The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/index.php)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Space and vacuum Question (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11837)

omegaman 08-01-2012 03:17 PM

Space and vacuum Question
 
Beyond the gravitational forces or influences of any Star or Planet what keeps a spaceship floating stationary in the vacuum of space?

Now that may sound like a dumb question. But I was having a discussion with my daughter the other day about this and had to wonder myself.

Saquist 08-01-2012 04:00 PM

The first thing you learn when you read Einstein's Universe is to throw away the concept of stationary. Everything is moving. The only question is...relative to what? It's all a matter of perspective.

Spaceships are normally orbiting around something. Whether that something is the Earth, the moon, the sun or the Galaxy. Which one is up to you.

In orbit the shuttle would seem to be motionless next to the space station but look down and earth is spinning and compared to the Earth the shuttle and station are moving at 17000 mph.

If we broke Earth's orbit and just went out into interplanetary space...now the sun looks stationary but the Earth is moving away...or is it we're moving away? It depends on your perspective. On Earth it looks like the ship is moving away where as on the ship the sun stands still and the Earth is moving away.

That's General Relativity.

horatio 08-01-2012 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by omegaman (Post 325735)
Beyond the gravitational forces or influences of any Star or Planet what keeps a spaceship floating stationary in the vacuum of space?

First law of motion aka when nobody kicks your butt you don't move.

omegaman 08-01-2012 05:19 PM

Bear with me…

Okay, lets suspend the concept of General Relativity for moment. If the universe was totally empty and suddenly a 1 metre cube of solid steel mysteriously appeared from nothing at the very centre of the universe, it would neither be floating nor moving, just existing in a vast vacuum, right? Suspended there by nothing, right?

Captain Tom Coughlin 08-01-2012 05:47 PM

An object at rest, stays at rest. An object just sitting in space, as long as it is not being acted upon by some external force, would just sit there.

martok2112 08-01-2012 06:25 PM

To quote Scotty from Star Trek 2009 : "It never occurred to me to think of space as the thing that was moving."

Saquist 08-01-2012 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by omegaman (Post 325740)
Bare with me…

Okay, lets suspend the concept of General Relativity for moment. If the universe was totally empty and suddenly a 1 metre cube of solid steel mysteriously appeared from nothing at the very centre of the universe, it would neither be floating nor moving, just existing in a vast vacuum, right? Suspended there by nothing, right?


Okay.
The answer would then be inertia.

You have too elements in this experiment. A universe (which we presume is expanding because their is a passage of time. The other element is the Steel Cube.

We don't understand exactly why (that's what the Higgs Boson & Field is all about) But matter resist the expansion of the universe. The universe is pulling on the Steel Cube but the cube refuses to move as fast as the universe. Plus since there is nothing else it means the universe is pulling on the could equally (more or less) from all sides. If the Cube were energy it would move right along with the expansion of the universe like an explosion.

But matter is different.
Not only does matter cause itself to move slower it also makes the universe immediately around the Cube move slower which makes time move slower.

omegaman 08-01-2012 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saquist (Post 325747)
Okay.
The answer would then be inertia.

You have too elements in this experiment. A universe (which we presume is expanding because their is a passage of time. The other element is the Steel Cube.

We don't understand exactly why (that's what the Higgs Boson & Field is all about) But matter resist the expansion of the universe. The universe is pulling on the Steel Cube but the cube refuses to move as fast as the universe. Plus since there is nothing else it means the universe is pulling on the could equally (more or less) from all sides. If the Cube were energy it would move right along with the expansion of the universe like an explosion.

But matter is different.
Not only does matter cause itself to move slower it also makes the universe immediately around the Cube move slower which makes time move slower.

Thanks Saquist.

LCARS 24 08-02-2012 01:33 AM

About expansion of the universe, redshift in an observed distant object means it’s moving away. Okay. Part of the redshift, however, caused by atomic hydrogen in space, about one atom per cubic centimeter. Astrophysicists take that into account when making their calculations. Otherwise, they would get an exaggerate figure for how fast something is moving away from us. But what about H2? Atomic hydrogen (H1) is easy to detect with radio astronomy, but molecular hydrogen is silent and normally cannot be detected in space. And for some reason the possible existence of H2 is space is ignored. It means that people say the universe is expanding but really don’t know if they don’t know how much hydrogen in its most stable state is out there. Well, H2 can be observed in places where it’s hot and has been with the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO). And the authors of the original article (E. A. Valentijn and P. P. van der Werf, 1999) pointed out that if there is H2 in space scientists have no business claiming an expanding universe, Big Bang, etc. Granted, the amount of H2 hasn’t been determined. So there’s no figure to replace zero molecules per cubic parsec. It’s probably five to 10 molecules per cubic centimeter, but fewer than five, if confirmed, would be sufficient to prove a lot of what it taken for granted today to be absolute nonsense. At least in the face of the evidence they could say, “I don’t know.” Instead, they’re also going so far to say that galaxies beyond the Hubble horizon are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

This article explains it quite clearly. You can see the author’s credentials at the bottom of the page, which is old. He has passed away since this was posted. But there are more recent papers on this to be found on the Web.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

Astronomers with truckloads of credentials might like to sling mud at anyone holding this point of view, but still, how can anyone claim there’s no H2 is space, while admitting to one atom per cubic centimeter of H1, not to mention that fact that hydrogen atoms tend to pair off and mate for life? Maybe they’re right, but the most respected scientists used claim quite loudly, “Rocks can’t fall from the sky!”

Saquist 08-02-2012 01:35 PM

Someone here also brought H2 as an explanation for Dark matter aswell.
I think I've read your article LCARS24.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.