The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: In a totally empty infinitely huge dark vaccuum void could one move?  (Read 6983 times)

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Hello People of the forum

In my musings I have thought about speed and the logic of movement in a hypothetical totally empty, vacuum, void of infinite dimensions.

Example one

The void must be thought of as absolutely devoid of everything, light, energy, matter. Think about total black empty darkness in every direction, stretching outwards into infinity.

So in this thought we construct a space craft and place it in the void. This space vehicle can exceed the speed of light, indeed it can accelerate right up to a speed of infinity.

The void in this thought experiment is a total empty vacuum, not the impossible to state nothingness. Nothingness is the absence of everything!
 
The best description for the void in this thought problem is an absolutely empty vacuum devoid of everything except three dimensional space
 

So the space craft captain starts up his huge engine and drives the vehicle at maximum speed (infinity) in the direction of his headlights to ?somewhere? in the Abysmal empty infinite eternal darkness


Now the question, has the spacecraft moved?

If you think it has then to where has it moved?

Example two



We could try this experiment from a different angle if you like.

The earth revolves on its axis at a 1000 miles per hour, around the sun at 60 thousand miles per hour, the sun revolves around the galaxy at 160 thousand miles per hour, the galaxy is moving towards the Andromeda galaxy at a million miles per hour and the whole bunch are moving outward due to the expansion of the universe at a huge rate of almost half the speed of light
 
"Please guys this is just an approximation gleaned from memory".
 
All this interacting twisted intertwined movements makes the earth appear to be moving is a crazy way through the universe. Much like a twisted fishing knotted reel
 
So let us start by removing, first the other galaxies and matter besides ours, then all the stars and matter in our galaxy.
 
Leaving our solar system as the only one in a vast and lonely universe
 
Then remove all the other planets, sun and matter from the solar .

The earth is now embraced by the eternal abysmal dark alone in the vast empty vacuum void
 
Where as before its movements relative to all the objects in the universe were twisted, convoluted and complex and almost at half light speed.

What now as the only object in the vastness of the empty vacuum void?
 
The earth is now totally alone!
 
Has it stopped??
 
Does it still move?

Take it from there guys!

Alan


 
__________________



 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
eg 1
"Now the question, has the spacecraft moved?

If you think it has then to where has it moved?"

Yes, it has moved the peopl on board would have felt the accelleration.


It is now further away from the exhaust gasses or whatever it threw out in order to make itself move.

And, for the second example.
"Has it stopped??
 
Does it still move?
"
No, it's still spinning and you could verify this by looking at the time kept by a pendulum clock at different latitudes.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Bored chemist

Quote
Yes, it has moved the peopl on board would have felt the accelleration

Acceleration to where, without a reference point it still ends up nowhere?

As far as the folks on board they are still in the same place

Alan
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"Acceleration to where, without a reference point it still ends up nowhere?"
Who cares?
They would still have felt the effect of being pushed back into their seats. With an accelerometer and a couple of integrators they would know their velocity and position WRT their initial position. (Though why they would care is another matter.)
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Bored Chemist

How about this

You could say it moves at an infinite velocity, because what other conditions are there to relate to say it is not moving? But then you could say movement transcends the potential the object really has, because well... velocity requires relative objects. The object, if the only object, (thus the only condition in this "void") cannot therefore have zero movement, because that implies a value. Zero is not the opposite of infinity.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
The fact that all velocity is relative is not really news.
Incidentally, while "you could say movement transcends the potential the object really has, because well... velocity requires relative objects" I'm not sure it would mean anything
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Bored Chemist

Imagine our hypothetical space vehicle just before starting its engine It is really nowhere but everywhere. Infinity stretches out in every direction at that moment just prior to engine start up.

The engine is fired up and accelerates to a speed of near that of infinity for a thousands hours.


Then the engine is switched off. But infinity continues to stretch exactly as before.  Hs the space craft gone anywhere? or is it nowhere? but everywhere".

The only thing that has meaning is the space ship!!
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Quote
The only thing that has meaning is the space ship!!

And as BC already mentioned, whatever fuel it threw in the opposite direction to achieve its speed.
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Hello People of the forum

In my musings I have thought about speed and the logic of movement in a hypothetical totally empty, vacuum, void of infinite dimensions.

Example one

The void must be thought of as absolutely devoid of everything, light, energy, matter. Think about total black empty darkness in every direction, stretching outwards into infinity.




Impossible in this universe; This empty vacuum you speak of does not exist, nor could it. There is no space empty of field, therefore, the space the Big Bang created is something and the word "Nothing" to discribe it is a false concept. Imagine if you will, space resembling something like the ocean, only there is no earth below nor is there a sky above. Now imagine your a fish, moving through it only displaces the water before you and then it is added back to where you just were. Nowhere is there found a place where water does not exist. Space is a little like that, moving through it only displaces the field before you with the matter you consist of, which BTW is constructed of fields itself. In short, this hypothetical makes no sense and is of little use when trying to understand the nature of this universe...................Ethos
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Good point. Since the question is meaningless in this universe, you must be postulating another universe for the experiment to take place in.
Now, we know nothing of the properties of that new universe so we are free to make them up. I therefore predict that when you do the experiment the whole ship turns into a small green car (something like a 2CV I think) without any petrol. Imediately afterwards, it converts itself into a collection of all the UK  number 1 hit singles since records began.

Of course, your imaginary universe might be different, please feel free to make one up for yourself. Just remember that it has nothing to do with science.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Ethos

Quote
Impossible in this universe; This empty vacuum you speak of does not exist, nor could it. There is no space empty of field, therefore, the space the Big Bang created is something and the word "Nothing" to describe it is a false concept. Imagine if you will, space resembling something like the ocean, only there is no earth below nor is there a sky above. Now imagine your a fish, moving through it only displaces the water before you and then it is added back to where you just were. Nowhere is there found a place where water does not exist. Space is a little like that, moving through it only displaces the field before you with the matter you consist of, which BTW is constructed of fields itself. In short, this hypothetical makes no sense and is of little use when trying to understand the nature of this universe...................Ethos

You cannot state that "Nowhere "IS" found in a place" you simply cannot express this concept, language does not allow us to do it IS FOUND MEANS IT EXISTS BUT NOTHING - ABSENCE OF EVERYTHING

How can you say with certainty that there is no space empty of field, what is out there far beyond the present observably universe? That is a statement of belief not fact I know you mean the fabric of space time

I am also aware that galaxies do not move relative to one another, they move embedded into the fabric of spacetime. Except for galaxies in close proximity to one another, like out milky way galaxy and the Andronomer galaxy. They are slowly moving through the fabric of space towards each other due to their combined gravity

But like twins holding hands they are also caught up in the expansion of the universe

I do not agree that my hypothetical universe makes no sense, maybe to you it does!

You cannot equate a fish living in a finite ocean with an infinitely large universe. Take that universe out of your pocket and then you are gone, "one cannot express the Inexplicable

I will try, however, universe = O o . ?

I need diminishing fonts to do this , but it seems that the forum does not have this facility, correct me on that if I am wrong

I know all this; the big bang or emergence of the universe brought everything with it. Space. Time, matter energy etc. The universe did not empty itself into an infinite void; it brought the void/space with it
If we can rap our brains around the universe emerging out of nowhere into nowhere, from the seed of the infinitesimal point particle or singularity, why can't we imagine something easier? Put my little space ship into this empty space, why not?

We can play god by using our imagination

Alan
 

Ethos

  • Guest

Put my little space ship into this empty space, why not?




The why not comes from the fact that this space ship you're talking about is part of this universe. And everything created from the Big Bang, the space, the matter, the energy and every other component of it belongs to this universe. To try and remove it from this universe would only be an attempt to expand the limits of the universe we now live in.

Maybe this will help; If you were to cut a piece from an apple and then tell others that the piece you cut from it was no longer apple, it would be the same as your example. You can't leave this universe because you are the universe and the universe is you................Ethos
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Ethos
.
Quote
Maybe this will help; If you were to cut a piece from an apple and then tell others that the piece you cut from it was no longer apple, it would be the same as your example. You can't leave this universe because you are the universe and the universe is you................Ethos

You mean the great Oneness , the Interconnectedness and intwining of everything with everything else?  ???

The universe needs an observer to exist?  ;)

Alan
 

Ethos

  • Guest



The universe needs an observer to exist? 


I agree Alan, but only on a spiritual level. Scripture says: "This universe cannot contain him". You'll note, this verse is not speaking about mankind. And BTW, what does an external observer have to do with my last statement? We are still part of this universe and the universe is part of us....................Ethos
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Ethos




Quote
The universe needs an observer to exist?


I agree Alan, but only on a spiritual level. Scripture says: "This universe cannot contain him". You'll note, this verse is not speaking about mankind. And BTW, what does an external observer have to do with my last statement? We are still part of this universe and the universe is part of us....................Ethos

I am with you and believe in the same reality, but some very angry Scientists on this very forum will get very upset with us. My thread on the possibilty of an intelligent designer off the universe just met angry counter statements

Alan
 

Ethos

  • Guest













I am with you and believe in the same reality, but some very angry Scientists on this very forum will get very upset with us. My thread on the possibilty of an intelligent designer off the universe just met angry counter statements

Alan
In all honesty, you should know that a science forum is not a very good place to discuss religion. People have a right to believe what they want and it will do no good to argue with them Alan. Remember the scripture; "Not to cast your pearls before -----". I would resist trying to convince anyone not willing to listen about the value of faith. Just remember, this is a science forum and scientists require proof. Without evidence, you're waisting your time trying to convince anyone at this forum................Ethos
« Last Edit: 25/03/2009 19:02:51 by Ethos »
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile


Of course, your imaginary universe might be different, please feel free to make one up for yourself. Just remember that it has nothing to do with science.

I didn't expect anyone to take up my offer that they were free to invent a universe but so what, it's a free country. You can invent a universe with God in it if you like.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Ethos

Quote
In all honesty, you should know that a science forum is not a very good place to discuss religion. People have a right to believe what they want and it will do no good to argue with them Alan. Remember the scripture; "Not to cast your pearls before -----". I would resist trying to convince anyone not willing to listen about the value of faith. Just remember, this is a science forum and scientists require proof. Without evidence, you're waisting your time trying to convince anyone at this forum................Ethos

I am very aware that any good scientist requires proof, what I hoped was by presenting "circumstantial evidence" such as the "exactitude of the cosmological constants" needed for life to exist,, and to get the forum to at least come up with a logical counter arguments, refuting this position

But let us leave it as that, seeing we are in Rome, speak to them as if we are Romans

I tried  my best to get a discussion about the POSSIBILITY that some sort of intelligence "Might" be behind the creation of the universe

I am not religious and neither is God religious

Even hardnosed scientists should acknowledge that possibility

Ethos,I assure you and anyone else I will never do the same again on any science forum,

I have learned a hard leason of the futility of that position on what is afterall a science forum

Alan
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"I am very aware that any good scientist requires proof, what I hoped was by presenting "circumstantial evidence" such as the "exactitude of the cosmological constants" needed for life to exist,, and to get the forum to at least come up with a logical counter arguments, refuting this position
"
Proof isn't logically the same as cirumstantial evidence.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Bored Chemist


Quote
Proof isn't logically the same as circumstantial evidence

Agreed , but you must acknowledge that many people have got a death sentence, based only on circumstantial evidence.

Ahh!! Gosh!! This might make you angry, Law is not science, or is it?

I think I am the reason for the Bored Chemist being so Bored ?  ;D

However God exists and is this circumstatial evidence or what?

http://halfthekingdom.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/tj200902211249-1.gif


Alan
« Last Edit: 26/03/2009 09:25:36 by Alan McDougall »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length