[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 26 KB, 400x447, 1272377639900.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1797626 No.1797626 [Reply] [Original]

How fast are we moving in space? The galaxy cluster if we are part of one, the galaxy itself, solar system, the planet...how fast is the sum? We personally may not feel that but certain electrons do( concerning relativistic effect), and for your information we are all made out of electrons.

>> No.1797635

>>1797633
/thread

>> No.1797633

>How fast are we moving in space?

Relative
to
what?

>> No.1797638

velocities must be taken in some reference frame

>> No.1797646

>>1797633
speed of light of course, the only reference we can have in universe. if you mean a reference frame that means very little for quantum level sizes. an electron usually moves less than half the speed of light but if your galaxy is contributing to that absolute motion and exceed the half, the electron is affected by relativistic effects. It gains mass and has a stabler orbital...

>> No.1797657

Ehm. The speed around the sun is 30 km/s.

>> No.1797674

>>1797646
Son...

The speed of light is constant regardless of the velocity of the observer.

>> No.1797681

>>1797646
Relative to the speed of light we are moving at infinite speed. Anything traveling at the speed of light experiences the entire life of the universe as an instant.

>> No.1797685

>>1797674
Are you misunderstanding this intentionally? Yea it's constant, what I'm asking is what is our total speed in space wrt the speed of light. Let's say we move with 12% of speed of light in space. I'm not talking about deom an observation point, I mean absolute speed.

>> No.1797694

>>1797685
>deom
from...
typo

>> No.1797704
File: 33 KB, 800x600, einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1797704

>>1797685
Yes, this is a common misconception. There is no such thing as "absolute speed".

>> No.1797715

>>1797704
there is for light itself. and if i'm not horribly mistaken, it also applies for subatomic particles as well, they are always considered locally, there are no reference frames to compare speeds

>> No.1797721

>>1797685
I'm assuming you're trolling. I feel bad for you if you're not.

You can't have a total speed. It doesn't exist in general relativity. You only have a speed relative to a reference point. In your example, you could be moving at 12% of the speed of light /relative to your home planet/ at some particular time. But the concept of movement relative to "nothing" doesn't exist.

I know, it's hard to wrap your mind around that. Our species didn't spend ~100,000 years evolving in a simple Newtonian world to be able to grasp concepts like this easily.

>> No.1797731

>>1797715
Speed equals distance over time. Fast enough particles do not experience time, leading to a divide by zero error.

>> No.1797744

>>1797715
The speed of light is the same in ever reference frame, but it still requires a reference frame to compare it to anything else.

>> No.1797747

>>1797721
Actually i believe we will refute this in the next decade or so, something that doesn't have a reference frame cannot be proven to be moving so it doesn't have a speed, but is that really so? What about the space itself that it exists in?

>> No.1797755

>>1797747
Subatomic space doesn't remain constant long enough to measure. The quantum foam isn't a fixed grid, it's a constantly shifting soup.

>> No.1797768

>>1797755
You could have been shot to death for saying something like this in the 1800s, or could be worshiped in a very earlier time for speaking gibberish.

>> No.1797769
File: 151 KB, 1024x819, BorgCube.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1797769

so pick a damn reference frame, like the Borg Cube for example.

how fast is the earth moving through space relative to the present position of the Borg Cube?

>> No.1797805

OP doesn't get relativity. I thought these people didn't exist any more on /sci/. Well, here goes another explanation.

At a standstill, you'd measure that light moves at c.
If you go 10 MPH north, you'd measure light moves at C.
If you go a million MPH towards the sun, you'd measure light at c.

OP's way of thinking used to be the scientific mainstream back in the 1800's. People thought there was an absolute speed to light, so then light would be moving at different speeds in different directions because of the Earth's motion around the sun. Then the Michelson-Morley experiment showed light moves the same in all directions of space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

This is why Einstein called it the "theory of relativity" - the speed of light moves the same regardless of your speed, position, direction, etc. It's very counter-intuitive, and the effects from such a theory include time dilation, space dilation, etc. in order to account for c being the same to everyone. It's actually very interesting stuff, I'd suggest you go read stuff up.

Please please please I hope I'm not feeding a troll.

>> No.1797823

OP is basically thinking in terms of aether theory, the idea that there is a constant unmoving "fabric" of space by which we can measure our position or velocity. Aether theory was discarded quite some time ago, though you may wish to read Einstein's thoughts on the subject.

>> No.1797831

>>1797769

I just answered as >>1797805

To answer that requires knowledge of cosmology and the big bang. Basically, in every direction we look in space, we see stuff moving away from us. We know this because of something called "red-shifting." The light we see from far away stars looks redder than normal, and because of the doppler effect, we deduce that they're moving away from us. It also turns out that the further away an object is, the FASTER it's moving away from us. This is really, really interesting. An object 100 light-years away is moving away from us twice as slow as an object 200 light-years away (this is actually only an average, chances are each object has some speed above or below this value. For example, we're moving towards the Andromeda Galaxy, and we're actually supposed to collide with it at some point in the future!) The linear-relationship factor is called "Hubble's Constant" and I suggest you google this as well.

Since everything is moving away, it's easy to deduce everything was once close together. Hence, the big bang theory. Explaining the details of this are also tricky, since everything didn't expand from a point. Everything is moving away from everything else everywhere. But I suggest you read about that as well.

So to answer your question about the Borg cube, we would actually have to know WHERE it is in space in order to know how fast or slow we're moving away from it.

>> No.1797840

>>1797831
>Everything is moving away from everything else everywhere.
A more precise explanation is that the universe is becoming less dense over time.

>> No.1797860

>>1797840

Or that space is expanding.

>> No.1797861

600km/s towards the next big galaxy cluster iirc.

>> No.1797870

>>1797860
Yes, but then the person you're talking to will always inevitably ask "hurr durr expanding into what?"

>> No.1797881

OP's question makes me wonder. Is there any object in the universe that is completely fixed? If we could find such a thing, we could measure everything by it.

But since galaxies are all moving away from each other, that's not very likely :(

>> No.1797893

>earth is moving 12% the speed of light
>jump
>oh shit....

>> No.1797901

>>1797893
It's like those Immovable Rod jokes from /tg/.

You activate them, and then they tear through the world because they become a universal stillpoint.

>> No.1797908

>>1797881
>Is there any object in the universe that ... we could measure everything by it.

Yes: Everything.

I'm fixed, the entire rest of the universe is moving relative to me. I am the ONLY thing that is not moving in the entire universe. ME, specifically, the person typing this reply out. This is a scientific truth according to general relativity. If you don't understand that, get out your little textbook and keep reading.

>> No.1797916

>>1797908
I don't have a textbook that covers general relativity. Could you provide me with a link discussing this?

Because it doesn't make sense to be on a moving planet in a moving solar system in a moving galaxy, and refer to yourself as a stillpoint.

And even then wouldn't your measurements be useless to other people?

>> No.1797921

>>1797881
Center of mass, gravity waves...

>> No.1797922

>>1797870

Maybe instead of saying "space is expanding" we should say "the spaces between things is expanding." Space is a very ambiguous word and can mean either "outer space" or "an actual volume of space." When we say "space is expanding" what we mean is "each piece of empty volume is becoming bigger" not "outer space is expanding into nothing" and this can be quite misleading/confusing.

>> No.1797931

>>1797922
Or you can just say the universe is becoming less dense over time.