In a total empty infinitely huge void could one move?

The whole question is kind of related to Newton's problem who has already been wondering about the water in a bucket.
How is the water in a rotating bucket going to behave if the surrounding universe is completely empty?
Newton of course was mostly concerned about the mass and gravity in the universe.
A couple of centuries later Ernst Mach answered the question by saying:
There would be no rotation.
If the universe was empty, the bucket would be the only existing thing, there is nothing it can relate to, as some of you already mentioned.
So it simply can not rotate.
Regardless if one wants to agree to this perspective, it is a statement by somebody who is widely respected as an important physicist.
My personal point of view is in fact that this bucket, being the only thing that exists IS the universe.
The particles in it can relate to each other.
If you started rotating the bucket itself in relation to the water still it wouldn't be rotating towards an outside world.
In fact it would be impossible to tell if it's the bucket that moves or the water in it.
This would lead to the assumption that in fact there is no absolute movement but in fact every movement depends on the things that it is related to, or in other words it's all relative.
Could it be that OUR universe is a bucket?

Hmmmm
I would assume that a void must be void of everything including the laws of physics. Placing a ship into the void would either make the void the ship, like above, which i really liked, or make the ship void, or both. In danger of getting reall Hitchhiker's Guid on people. A void would likely have infinite probabilities, or and abscence of all probability.

So I would assume that placing a ship into a void would make the ship a void. One can't say that it becomes part of the void, because a void really can't be divided. It all or nothing.

GoshisDead :bigsmile: hey Gosh I am Alive





No the space ship that we somehow, godlike if you like, put into the void like becomes everything.

In fact it becomes our little act of creation

Im sorry but the concept of nothing will not alow you to put anything in, as there is nothing to put it in.Either you have something or you have not..put the cat in the box ,but you have no box so how can you put the cat in the box

Infinity is a relative term. It's an interpretation. While the 3D perspective sees this infinite space, you add an extra plane and make the four 90 degrees to one another and you get nothingness all of a sudden. So a void cannot be nothingness if it has no determined dimension. If it did then it is both infinite and nothingness at the same time. This seems rather dualistic so it's bound to be flawed when I think about it.

If you have no object in this 'void' then what dimension does it have? Undefined right? This would seem intuitively true, but right when there is an interpretation the void becomes infinite and nothing. And when there is an interpretation that must mean there is an interpreter, and this interpreter has to be in a void, and seeing as we labeled the void to be everything, it must be inside the void. So the contents of the void must define the void itself as if there is a container, but this point suggests there is no container. So there must have always been an interpreter. If there was not, then the dimension is undefined and thus the void is nonexistent. So there would be no void to speak of.

In this sense infinite and nothingness are binaric and the same thing. Why not.

"Just as one cannot talk about events in the universe without the notions of space and time, so in general relativity it became meaningless to talk about space and time outside the limits of the universe

ABC



Why should the universe have limits? At the moment of creation the big bang , empty space which is mass less might have expanded out into infinity at infinite speed, because space has no mass and is therefore not bound by the light speed barrier like matter and energy

Maybe our universe had a beginning but will not have an end, maybe just a diming and dying of its light in the unimaginable far future

Its bounded by the speed of light multiplied by the time the bb started..

At the moment of creation the big bang , empty space which is mass less might have expanded out into infinity at infinite speed

I don't think the concept of infinite speed makes sense, because it would mean that the size of the empty space had more than one value (in fact, every value between zero and infinity) at the same time, which is a contradiction. Also, the idea of 'into infinity' seems a bit dubious; I can understand infinity 'negatively' as the absence of a limit, but not 'positively' as a definite place or distance.

The most distant objects in the universe like quasars are receding at greater, from each other,than that of light speed

Where did you get that idea? The speed of one object relative to another can never exceed that of light. Even if two objects are receding in opposite directions, each at (say) 90% of the speed of light relative to us, their speed relative to each other is still less than that of light. You can't simply add the two figures together

ABC



Oh yes they can and some objects are doing exactly that right now. They are not moving away from themselves , but the expanding space in which they are imbedded is causing this effect.

Look it up

s the space being created as they separate or are they in existing space? I cant see how two objects can be moving at the sum of their two speeds away from each other.If you take a point in space and judge their speeds is one going faster than the other because of the sum of the two..sorry Alan i cant see it makes sense but im open to persuasion

xris

.

All space was created after the big bang and galaxies became imbedded in it like raisins in a raisin bread loaf later


Space came first and matter followed. The faster than speed of light is due to space streching between say different galaxies moving in opposite directions

Our universe is not some 15 billion light years long or old but the observable universe has an estimated diameter of about 30 billion light years

The best estimate of the age of the universe is 14 to 15 billion years so how did these remote galaxies get separated by this enormous distance if they were stuck to each other by the speed of light?


The whole loaf (the universe just kept on expanding) taking the whole lot for a joy ride , in any and every direction


I know this sounds like it breaks Einstein's theories, but it doesn't. The galaxies themselves aren't actually moving very quickly through space, it's the space itself which is expanding away, and the galaxy is being carried along with it. As long as the galaxy doesn't try to move quickly through space, no physical laws are broken.

Am I making sense?

I understand what you have said, i have no problem with that but you did no say that..did you..I believe you said if two objects are moving at the speed of light and away from each other the combined speed is twice the speed of light?Any objects that are moving away from each other can not be described as moving away at their combined speed. Im not saying im right, its my thinking cap that's telling me..

I understand what you have said, I have no problem with that but you did no say that..did you..I believe you said if two objects are moving at the speed of light and away from each other the combined speed is twice the speed of light?Any objects that are moving away from each other can not be described as moving away at their combined speed. Im not saying im right, its my thinking cap that's telling me..