Space and Orientation

[nforcer06164]

When you're in outer space, a zero-gravity area, and the universe extends almost infinitely in all directions, how can you possibly decide the position you are in relation to everything else? On Earth, there's a center of gravity, and therefore a defined up and down, as well as a north, south, east, and west. In space, there's nothing above you, nothing below you, and nothing really surrounding you. There's no upside-down, no rightside-up, no cardinal direction... so how can it possibly be navigated? How can you move about in such a place when you cannot figure the direction in which you're going? It makes me question space travel, because if you can't orient yourself, can't fixate yourself to some standard position (because none exists), how can it be possible? Thoughts, anyone?

[talisman]

RE: Space and Orientation

try opening your eyes and looking at stuff.

or making up a cartesian system with an arbitrary center and comparing yourself relative to the center. Really quite elementary...

[gonzo4life44]

RE: Space and Orientation

i think that you would be able to see earth. if i were in space, i would think of earth as north, moon as south and ect. that way you have some sence of direction in space.

[fusi0n]

Re: RE: Space and Orientation

i think that you would be able to see earth. if i were in space, i would think of earth as north, moon as south and ect. that way you have some sence of direction in space.

I'm glad you've got that down. Now we can explore...our solar system.

[nforcer06164]

RE: Re: RE: Space and Orientation

See, that's exactly what I meant. You can't have a sense of direction if you pick one object, and then pass it, or lose sight of it. If you pick another object, you'll likely be facing a different direction, slightly throwing you off, but nonetheless somewhat lost.

Try walking around your house with your eyes closed. Everything is closer or farther than you think it is. Now, if you have no way to orient yourself, how can you know exactly where you are, or what direction you're traveling? Understand what I mean?

[gonzo4life44]

RE: Re: RE: Space and Orientation

i just thought about how that everything revolves around the sun and now i kinda get what your saying. lets say you close your eyes and spin around for like 10 seconds, when you stop keep your eyes closed. you wont know what direction you are facing. but in space your eyes arnt close, so, that way you would kinda know what way you are going.

[Austaph]

RE: Re: RE: Space and Orientation

You'd navigate the same way sailors do - by the stars. I wouldn't worry too much about what you'd do when you got so far out that the perspective of the celestial bodies was skewed. If we developed light-speed technology, it would still take tens of thousands of years to reach the closest galaxy.

I like the question, though. It's interesting, someone once told me that the universe isn't really infinitely expansive, but that it works kind of like mouse-wrap on a monitor (ie: when your mouse cursor reaches the farthest right of the monitor, it'll appear on the farthest left.) The idea that the universe is infinite is kind of like a modern version of the earth being flat. Many times, though, I've gazed up at the stars and wondered "where are we?" In truth - there is no way to tell where we are. This slightly fits in with Einstein's theory of relativity. He designed these experiments to try and test if you could determine if the train you're riding is, in fact moving - given that the train travels at a constant speed, not slowing down, not speeding up. Einstein says that there is no way to tell.

You might also be interested in a 5th century BCE philosopher named Zeno of Parminides. He used this technique called reductio ad absurdum (reduce to absurdity) to generate paradoxes which were used to disprove philosophic claims. One of them was called The Dichotomy. Zeno claims that all motion is actually impossible. In order for me to walk ten feet across the room, I'd first have to walk half that distance. In order to walk half the distance, I'd have to walk half of the half. Then half of that half, and so on. So I actually wouldn't even be able to take the first step, because I would always have a smaller distance to first traverse. It functions off of the idea that you can divide an inch down into infinity, so in order to walk any distance, you'd have to walk an infinite distance. Pointless and off-topic, but I thought it might amuse you. Keep asking questions, it's good for the brain.

[Omeganitros]

RE: Re: RE: Space and Orientation

More like,


UNDERWATER AND ORIENTATION.


(Anyone here even remember my rant about space versus underwater Colonization?)

I am so sorry, I didn't even read the thread. I don't belong in CT....Not anymore, anyways. I used to, and then I outgrew deep thinking.

[gonzo4life44]

RE: Re: RE: Space and Orientation

ive herd the paradox befor but ive herd it said a different wat. the way i herd it is to think of a target and you have to thow an arrow at the center, but in order to hit the target, you have to travel half the distance to the target, and you keep doing that. In theory, the arrow will never hit the target.

i see how you used that paradox with your theory because in theory, we dont move in space, we just flot around, or as other would say, go with the flow. but lets say if you were at point a and you needed to get to point b in space in the fastest amount of time. will say the difference between the two points is about 5 feet. sence you cant move in space you would have to flow with the earth, but earth has to revolve around the oppsit way.so instead of going 5 feet, you have to go like a bazillion cuz your forced by gravitational pull. does that sound right or is there something wrong with that problem?

[senate7377]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Space and Orientation

Try walking around your house with your eyes closed. Everything is closer or farther than you think it is. Now, if you have no way to orient yourself, how can you know exactly where you are, or what direction you're traveling? Understand what I mean?

Hellen Keller got along just fine...

I see what you're asking, but space (outer not something volumetric), distance, time, speed are all things that know no bounds. To honestly and completely honest if you think of it that way - the answer is - you can not. Things that are measured; be it distance, time, space, or speed, must have a point of reference. If that point of reference is not constant you have nor valid reference. Look up cosmological problems... the most popular one I can thin kof off hand is the variable speed of light... WAY too much for me to begin to explain, and probably wouldnt get it right... hold on.... ok I found something:

be forewarned - hope you understand advanced math...

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9906/9906117.pdf

Though... for the sake of sufferage and death by irrelevant math.. .what if

three objects in outer space, travel away from one another, and their paths will never intersect. The start point is hte reference point. If the paths of said object will eventually interesect, what is to way that the point of crossing will not or could not act as a new reference point...but in general - for navigation you need to have a destination and a start location , OR soem form of orientation. I'm taking your question to place the traveller in a complete boundless void, no light, and no secondary objects. If this is the case... you are not giong to navigate. Ina true zero gravity atomosphere you can not shift your weight to counter gravity that is not there. You have no sensory bearings... you are, no matter how you struggle, going to be able to measure or reference any movement in any direction.[/url]

[psychic25]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Space and Orientation

or making up a cartesian system with an arbitrary center and comparing yourself relative to the center. Really quite elementary...

I agree.

Also, you could make a simple reference system by using your paths of travel.

For example, say I wanted to travel from Earth (and the Sun) to... say... Proxima Centauri. Once you get there, you have established a line between two points. Now, from Proxima Centauri, you travel to another star that is easily visible from both Earth and Proxima Centauri... let's say Sirius. Now you have three points, which forms an arbitrary plane. Using this plane as a reference, you can continue traveling to other stars- but only ones close to each other. The plane established earlier would be part of a three-dimensional "map" of sorts. Stars would be plotted according to their positions relative to the plane.

Alternately, you could use the plane of the Milky Way as a frame of reference, but that's not going to do you much good for intergalactic travel.

[gonzo4life44]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Space and Orientation

senate, that math question really threw me off, i dont see how that connected with the whole space thing. sence your smarter then a lot of people here, can you answer my question on my last post to this topic.

[senate7377]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Space and Orientation

I can try... mmm.... the question posed set the constant of...no gravity. SO, technically everything would be in a virtual stasis, you couldnt push off of anything in order to move, OR if you could, minimal force would have infinate output. There is not opposing force to slow or stop an object in travel.

The whole math thing was my way of kind of saying that the universe and the things within extend far beyond human comprehension. For example - speed. Speed is the measurement of distance in relation to time and is scalar since it has only magnatude and not direction. V=d/t... Velocity is the distance travelled over time. Currently the fastest thing that man has recorded is the speed of light in a vaccum and IS considered a constant (2.998*10^8ms^-1). However, more recent studies have posed problem in that, stating that if space were held at a vaccum with constant and even pressure, how would nebulas and so on have shapes other then spheres. Due to a variety of densities within the mass of space, it would be safe to assume that light during travel, would vary in speed. Where it comes into play with the question is that its kind of a dichotomy as Austaph stated.

Don't feel bad about hte math thing, its not easy to fully grasp since most of it is theory and quantum physics anyway...its a lot to take in, but it better explains what I was thinking...

The Dichotomy here that Austaph explained, while it has not been disproved in basic theory, can be reversed on itself according to laws of physics. (equal and opposite) I may always have an infinate "half" to travel before the whole, but my starting reference will also be teice the hlaf already traveled. Had the theory been sompletely sound, travel in general would never be possible. The end point of physical distance travelled, by The Dichotomy is then always twice the half of the total (not profound, but its true). So, I will always be twice the half of one and half of another...since both can carry one infinately - the reference is therefore a valid and provable "0" and by THAT, yes yo are alwyas at zero, but that requires referencing the placement of an object to itself and nothing else. You have to create a set of rules in order to make it easy to reference two objects in relation to each other, therefore the ability to navigate effectively (much like a negative number...on a planar scale they cannot physically exist, but are shown and used to make it easy to referrence and understand certain things... like sound)

GONZO: Ok, I understand your question, but its been posed with more variables then you need to when thinking about it (IMO)... and I could be wrong here or completely off, so don't take it as "bible".

lets say if you were at point a and you needed to get to point b in space in the fastest amount of time. will say the difference between the two points is about 5 feet. sence you cant move in space you would have to flow with the earth, but earth has to revolve around the oppsit way.so instead of going 5 feet, you have to go like a bazillion cuz your forced by gravitational pull. does that sound right or is there something wrong with that problem?

object at point A moving toward point B, total distance 5 feet. Are both point geosyncronous? (if point A is directly above Mt. Fuji, doest it stay above Mt. Fuji by moving at the same speed the earth rotates - giving it an effectve speed in relation to the earth - zero?). If so, then does the object that needs to travel stay, stationary in relation to the earth (meaning...the travelling object, is it motionless, watching the earth rotate... is point A moving away, while B is coming towards, like if the "travelling" object is in the middle of A and B?), if so, you dont need to travel, the rotation of the earth will do it for you...stay still, relax and grab a beer...point B is enroute. Even if pooint A is to your right and B to the left, with the rotation of Earth being from right to left (in this example), you could wait, the maximum amount of time it would take in this question is 24 hours. If you didnt want to wait and wanted to somehow propel yourself to point B, headed opposite direction of rotation and provided you remain on a constant curve equal to that of the earth, your time would be reduced to no less then half (if maximum speed was the speed the earth rotates). If you wanted to be retarded and travel the same direction of rotation and adhereing to the rules of maximum speed being that of the Earth rotating, then you'd be geosynchronous and NEVER get to point B. Doing it this way, you'd have to travel tice as fast and would take twice the time to get half the distance. The Dichotomy however, will kind of explain how geosynchronization happnes...While technically it is in motion, it is not, because of what it is relative to. I don't quite understand where gravitational pull comes into you question... but, assuming that you are far enough outside the pull of Earth gravity, the above "explanation"... should hold true - if I'm wrong feel free to slide and correct me here... Its been almost 12 yeasrs since I was in Physics so I could be wrong...


The total dynamics of the posed question have been altered by everyone who has posted... to answer the original question in an "as is" interpretation: I stick to my original lower paragraph

[gonzo4life44]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Space and Orientation

i dont think your wrong at all. that makes a lot of sence now. so im guessing if your going to space anytime soon, kick back, relax, and grab a 12 pack cuz you wont be moving around anytime soon.

[senate7377]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Space and Orientation

If you were to remain "still", yeah things would eventually come to you, igf you moved then you create either twice the work, or need half the effort (given your example)

In genereal though... no... my answer was based off of the stipulations given withing the question posed. Its obvious we CAN move in space or, how would we have supposedly been to the moon, placed the Hubble Telescope, or failed at the Mars Lander several times... things with weight have density, things with density create gravity. We as humans do genereate in space, a level of unrecognisable gravity. The sun gives off heat, even in space. Heat is genereated by the rapid motion of molicules. Motion therefore is proved posible by the existance of heat alone. THe extent of motion is pretty grey, but with an extremely low level of gravity, even that gravity created by us, slowing down and stopping, is failrly easy. The main question posed, wasnt motion, but direction. That - I'm sure there are many many ways to do it, but I cant think of anything viable, becuase its relative to too many different things in my mind. I just answered what you had asked me to. Given the criteria before me within the question - I did. A different set of rules might apply to something beyone our solar system, which I think someone already said.