Earth rotates at 0.465km/s (at the equator) Earth revolves at

so on this note
why doesnt the milky way revolve around a huge black hole or something?

ok so are you saying that the faster something's velocity the slower it moves through time?

>>7709687
>milky way is travelling...

With respect to what exactly?

>>7709699
CMB

>>7709695
obviously

>>7709723
Huh.. First time I'd ever looked into CMB. I legitimately don't understand how things like this are proven and understood. I'm an applied science guy, and this just baffles me.

>discovered by accident in 19fucking64.

I mean common. Deciphering the mysteries of the universe, by accident, while being attacked by hippies. Pretty damn humbling.

>>7709736
Go to University

>>7709687
>no velocity with respect to the cosmic background radiation.
Photons have no restframe

>>7709816

But they do have doppler shift and trajectory. And we think we know what there energy level (could be called frequency) was when they were created.

>>7709872
What does that have to do with anything?
His frame of reference is the Andromeda galaxy, not the background radiation.

>>7709892
>The milky way is traveling 583 km/s through the universe.

>>7709816
a collection of photons do

>>7709900
>The milky way is traveling 583 km/s through the universe.
Jeez, reading is hard..
Anyway, now I am confused. Are you saying that relative to the frame where the CBR does not have a doppler shift the milky way moves at 583 km/s?
After googling I found this:
> There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics.
from Professor Douglas Scott
Is it just badly worded or does he really mean photons have a restframe?

>>7709923
>does he really mean photons have a restframe
a collection of photons do

>>7709806
... I did. For an applied science. You know what they don't teach you in an engineering program? What some normally invisible crap in space did billions of years ago. Isn't really relevant to designing your car or office building, is it? Research in applied sciences is usually more about how to reinvent the wheel, not question how the wheel got there.

Doesn't mean I can't find it interesting, and that I can't appreciate the knowledge of the people who make these discoveries. It's fucking neat-o.

>>7710172
>applied science.
>no practical astronomy
>an engineering program
>designing your car or office building
wat the unholy fuck?

Are you sure it as a degree and not a certificate at some tec?

>>7710182
Mechanical Engineering. So.. Well yeah basically just a slightly more advanced tech certificate, at least for what I wanna go into. You can do much more research and theoretical stuff of course, but I personally don't find it as interesting as design and manufacturing work.

I never said this stuff wasn't useful. It is. But this stuff ALONE isn't useful. It's like saying Ink is useful.. It's not really. A pen is useful. A printer is useful. Even the ink and quill was useful. Ink alone is only useful for finger painting.

Although astronomy was a bad example.. Other than old navigation techniques (which was basically "this star looks familiar, but it moves.. Better watch that.", what do we have to show for astronomy that isn't just more information? When we find a suitable planet to go ruin when we kill this one, or when they spot the asteroid that would have killed us, then it's directly useful.

>>7710213
>Other than old navigation techniques..., what do we have to show for astronomy that isn't just more information?
I sincerely hope you are joking

>>7710213
"Hey Columbus, I mean it is all cool and nice you are trying to find a new route to India and all but why bother when we have perfectly fine working trade routes right now?
What could we possibly gain from this journey?"

People like you are why we can't have nice things.

>>7710236
I did actually think of fucking gravity just after posting... So yes, that was a stupid statement.

The rest holds though. Empty pen isn't useful, neither is loose ink. Together they're useful. You can't deny that research needs application in order to be useful, and that neither field exists without the other. That was my point. And this discussion started with me stating that I respect the research side of things, because I don't have the mind for it. I don't often see things how researchers do. But, they often don't see the applications how I do.

>>7710253
I did say "other than..." so that comment is kind of wasted.

>>7710258
I wasn't talking about your navigation technique brainfart, I was mocking your demand to be spoonfed known and even unknown uses of new technology and information while you have no understanding of the subjects you talk about.
Amazing how you are managed to get into studying anything without basic reading comprehension skills.

>>7710265
>reads into a non-existent demand in a posts which were repeatedly about respecting research
>questions MY reading comprehension

Amazing how you "are managed" to get into studying anything with that kind of cynicism.

>>7710281
>hurr whats the gain here
>pls somebody tell me
>this is not a demand
>wow you did a typo your whole post is therefore wrong
>wow why you get all mean and rude just because I am retarded
Please sterilize yourself.

>>7709923
>Is it just badly worded or does he really mean photons have a restframe?

A collection of photons does.

Basically, think of wind. A mass of air at room temperature is a huge mass of particles, all of which are moving at different velocities in different directions. But if you're standing in the middle of the room full of still air, all that velocity kind of "cancels out" - there's just as much movement in any given direction, and it comes out to being at rest with respect to the gas.

But if you start running through that room, you'll feel a breeze - the gas has a net relative velocity to you, because now particles are tending to move faster in one direction than in the other.

So even though every single photon in the CMB is moving at c in every reference frame, we see that the ones in a particular direction have been shifted to higher energies (meaning we're moving towards them) and the ones in the exact opposite direction have been shifted to lower energies (meaning we're moving away from them) and if you subtract that out you're left with a random fairly-uniform background. If the universe was filled with a gas of atoms instead of a gas of photons, we'd be feeling a breeze going 583 km/s.

>>7710305
>hurr whats the gain here
>pls somebody tell me
I literally never said anything of the sort. Try actually reading the comments before shitposting about them. The only thing that even came close was
>what do we have to show for astronomy that isn't just more information?
which I already admitted was a stupid statement, and irrelevant to my original points.

So the real question is: Who hurt you?

>>7710322
>What do we have to show for astronomy that isn't just more information?
>a stupid statement
I think we are done here.