How fast can we go?

[orin stepanek]

If the Earth orbits the sun at about 67,000 MPH and the solar system orbits the galaxy at about 447,000 MPH and the galaxy moves through space at about 1'000'000 MPH than how fast are we going? I got these figures off the net and don't know how accurate they are but Wow! We're space travelers and don't even know it.

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/Van/qa/section/ ... 112450.htm

Orin

[harry]

Hello Orin

Ok
I'm running at 1 Km per sec

Earth is spinning on axis

Earth is rotaing around the sun.

The solar system is rotaing around a central cluster of stars.

This cluster is rotating around the galaxy core.

Milky Way is heading towards Adromeda and rotating around M87 (Centre of the local cluster of galaxies.

Local cluster is heading and rotaing around Hydra cluster of galaxies.

This hydra is rotaing aroung another super cluster and so on.

I'm confused,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you need a computer to work it out,,,,,,,,,seems we are going in circles fast.

[Astrojan]

...how fast are we going? We're space travelers and don't even know it.

Yes, we dont know so much or even our knowledge quite wrong... http://160.114.99.91/astrojan/aether.htm

[BMAONE23]

Dont forget to add into the equation, the fact that Earth is rotating at 1000mph so depending on which side you are on at the time, you are either + 1000mph or - 1000mph

[harry]

Hello BMAONE23

mph is such an old system.

Australia changed to metric back in the 70's.

Why is USA so backward?.

Smile,,,,,,,,than again I loved using mph, feet and yards. At the time i hated going to metric. So many full moons ago.

Ok so we are speeding across at about 600km/sec.

Not so bad on an empty tank.

[randall cameron]

All this spinning and rotating is enough to make you dizzy.

"How fast are we going?" can only be answered "in relation to what?"

[harry]

Hello randall


Speed is measured to the background radiation.


http://160.114.99.91/astrojan/aether.htm

The newest measurments of COBE has detected a 600 km/s "absolute" movement of Earth (= c/500) in accordance with microwave background irradiation

[orin stepanek]

Hello randall


Speed is measured to the background radiation.


http://160.114.99.91/astrojan/aether.htm

The newest measurments of COBE has detected a 600 km/s "absolute" movement of Earth (= c/500) in accordance with microwave background irradiation

Or 600kms X 60sec X 60min = 2,106,000kph
Orin

[ckam]

Speed is measured to the background radiation.

why is it not background radiation that moves relative to all other objects in the universe?

[randall cameron]

I went to the link. What "newest measurements of COBE" (not cited)? Looks like dubious science to me.

I thought the speed of light is constant. The 3 degree cosmic background radiation is electromagnetic, so it has to clock at the speed of light, regardless of its direction. Oh, and it does not move all in the same direction, otherwise those photons would not be hitting our radio telescopes no matter which way they point, would they.

Maybe we should measure our speed relative to the ether. LOL My point was only that any speed measurement is relative, therefore it all depends on your point of view.

[harry]

Hello All


Someone should get the actual method of calculating the speed of the earth.

Relative to what?

What you say randall is logical.

[Orca]

Australia changed to metric back in the 70's.

Why is USA so backward?.

I have asked myself that same question many times over the last 6 years or so.

[Astrojan]

I thought the speed of light is constant..

And I thought the speed of light is NOT constant.
Nobody measured the speed of light vertically. Look at the GPS clocks: it corresponds to the average speed of light downward = c+200km/s (from GPS satellite orbiting about 20 000 km altitude).

[aichip]

The speed that they refer to is not as you might think. The speed of light is in fact constant, but the CMBR shows a bias in its red shift or blue shift. This is not a difference in c, it only means that our planet is moving with relation to the original, primal explosion.

This speed is pretty close to the Sun's galactic orbital motion plus the movement of the galaxy as it orbits the local group. If our orbital motion around the galaxy came to a halt, and our galaxy's orbital motion around the local group came to a halt, we would see a uniform cosmic microwave background.

So the answer "relative to what" is specifically this- our speed is relative to the mass of our galaxy and the mass of the local group of galaxies. The microwave bacground is uniform but we are in motion around those galaxies and as a result the uniformity of the sky is affected from our point of view.

As for "absolute" measurements, no dice. There is no "ether". While the vacuum does have properties of its own, it does not "stand still" as we zip through it. Regardless of your intrinsic velocity with respect to anything else, the vacuum remains constant from our point of view. All observers, regardless of how fast or slow, how far down in a gravity well or in flat, free space, will see the vacuum as being the same (with the exception of any curvature from local gravitational fields).

[harry]

Hello aichip

It seem that you think along the lines of the BiG Bang theory.

Thats fine.

But! you cannot use it as fact, since the BB is based on fantasy and majic ideas.

smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,But! thats my thoughts.

[Raw Sunlight]

Aichip, i don't really understand your point of uniform CMBR if our galaxy were to stop orbiting?
More uniform than it is now? Are you saying that our relative motion against the background is causing some kind of speed blur that makes it look less uniform than it really is? ...THAT makes my head hurt!!!

I thought the CMBR was the very last remnants of heat from the phase transition of the liquid universe congealing into larger structure hydrogen/ helium gas clouds? why would that view change if we were not rotating?

What i want to know is, if we're spinning so fast through a universe (that some also say might itself be rotating), how the hell do you explain carsickness!

PS.
Can someone explain to me how, if this universe was born from a big bang, why is it we don't see some (slight) bias of concentration of CMBR, stars or matter as we look back through time toward the origin of early universe? I know everything is supposed to be moving away from everything else, but things must have been closer together as we track back to a big bang?

PPS
One current theory is that the speed of light isn't constant at all, because it seems to have changed (very slightly) over the historical expansion of the universe...

[aichip]

This is really very simple.

raw Sunlight wrote:

Aichip, i don't really understand your point of uniform CMBR if our galaxy were to stop orbiting?
More uniform than it is now?

Yes. The reason the sky radiation is not entirely uniform is due to our movement through space. It creates a red shift behind us and a blue shift in front of us. 600 KPS is exactly enough to account for that Doppler shift in the CMBR.

If the Sun's motion around the galaxy, and the galaxy's motion around the nearest cluster were to cease, the CMBR would be extremely uniform and we would see no such Doppler shift.

Raw Sunlight wrote:

Are you saying that our relative motion against the background is causing some kind of speed blur that makes it look less uniform than it really is?

Exactly correct! Instead of "speed blur", read "Doppler shift". In the same manner that an automobile looking at a microwave speed gun would perceive a difference in frequency if approaching it or leaving it, we are also seeing a change in the CMBR frequency, which shows up as temperature.

Raw Sunlight wrote:

I thought the CMBR was the very last remnants of heat from the phase transition of the liquid universe congealing into larger structure hydrogen/ helium gas clouds?

It is. This "heat" was actually up in the x-rays and as space expanded, the wavelengths increased to match the expansion. As the expansion continued over the ages, the wavelengths eventually stretched all the way out to the diffuse microwaves we see in the sky today. So those primal energetic photons dropped through the UV, visible spectrum, IR, terahertz waves, and are now down in the microwaves.

Raw Sunlight wrote:

why would that view change if we were not rotating?

Because our tangent velocity (tangent to the rotation, that is) is 600 KPS. If you were to travel in a large circle at 600 KPS, but otherwise remain motionless, the sky would exhibit exactly the same Doppler shift, and it would be bluest in front of you and reddest behind you. Now, imagine that circle is the size of galaxies and you have the exact picture of our motion. The combined rotation and linear movement is what gives us our high intrinsic velocity.

Raw Sunlight wrote:

Can someone explain to me how, if this universe was born from a big bang, why is it we don't see some (slight) bias of concentration of CMBR, stars or matter as we look back through time toward the origin of early universe?

Because the centerpoint of the Big Bang is not "inside" this universe, in the same way that the center of a balloon is not on the skin of the balloon. The centerpoint of the universe is "inward" in a fourth linear dimension, called "time". We cannot see it because we cannot stick our heads out of the universe in that direction.

This is sort of like trying to look back at the old neighborhood you grew up in and that was then demolished to make way for high-rises. No matter where you put your eyes, you cannot see it because it is not in this universe any more.

ALL of space expanded outward from the point of the Big Bang, in a manner similar to a balloon expanding from one central point. No amount of walking about on the surface of the balloon (present time) can take you to the center of the balloon (past time). This is like trying to find the edge of a planet by walking on its surface. There isn't one and you can't.

Raw Sunlight wrote:

I know everything is supposed to be moving away from everything else, but things must have been closer together as we track back to a big bang?

Yes, just as the surface area of the balloon increases as you inflate it, so does the volume of the universe increase as it expands. Bu that volume is more like the surface of the balloon, but in one higher dimension. Just as dots painted on a balloon get further apart as it inflates, all mater expanded away during the inflationary period of the universe, and this is when the high temperature photons got their wavelengths so stretched out that they are now microwaves. That is how the universe cooled.

Raw Sunlight wrote:

One current theory is that the speed of light isn't constant at all, because it seems to have changed (very slightly) over the historical expansion of the universe...

Perhaps so, but the change would probably have been small. How do we know? Because a change in the speed of light would cause a measureable shift in the spectral lines from distant galaxies, that would be at odds with the shifts due to the universe's expansion. Specific wavelengths that serve as markers when studying stars would show changes that would not be easily explained.

Harry wrote:

It seem that you think along the lines of the BiG Bang theory.

Yes, I do. It fits the evidence well and makes testable predictions. That is the hallmark of a strong theory. Any alternative theory would have to do the same or better. So far, I have not seen a credible theory that stands up as well to the tests that have been thrown at the Big Bang.

Harry wrote:

But! you cannot use it as fact, since the BB is based on fantasy and majic ideas.

At least it does make a consistent model of the universe and as stated above, it makes testable predictions. I will welcome any alternative theory that does as well, in the hopes of resolving those final questions that we have about the universe.

Do I accept it as fact? Conditionally, yes. But this is in the same manner that Newtonian physics can be considered "fact" until you reach very high velocities and masses. It is close enough to reality that we can do day to day mechanics with it perfectly well. Einstein gave us a more refined model that handles those extremes, and does it nicely. Any new theory will likely be some refinement of what we know so far, in a similar way.

[Martin]

[harry]

Hello aichip

Maybe we can start another ,,,,,,new topic on the Origins of the Universe.

I will need one more day before I can discuss in detail.

My other work requires my focus.

other than that,,,,,,,,,,,,,I love reading your posts.

Your down to earth and very helpful. Good that we have you in this discussion group.

Smile and live another day.

[Raw Sunlight]

Aichip...brilliant answers one and all. Thanks for your time and effort

I'd not realised the red and blue in the CMBR might simply have been shift colours in the structure...teach me to look/read more carefully!

I know that inflation is supposed to work like the skin of a dimensional balloon to explain how everything is moving away from everything else (even though 'everything' doesn't), but when we look back across the great distances of space we also look back in time (lightspeed et al) so we should infact be looking at a smaller balloon 'verse skin? ...smaller should equal more density(self-contained 'verse)?
This is why we artists draw, and scientists do the math...my head hurts!

Uniformity could be explained if we were at the heart of the universe, and we accidentally caused the big bang, and then pretended we hadn't done it by creating some 'oh, look, God did it' mythologies...more than likely!

[harry]

Hello All

I cannot wait for the day to either disprove or prove the Big Bang.

Until than I will stress out.

------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no Big Bang

Just an endless recycle process.

of an infinite universe.


Anyway we have started a new topic on the Origins of the Universe. So we shall have a Big Bang there.

[Pete]

Proof can stay with mathematics - science only disproves

[Martin]

Harry, Harry, Harry -what will we do with you

Does your universal endless recycling process include reality or any portion thereof?

Please remember there is always a touch of intended humor in my posts. Science without humor is like ------------------------->CHURCH

Can you tell us in YOUR own words what exactly makes you think that this universe (or any portion thereof) is NOT capable of producing an explosion/event that could resemble a BIG bang? (No links please)

[orin stepanek]

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=575

Maybe were going faster than we realise ???????????
If the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light wouldn't we be caught up in the acceleration of it????????????????/
Wouldn't the mass of an object moving at such terrific speed be a little overwhelming ??????????????????
Can the light of a galaxy actually disappear because of the expansion of the universe Man; That's some get up and go!
Just curious!
Orin

[aichip]

Hello, Orin, and no, this is a common question.

When the universe went through its "inflation" stage, the universe itself was expanding faster than light, not the material contained within it. Think of a sheet of graph paper printed on a balloon. If you inflate the balloon at the speed of light, the radius is increasing at c, but the grid lines on the balloon are moving apart at much less- even though the circumference is growing at pi x c!

Think about it.