[slowmovintarget]

I just wasn't sure why an article on Newtonian physics was posted.

I clicked through because I was interested to see if there was some new argument for absolute space, which would contradict our current understanding (unlikely). It was not, however. Instead it was a nuance of Newton's arguments for his basis of absolute space.

[cma]

Einstein was deeply concerned with Newton's bucket, correspondence over it is mentioned many times in Isaacson's biography of him but I don't remember the resolutions he came to or if it was prior to general relativity.

[canjobear]

How does modern physics address the argument?

[wrycoder]

Due to the pressure in the water being higher than in the center (the momentum of an individual molecule forces it outwards), a higher column of water is supported at the rim.

The speeds involved are not relativistic, so this isn't a matter of special or general relativity. Except, of course, one needs to explain the conservation of momentum relative to the universe. Noether said that's because space is isotropic.

[slowmovintarget]

Modern physics tells us there is no absolute space. Instead, there are geodesics in spacetime (General Relativity). The article points this out.

[danwills]

I think there are a few 'fringe' modern-ish physics projects that actually do suggest that space could be made from something, and can flow (which can provide an explanation for gravity and relativity) Reg Cahill's "Process Physics" (from a while back) had a good crack at this I reckon and more recently Wolfram's work around graph-rewriting operations as a model for fundamental-space.. which sounded like it went pretty well!

[canjobear]

How do geodesics address the argument?

[slowmovintarget]

The argument is incomplete, and therefore incorrect (as the article points out).

Geodesics in spacetime address the nature of motion through space and time.