Can any object in this universe be at a complete state of rest with respect to all other objects in this univ?

Question

And if so, what will happen if we place another huge object (after placement, it is also in rest) such that the object at rest is in it's gravitational range? Will it still spiral towards the bigger (with reference to the bigger object) object or will it directly head for the bigger object? Lets assume that the gravity of the first object is negligible.

Answer 1

Visualize three objects: A, B and C. A is moving north, B is moving south and C is at "rest." To an observer on A, B is moving south at a great rate of speed and C is moving south at a lesser rate. To an observer on B, A is moving north at a great rate of speed and C is going north at a lesser rate. To an observer on C, A and B are moving in opposite directions at approximately the same speed. And all three observers are correct in their observations. As you can see, there can be no frame of reference that would allow an object to be at rest as long as there is any movement and all objects consider their frame of reference at rest.
In answer to the second part of your question, I have to say that based on our observations in our own galaxy, the object would either orbit or spiral into the larger object - much the same as water spiraling down through a hole in the bottom of a backet.

Answer 2

No.

This was first believed of the Earth, so that the sun and all the stars rotated around it, people then thinking the visible stars comprised the whole universe.

When it was learned that Earth revolves around the sun, then it was believed that the sun was at absolute rest and the universe revolved around it.

Long ago it was verified that our sun is just one speck in one arm of a spiral galaxy-- way out on the remote edge-- and that all the stars and galaxies are speeding away from one another at a tremendous speed.

The theory of relativity, which in essence has been verified by fulfilled predictions, states that only the speed of light is absolute from every conceivable observation point.

But, as light is in constant motion and is constantly being created and spread through the universe at a fantastic speed, it is not an object and cannot be used as a reference point, for it emphatically is not at rest!

(If light is drawn into a black hole thus ceasing to be part of the waves emanating from its point source, then that particular light ceases to be light and is transformed into some of the dark matter at the heart of the black hole.)

Well, one might theorize that God, or some universal, eternal field of "being" is at the center of the universe and remains eternally unchanged, but that would be a matter of faith, not science nor logic. I believe in God because the belief is psychologically satisfying, but, from a scientific standpoint, you can just as easily assume that elves hold the stars on silk threads, or the world rests on the back of a giant turtle.

But, assuming that God or a God force underlies or oversees all, the very expanding universe itself, under such a theory, would necessarily emanate from God. If so, the dynamic condition observable in that which is visible would seem to indicate that the Invisible is also dynamic in nature.

So, you see, even God could not be regarded as a physical reference point, for an omniscient, omnipresent spiritual being is not a physical object, such as you could use as a reference point to get to the local post office!

(Like you start with God-- you know, right there in the center of town, possibly sitting right there in the office of your local church or synagogue-- then you turn right, go two blocks, and there you'll find what you're looking for: the big library with the akashic records, and this tells you ALL you ever wanted to know but were afraid to ask!

The question is: should you believe such a thing?)

In any case, God either permeates the universe of space and time or stands outside of it, but either way, God cannot be used as a reference point, because since God is either outside of space and time or permeates it or both, we have no idea "where" in particular God is!

You can't find an absolute point of rest in reference to the rest of the universe, any more than you can find Heaven through a Google map search.

That puts us back where we started: IS there any physical reference point that the universe spins around?

"I dono", but I'd a lot rather just say "no". Huh-uh! To put it in Elvish, "Nollywoggers!"

(I was Elvish and Native American on my mother's side of the family, and still remember enough Elvish curses make your girlfriend's breast milk curdle if I don't like you.)

Elvish for "yes" is "yollywoggers". For "I don't know", elves merely raise a forefinger and shake their heads meaningfully.

(That's what I should have done. Makes you appear far wiser, and far less of a windbag.)

Answer 3

No. It is not possible. They are all in relative motion and spinning. Cosidering only 2 objects here the orbit will depend upon the relative speed of the big object and the distance between the 2. Remember the big object is moving. So the new object will have a relative speed. So depending upon this speed and the distance from the object will determine the trajectory. This is the physics of it. But need numbers to tell exactly what orbit that will be

Answer 4

As long as there are objects moving anywhere, no single
object can be at a state of rest with respect to all of them.
Why?

If object A is moving relative to B, then object C can be
at a state of rest with respect to A, or B, but not both.
It really doesn't matter what the rest of the universe is
doing.

If any object A exists moving relative to any object B, there
can be no object C that is at a state of rest with respect to
both objects.

Answer 5

For an object to be at complete rest to all others implies that all others are at rest with the first one. But the last means that all objects has to be at rest with all others. This is only a logical lucubration. In fact this scenario is not possible because the gravitanional force between them. It´s not possible to have not all but only two objects with an attraction force of G¨*m1*m2/d^2 being at rest.

Answer 6

No, because all the other objects are moving with respect to each other. Since that is so, none is a plausible candidate for being a preferred frame of reference. In a gedanken-experiment of the sort you propose, objects would gradually start to fall toward their center of mass because of gravitational attraction, and an introduced mass would attract any other masses in its vicinity.

Answer 7

From a specific frame of reference every object is at rest, and every other object in the universe is moving around it.

Answer 8

No object can be completely at rest, just look at Earth, there are cars driving on it and they're moving at a different speed than the Earth. This is basically impossible.

Answer 9

The predominate truth about matter is that it is in a constant state of motion. Over time, this constant motion causes matter to change physically and chemically. Matter always moves and cannot ever be at a complete state of rest. However, sometimes our perception of matter can put it at rest; but, that is a perception only, not a fact.

Answer 10

No..
If it is not moving and in the gravitational range of another object a then they will be pulled together..
Everything in the universe is pretty much expanding so anything
that has been set immobile & stationary will still see things
moving away from it...
If I have correctly understood your hypothesis & question..