention of them is largely irrevelevant to a scientific discussion. Curiously missing from your posts' expostulations are ANY solid, substantiating scientific references. These problems render your posts as highly dubious.

vandivx · Mar 7, 2007

I am going to pick on just this part of your post bonzelite <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />there is no motion at all "really" or "actually" --only relatively created and interdependent upon other objects to define motion and actual and literal existence of material itself, as outer space is not comprised of anything.<hr /></blockquote> ~~~~~~ lets look at how we determine that relative motion that you are such a staunch advocate of suppose there are two spaceships in deep space someplace and they fly in from opposite directions and pass by each other at some safe distance... astronauts traveling on the ships are curious about their mutual relative speed and they come up with some particular speed which they say is the relative speed of the two spaceships now strictly speaking the 'relative speed' of the two bodies (spaceships) should really be measured along the line connecting the two bodies at any moment and it would be the process of determining how the distance between the two bodies changes in dependence on time but that is not how we measure the relative speed instead we measure it in a 'coordinate frame of reference' which is like placing an imaginary graph paper in space on which we can have one of the ships at rest (be in the rest frame of that ship) and we measure the speed of the other ship as it makes its way across that graph paper, that is, we really measure its speed 'relative to space', not relative to the other ship! the 'true relative speed' of the two ships coincides with the 'speed in space' in only one special case - when the two ships are flying on a collision course along a straight line, in all other cases the 'true relative speed' is constantly changing, the more so the closer the ships get to each other I can see the cries now that the speed in coordinate frame of reference IS the relative speed between the two bodies, that that is how it is tought in <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

chesh · Mar 7, 2007

Just a reminder of the initial question: 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. Isn't it safe to say that, given these conditions, the spacecraft could never "move", even if was traveling at a very fast speed???" The thing is meaningless. Thre is no such thing as a spacecraft as you describe above. Any meaningfull visualization must have natural, existing, real referents. This has none. "Absolutely. The spaceship would eventually decay into the "empty space" (perfect vacuum) complying with the thermodinamic laws described." No it wouldn't necessarily at all. It would might come to rest, but the matter would not decay nor come apart nor diffuse. 10's of billions of years could very easily go by without any change in that at all. Unless it were a very tiny nano-spaceship.

bonzelite · Mar 7, 2007

Isn't it safe to say that, given these conditions, the spacecraft could never "move", even if was traveling at a very fast speed???" correct

bonzelite · Mar 7, 2007

instead we measure it in a 'coordinate frame of reference' which is like placing an imaginary graph paper in space... ok. sure ...n which we can have one of the ships at rest (be in the rest frame of that ship) and we measure the speed of the other ship as it makes its way across that graph paper, that is, we really measure its speed 'relative to space', not relative to the other ship! a hypothetical and absolute void of outer space has no physical structure nor any absolute or actual reference without material objects. it is only by the manner of the material objects within it do we have any sense of motion. in space, there are only coasting objects and accelerating objects. if only one object in all of the universe exists, whether coasting or accelerating, is not moving. in a "god view" of this inplausible idea, no motion of the object can be detected against a background of nothingness. for all purposes it is permanently static unless it accelerates. and against nothing, an acceleration will only be felt and not seen in a "god view" as movement against a backdrop of nothingness. if one object is sitting, and one accelerates past the "resting" object, the one at rest can just as well be coasting past the accelerating object, as it will be seen to move relative to the accelerating object's point of view. a relative speed between the coasting object and the accelerating object can be determined. but this is not absolute, either. another coasting object can come along coasting faster than the "resting" one. now you bring up a good point about coordinates. drawing a graph paper in space of x, y, z coordinates cannot establish an absolute frame of reference either, as another x, y, z coordinate system can be placed right beside the first one, slightly off register from the first x, y, z coordinates. and then another, and an

vandivx · Mar 8, 2007

a hypothetical and absolute void of outer space has no physical structurebsolute void, ho hum, I think I will have to pass on you (not that I expected otherwise really) that's something I can't can't even imagine much less deal with it logically, also don't believe matter could exist in a void or that you could see through a void why are all particles of the same kind (any kind) indistinguishable and fully interchangable, to me that means they must spring from one underlying fabric of space or else you must believe in some god who makes them so by some divine fiat or some other form of magic space to you is also something that is just here and you think nothing of it same as the herd of human sheep has done for thousands of years while staring straight into it where do you think the resistance (inertia) comes from when you accelerate matter, do you believe in bootstrap forces or in unreal (virtual) particles that somehow do the job of resisting you if one object is sitting, and one accelerates past the "resting" object, the one at rest can just as well be coasting past the accelerating object, as it will be seen to move relative to the accelerating object's point of view. a relative speed between the coasting object and the accelerating object can be determined. but this is not absolute, either. another coasting object can come along coasting faster than the "resting" one. accelerating object suffers effects of inertial force and the magnitude of that force won't change (its absolute) no matter if other (faster or slower) coasting objects are considered, that should tell you something I should think... anyway I think you didn't want to use the term 'accelerated' here or else I am confused why you use it also nowhere do I claim absolute speed can be determined or absolute frame of reference established drawing a g <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Mar 8, 2007

you seem hung up on outer space being made of "something," ie, a la "spacetime fabric," yet you cannot describe or produce for me any such justification for this belief other than that "simon says;" einstein says so. therefore, "i will continue to support this view even though it has no basis for existing and does not describe what is really there." I think you didn't want to use the term 'accelerated' here or else I am confused why you i state clearly the term acceleration of objects. objects either coast, "sit still," or accelerate. that is all there is. also nowhere do I claim absolute speed can be determined or absolute frame of reference established ok, pardon that oversight of mine. we agree. I didn't claim that coordinate frame of reference (graph paper in space) can establish and absolute frame of reference, I only wanted to bring out the fact that when we measure the relative speed of objects we really measure their progress as they move accross space, that is we don't measure the rate of change of distance to the other object with respect to change in time (as that is what the true relative motion really should mean) again, we are good on that. so what your disagreement with outer space, hypothetically without any objects in it, as being "no-thing?" that is what it is, but you seem to believe that --nope-- there has just got to be "something" in a void of nothing, or the void itself must be made of "something." why? it is sad that you who know the proper grammar so well (it is extremely rare that i of yours) should move in so misguided frame of reference as to make communication almost futile, at least when it comes to how the world is made up what? i'm not misguided about anything. i am debunk

vandivx · Mar 8, 2007

so what your disagreement with outer space, hypothetically without any objects in it, as being "no-thing?" that is what it is, but you seem to believe that --nope-- there has just got to be "something" in a void of nothing, or the void itself must be made of "something." why? why... most simply it is because I have a full blown theory worked out for which the fabric of absolute space is prime prerequisite, also because it is needed logically - it is a logical fallacy to believe in void, third - current official physics cries for absolute space but it is in denial of it, fourth - ancients hypothesised ether of absolute space, it used to be also called quintesence, if I have learned something in physics in many years, it is that you should heed words of your elders (and more so those of your ancient predecesors). I don't think the Greek philosophers and later scientists throughout history surpassed our current knowledge but at the same time many ideas they had came true in some ways or as the case may be in this case, still to come true. In the very least their ideas can stimulate your thinking in new ways about our physics, however the idea of absolute space was really forced on me without such considerations, my therory of inertia simply demanded it and I really feel like everybody should just shut up on this issue of absolute space because to this day nobody has any clue about inertia and that is something in this day of quantum mechanics and general relativity etc when physicists are totally lost on this issue, there I should also add that I have very great respect to what Newton said, I'd say he was way smarter for his time than any scientist that lived since his day and his ideas also have funny way of returning centuries after being thrown out, he always pays to be read carefully the void - the utter absence of anything at all is simply non-thinkable, also I wouldn't dream of the absolu <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Mar 8, 2007

most simply it is because I have a full blown theory worked out for which the fabric of absolute space is prime prerequisite, also because it is needed logically an aether of "absoluteness" of outer space is not needed logically at all. "absolute space fabric" or "aether" is a mode of thinking based upon einsteinian spacetime, which is not necessary nor is necessarily actually existing. spacetime is the modern-day backdoor "aether" whether anyone wants to believe that or not. science has not ever dropped the "aether," as we are hot on the trail of fantasy particles such as gravitons and virtual particles and quantum foam or froth --all of this is simply re-branding the same pack of hot dogs. it is a logical fallacy to believe in void, it's not any such fallacy. if anything, the fallacy is the notion of an undefined, unproven, theoretical, intellectual-only based "fabric of spacetime" that is unexplainable scientifically and violates laws of physics when convenient to do so. the ether is the last stop for me if there is such an aether, then you are making a "bread sandwich." thing is defined by no-thing. in a theoretical outer space of only one object, it is not able to move because no-thing else defines it's relative position. an aether would imply something can absolutely define it's position and motion. second, the fabric of space that we may call absolute space or ether or fifth essence is not made of matter but it is that from which matter comes to be (from which matter is born), it exists on the lower level of existential hierarchy than matter (you should read my other post I made yesterday on the thread on Pioneer anomaly...) this comes off as just a bit pretentious^^^ "fifth essence is not made of matter but it is that from w

vandivx · Mar 8, 2007

spacetime is the modern-day backdoor "aether" whether anyone wants to believe that or not that's true but spacetime is held to be strictly an abstract construct because nobody would know how to deal with it if it was deemed to be something and therefore absolute, that is why it is like having ether and not having it schisophreny of modern physics, it is precisely the case of what I said - that absolute space is forcing itself upon scientists in many of their theories but they are in denial of it and gloss over it in denial science has not ever dropped the "aether," as we are hot on the trail of fantasy particles such as gravitons and virtual particles and quantum foam or froth --all of this is simply re-branding the same pack of hot dogs. right again although this one is much poorer substitute than the spacetime is - discrete particles flying or knocking about cannot supply all of universe permeating ether substratum that defines by its extent the extent of universe - such poor would be substitution only confirms what I said about the felt need of absolute space in physics, particle background is just another evasion to have ether background but one without absolute properties (again because nobody would know how to deal with it - ie., how to have relativity and all that) if anything, the fallacy is the notion of an undefined, unproven, theoretical, intellectual-only based "fabric of spacetime" that is unexplainable scientifically allright dear bonzelite, please define and prove for me your void and do it non-theoretically and non-intellectually (as you object that my idea of absolute space is 'theoretical' only and 'intellectual-only based), in short I want to see you prove to me your void by means of an experiment, I will believe in your void after I place my hand into it to feel it and see it (like unbe <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Mar 8, 2007

"the relationship between ether and matter can be illustrated by means of an analogous relationship between a vegetable field and its produce. Just as it would be wrong (for a farmer) to classify together, in the same category, the field's soil and the produce growing out of it so, in a similar way, it would be wrong for us here to classify together the ether and matter in one common category. Although the produce is, in a sense, just another form of the field's soil, that does not yet make the soil itself any kind of vegetable produce and similarly it is the case with matter and ether. The ether is a unique existent, it is not some fifth kind of matter or any kind of matter at all." ok ^^^that sounds fine to me. van, for the record during this whole debate i have understood where your point lies. i know the aether, in this sense, is this separate and absolute thing that is the grand and final backdrop to all of existence. i actually like the idea more than spacetime; call it conservative or not. the spacetime idea is not a noble belief of progressive thinking just because it rejects aether, just because "simon says." although this is a bit more obtuse: "the knot (matter) is not a rope and the rope (aether) is not a knot although the first depends for its existence on the second (knot depends on there being a rope as matter depends for its existence on there being aether)" this is getting back to the aether being nearly if not exactly like spacetime, as it is a physical structure --undefined as "traditional" matter-- having ripples, waves, otherwise impinging traits akin to a "substance." this aether can even kinda sorta exhibit traits of all known states of matter whilst not being any one of them in particular. and i say there is only a void of non-substance, and material objects. indeed, we are both t

movement question

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

chesh

Guest

yevaud

Guest

chesh

Guest

chesh

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bad_drawing

Guest

vandivx

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

search

Guest

chesh

Guest

vandivx

Guest

chesh

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

vandivx

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

vandivx

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

vandivx

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page