Stationary Buoys in Space

xmo1 · Feb 2, 2005

Statement: Everything is moving in space. Space is nothing, so there is nothing to be moving. There is a range of speed that applies to moving objects in space. That range must be from />0 to some positive number, and if there is a range of speed, then there must be (or should be) stationary objects with 0 speed. Could matter or energy exist with 0 speed? #2 I don't know if space (the envelopment of space) is expanding or even moving at all, or could even be said to be moving even though the elements in it may or may not be moving in an outward direction from some source location. Couldn't we throw a bouy out there, and stablize its motion to 0 miles per hour in space, so we could measure the speed of other objects in space relative to its location? I guess the question then would be, How would we know when it is not moving? Is that correct? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

nexium · Feb 2, 2005

I don't think matter and energy ceace to exist at zero speed, no matter what referece you use for zero. With improved technology, we could perhaps launch a bouy and procaim it stationary, but the motions of some things would be counter intuitive in this proclaimed frame of reference. We can say the most distant galaxy is stationary and we are rushing away at almost the speed of light. Neil

Saiph · Feb 2, 2005

<hr />Space is nothing, so there is nothing to be moving.<hr /> Acutally, I'd say there's nothing to measure and therefore you can't use it as a basis for anything really. Not that the nothing there is moving with speed = 0 m/s. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Feb 2, 2005

eburacum45 - OK, if we are moving 600 km per second away from the CMB, in what direction are we moving? North?

newtonian · Feb 2, 2005

Saiph - I know you know this: While space is nothing in the sense used in Job 26:7 when stating earth is hung upon nothing, nevertheless the fabric of space is not nothing in the absolute sense. Particles do wink in and out of existence from it, for example. It also apparently contains energy, perhaps including dark energy. Also, the IGM, i.e. intergalactic medium, is not actually empty even in the common sense - it is simply of very low density- mostly very hot, very ionized, gas. See Scientific American, 10/02, article entitled "The Emptiest Places."

xmo1 · Feb 3, 2005

I am aware of the speed of things up to the Milky Way. All totaled about 33 million miles a day. I don't know the speed of the local cluster, but I guess it would be the same as the galaxy. Beyond that is not known to me. The universe is expanding. The space moves with the matter and energy? Lets hold on that for a moment. Voyager is out there a couple of billion miles. Guess its still in the galaxy. If Voyager kicked on its imaginary retro rockets and came to a complete stop it would still be moving with the galaxy? So the space in the galaxy moves with it? Lets not talk about reference frames just yet. Imagine I want to put something directly between two galaxies that are 4 billion trillion miles apart. Couldn't I get it to stop moving? "There is no frame of reference which is stationary." That is a fairly important statement to me at least. Comments appreciated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

xmo1 · Feb 3, 2005

Yes, everything "has" to be moving all the way down to subatomic particles. That has to do with the electromotive force that glues everything together. When things stop moving you have entropy, and basically everything falls on the floor and disintegrates (kids usually know the principle fairly well). There is another term "inert" which describes those particles before they disintegrate. If you find inert particles they go into the trash can. Please forgive my levity. Been a long day. I think I'm right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

Saiph · Feb 3, 2005

You could position and maneuver a spacecraft to be stationary to any object (or system if you find the net velocity of the system). However it's the exact same as being stationary to a truck, moving down the highway. Sure, you can set things up so the truck always sees you right next to it. But you're still moving at quite a clip to anything else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

xmo1 · Feb 4, 2005

Still left with these two questions: 1. So the space in the galaxy moves with it? 2. Imagine I want to put something directly between two galaxies that are 4 billion trillion miles apart. Couldn't I get it to stop moving? Since the time of the big bang, I'm guessing there must be things in space that have stopped moving due to collisions with other objects. Even with the expansion of the universe, these things are stationary. That is the nature of an explosion. Some things smack into other things and simply fall to the ground. Even if it were a completely outward explosion things would still smack into the backends of other things, and when orbits tended to occur you would have movement from opposing directions which could absolutely stop some things. I'm thinking it is not only possible, but probable that there are stationary objects in space, and probably a large number of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

nacnud · Feb 4, 2005

1. So the space in the galaxy moves with it? No, there is no way to measure it. There is no ether to measure velocity against. Velocity can only be measured relatively against objects and space isn't an object that can be measured against. 2. Imagine I want to put something directly between two galaxies that are 4 billion trillion miles apart. Couldn't I get it to stop moving? Stop it relative to what? You could put it at the centre of mass of the two objects and have it stationary to that but it would still be moving in relation to other objects in the Universes as a whole.

siarad · Feb 4, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />space isn't an object that can be measured against<hr /></blockquote> It seems light does a good job at this relying on spaces' permittivity & permeability to travel. That is if light does actually have a speed.

newtonian · Feb 4, 2005

xmo1- I hate answering a question with a question, but in this case I must. You posted: So the space in the galaxy moves with it? My question I need answered first is: What is your definition of space? Or, which definition are you using? Are you referring, for example, to the ISM- the interstellar medium, the local analog of the IGM, the intergalactic medium? [in that case, the answer is yes] Or are you referring to the vacuum of space (literal space is not a vacuum- see Scientiific American, 10/02, article "The Emptiest Places") from which vacuum energy derives, aka dark energy, aka the cosmological constant? [In that case I do not know, though the Pioneer probes anomalous slowing may be a clue to the answer] Are you referring to space as literally and absolutely nothing, which may exist for a certain distance between our universe's edge and the nearest other universe in a specific direction and dimension? [that does not apply] Or are you referring to space-time which began at the origin of our universe? [We don't know. I suspect that the space-time fabric of our universe is expanding someone independently of the local motions of galaxies] Are you referring to the expanding fabric of space? [Again, this may be independent - one clue would be inflation theory which would have the speed limit of this expansion as faster than light speed.] Or are you including other dimensions, such as the 11 dimensions in one version of String Theory? [Perhaps, perhaps not - they have not been directly observed; compare the collision of branes theory for the origin of our universe] I tried to answer using some definitions, but before going into depth, I need the definition you are using.

tony873004 · Feb 4, 2005

"If you choose the CMB we are travelling at about 600 kilometers per second with respect to that..." I've heard this before, but I never really understood it. All radiation moves at the speed of light. But if we're moving at 600 km/s relative to CBR then CBR must be moving at 600 km/s relative to us. But how can radiation move at only 600 km/s rather than the speed of light?

Saiph · Feb 4, 2005

1) no, just like space doesn't move with you. 2) Sure, but by doing so you alter how you move with respect to everything else. Once again, lets use cars on a highway. Its rush hour, but no traffic jam. You look out the window and notice what? Most of the cars are barely moving at all, though the background (the earth) zips by at a good clip. The cars are relatively stationary relative to you, but you all zip around on the earth. Two cars collide and come to a stop relative to the earth. To you they now zip by at high speeds. Velocity is entirely relative. You can come to a stop relative to one thing, or a system of similarly moving thigns. But by doing so you continue to move relative to others. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nexium · Feb 5, 2005

Hi xmo1: Voyager is still in our Galaxly and likely will not leave in the next million years. By some definitions Voyager is still in our solar System. Lets say Voyager is receding from our sun at 50,000 miles per hour. After retro rockets = zero miles per hour, with no horizontal component. The gravity of the sun will now cause Voyager to fall toward the sun. The speed will increase slowly at first, but exceed 50,000 miles per hour just before Voyager hits the Sun. If you find two galaxies that have negligible matter between them or near them; they might not be moving (temporarilly) with respct to each other or your space craft, but they will after a time be falling toward each other (due to the attraction of gravity on each other) at a significant rate. (you need a horizontal component of speed to orbit) Your space craft could stay equidistant from both (approximately) for millions of years, but that distance would be shrinking so you would not be stationary with respect to either galaxies.Your speed with respect to one gaxaxy could remain close to zero for thousands of years. However, you and the 2 galaxies are moving at a significant speed relative to 99.99999999% of the rest of the stuff in the Universe at any given instant, in every scenario I can think of. Neil

newtonian · Feb 5, 2005

eburacum45- You lost me on that last post! The CMB is at a uniform distance, not a uniform direction. It is at a uniform distance in all directions in 3 dimensions. Therefore this should have little or no effect on our travelling towards the Great Attractor, which is in a specific direction, not all directions. My light question: in which direction are we travelling away from the CMB? North?

lroux · Feb 6, 2005

This thread reminds me of a story I once began. A group of scientists invent a time machine, but every time they send an object back in time it just plain disappears. They call in another scientist and he realizes that the object is truly going back in time - but being as the earth is moving, the solar system is moving, etc, the object is just somewhere appearing in space where the Earth was at the time it was sent back. Even if you went back in time one second you would appear thousands of miles away from the Earth. Being as there was no way to both a) send the object back in time and b) send the object to a place where the earth *was* at the time the destination was set for - the project had to be scrubbed. At least working through the story made me realize how silly time travel ideas really are.

mott · Feb 7, 2005

i agree with you something has to be standing still. but how would we know? if it is still what would we compare it to? earth, sun,??

Saiph · Feb 8, 2005

nothing "has" to be standing still. Things can appear to be standing still to some things, moving to others. Since there is absolutely no way to tell if something is moving, or stationary, by itself, any designation of what's moving and what's not, is entirely arbitrary. Imagine you're in a car, or heck, be in a car. Windows closed. Now, do something, do anything, to show that your moving, and it's not the earth moving at 40mph under you. Or to use the classic example, you're in a plane, windows shut. How do you prove you're in the air travelling at 600mph over the earths surface, and not on the tarmac (engines running) waiting to lift off. Looking out the window doesn't count btw. Cause that just tells you that the car and earth are moving with respect to eachother. Neither does invoking shaking, acceleration or other things. Cause if you do that, you aren't in what's called "uniform motion". We can tell if something is accelerating as opposed to something else. Because the accelerated object feels the force, they change direction, the other object doesn't percieve a single thing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Feb 9, 2005

the tachometer says there is a 40mph difference in the speed between you and ground. It doesn't say which is moving the ground, or the car. You can get the same thing by holding the car still and yanking the pavement out from under it at 40mph. The Tachometer will read the same thing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Feb 9, 2005

eburacum45- Sorry, but I thought it was radiation from the Great Attractor that is blue-shifted as observed from Milky Way! Not CMB radiation!

newtonian · Feb 10, 2005

xmo!- Would you consider the source of CMB radiation to be like a stationary buoy in space? Or, further back the singularity itself from which a universe was created?

newtonian · Feb 10, 2005

Iroux - Hi! Reverse time travel may be silly or impossible. Forward time travel is indeed real! Have you heard of Tachyons? They are a theoretical type of matter, or particles, which travel faster than light and cannot slow to light speed. Some physicists seriously consider tachyons may exist. However, they also theorize tachyons would be travelling reverse in time! This is because of math formulas which predict the possibility of the existence of tachyons. However, I suspect FTL travel would still be forward in time, but would escape the matter of our universe. Perhaps even escape our universe's space-time!

Saiph · Feb 10, 2005

right, gotcha. 1) The engine can rev and the car not go anywhere as well. 2) If the wind is going the speed the earth is, no problem there either. 3) The closest you get is by invoking acceleration and forces, things that do break the relative velocity frames, however that also violates the setup. I said uniform velocity. You're also inside the car, so you're also "sealed off" just as well as you are with the elevator. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

xmo1 · Feb 11, 2005

My definition of space: If I must calculate the firing of rockets to get a slingshot effect with the moon, then I really don't care much about anything other than the mass of the moon and the mass of the vehicle. The definition depends on the purpose somewhat doesn't it. 1. It could be an area which has no forces acting upon or within it. 2. The space between two atmospheres or two masses or some variants of those might be considered space. 3. An asteroid is flying through space. Generally, I was considering something such as a rock, an asteroid, or a marble with nothing around it. If you wanted to get sophisticated you could ask: How did it get there? It appeared out of nothing, because obviously if it were put there, then it would have a speed relative to the object that made the deposit. Not to be too pedantic, but we don't know the universe is expanding, all we know is what our instrumentation tells us. With regard to the universe, more than likely our instruments reach their maximum potential before the universe does. Infinity, eternity, and existence define the universe for me, and everything else is imaginary. There should be a bunch of stuff at rest in that domain. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

Stationary Buoys in Space

xmo1

Guest

nexium

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

xmo1

Guest

xmo1

Guest

Saiph

Guest

xmo1

Guest

nacnud

Guest

siarad

Guest

newtonian

Guest

tony873004

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nexium

Guest

newtonian

Guest

lroux

Guest

mott

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

xmo1

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page