How fast is the earth moving relative to a stationary object?

A stationary object where?

>>7712647
Relative to the stationary objects on my desk, 0 km/s.
Relative to the sun, about 30 km/s.
The sun orbits the galaxy at about 200 km/s.
Relative to the invasion fleet from Tau Ceti, we're moving about 0.33c.

>>7712659
what if you chose an arbitrary co-ordinate near your desk, how fast would earth move away from that point


this is probably a bad question

File: 1409084077223.jpg (291KB, 1044x902px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1044x902px

>>7712678
>this is probably a bad question
Yes.

There is no single "correct" frame of reference.
The upper right corner of my desk is stationary relative to the desk itself, and the room it's in.
But there are an infinite number of frames of reference, and the desk corner has a different velocity relative to each.
And none of these frames of reference is any "more right" than any other.
Are you the guy that's been posting about a time machine sending you into the past, only to find yourself floating in space somewhere else on the Earth's orbit around the sun?
...cause time machines don't work like that.

>>7712678
It is. The answer is, it depends on the coordinate system.

One of the fundamental principles of general and special relativity is that there is no single correct coordinate system: that the coordinates relative to my desk and the coordinates relative to Andromeda are exactly as correct as each other*.

*this isn't actually true. All *non-accelerating* reference frames are equally valid. My desk's accelerating relative to Andromeda, because Earth's orbiting and spinning around, so they're not really interchangeable.

File: 1436804620140.gif (842KB, 350x260px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 350x260px

>>7712697
>>7712701

>>7712647
Relative to the absolute stationary object, the Earth appears to be stationary, because the absolute stationary will mimic any motion an observer attempts. This is proved because things exist.

>>7713436
Oh god its you. No that is not proved. We don't know that there is an absolute stationary and there does not need to be.

>>7713470
Don't worry it's not him. I was just meming.

>>7712647
There are no stationary objects.

About 29.8km/s ;^)

>>7712647
>stationary object?

stationary relative to what?

everything is moving

our sun is on an orbit around galactic core

our galaxy is moving towards virgo supercluster

that is probably moving towards something too

then if space is expanding its actually impossible to get a static frame of reference from anywhere no matter how far away you refract

>>7713470
I thought it was curious to see this thread too.

>and there does not need to be.
There does, otherwise movement and location can't exist. Nor can directionality. Doesn't matter in what way spatial or temporal anything actually exists. What you've been arguing for it's tripper and more strange than relativity or quantum anything could ever hope to be.

>>7713500
>otherwise movement and location can't exist

why not? it just means you have to measure movement and location relative to other moving objects

>>7713470
That was OK, up to "There does not need to be" actually yes, There needs to be. Think very deeply about this.

>>7713508
Right, we have to measure that way because we don't have absolute knowledge or perspective. That doesn't mean that's how anything actually works. It also ignores that the idea is logically disjointed.

We're systems of particles, whatever a particle actually is. We can move around. We're on a planet. That planet is spinning. We're part of a solar system, objects that are being moved around by each other but mostly by the sun, which we're orbiting. That sun is being moved around by other large bodies surrounding us, which are all being pulled probably by a supermassive black hole in the center of galaxy. That's a lot of things affecting our motion. But the fact remains, on our scale, we're only in one place at once. We aren't everywhere. So how are all these bodies actually moving? What is their actual direction, actual motion, and actual speed? The idea of curved spacetime is irrelevant.

We can agree that you're you, and I'm me, right? Probably. It is also apparent that you and I are composed of different information, and not in the same spot. However, given the proper means, we can become somewhere else. If absolute location, direction, or speed doesn't exist, how is this possible? It isn't. You're either in a certain place, or you're not. Unless you want to go all solipsist, that's what our faculty for thought and observation shows. I'm not sure why you'd try to argue things are only moving relative to each other, or why you want to ignore that relative anything can't exist without an absolute.

Speed appears to be tied to time. Something that is absolutely stationary will undergo the most rapid change. Something moving near c will be changing the most slowly. It is a multidimensional flipbook where all of the components of the pictures are cycling at different rates.

>>7713530
I get what you mean and yes its more convenient to assume there's a stationary point, especially on the scales we operate, my comment was more on the meta level

>>7713530
>It is a multidimensional flipbook where all of the components of the pictures are cycling at different rates.
picture*
It might be more accurate to clarify "cycling" could be better describing as "changing". It's just undergoing change in accordance with the laws of physics. Not our laws. The real laws, the real underlying machinery of the universe.

>>7713520
I have. It doesn't.

>>7713551
Have ever thought about why c always appears the same?

If the universe is expanding, it must be expanding from somewhere. There must be some single point where the big bang banged.

Setting this as our stationary point, how fast is the earth moving?

>>7713555
Yes its because of how time and space are related.

Speed up and time slows down/distances contract and thus even though you're going faster light seems to cover the same distance/time.

Slow down and the opposite happens again preserving the rate at which light travels.

>>7712678
>this is probably a bad question
ya think?!

>>7713558
>it must be expanding from somewhere
wat

>>7713558
>it must be expanding from somewhere. There must be some single point where the big bang banged

nope, it can be expanding in a "swiss cheese" manner, areas that are expanding (the cheese) and holes where the expansion has stopped or is slower(we'd inhabit such a hole, called our observable universe)

expansion doesn't work like a balloon being filled, don't visualize it that way

>>7711351

This thread gives a pretty good explanation of relativity

File: deleted.png (1KB, 104x104px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 104x104px

>>7713637
"This post was deleted before its lifetime has expired"

>>7713520

You don't know what you're talking about. You think this field is something a smart enough person might be able to revolutionize without any formal learning of it, and you think you are smart enough to be that person. But it isn't, and you're not. Think very deeply about this.

>>7713826
I'm sorry that you can't wrap your mind around an absolute frame of motion. All of you people are brainwashed, you take everything accepted as fact and can't think on your own. An absolute reference frame needs to exist, otherwise relativity wouldn't exist. Don't you see that einsteins theory is built off of a universe which has a single absolute frame. We can try to describe it using relative frames but we'll never come close, the only way it can be imagined is with deep focus and purely logical thinking. Don't you all see that position, velocity, direction, expansion, and the speed of light all prove that Absolutity is the superior field.

>>7713838

Neat.

Hey, what predictions can this theory make that are testable?

What phenomena does this theory explain that other theories are unable to explain?

>>7713855
It would make all the same predictions as General relativity (except for gravity waves of course), and it would also predict the existence of a stationary object.
>What phenomena does this theory explain that other theories are unable to explain?
As I already explained, Abolutity explains how position could exist at all. You're seriously blind if you can't see it

>>7713866

So, it doesn't predict anything testable, and it doesn't explain anything that needs explaining. Sounds like a winner to me. Time for you to make a website and share your brilliance with the world.

>You're seriously blind if you can't see it

Perfect for the website, that'll really convince people.

>>7713530
All this mental contortion because you can't deal with the idea of relativity.

show me evidence that the earth is even moving.

professional advice: you cannot

>There's no single correct frame of reference.

I have a question about this.

Alright, but there's consequences to having less or more speed as far as I know. For example, for an oberver that would measure us going at a respectable fraction of c, it should measure us to be more massive while we actually aren't experiencing any effects of that. But we do oberve that for other objects that move ~0.5c relative to some point of reference like 1s electrons of a post-lanthanide element.

Why does the orbital contraction occur as an actual physical change with consequences like changing chemical reactivity while for earth going at 0.3c for an arbitrary observer causes no effects?

Is there really no absolute velocities?

>>7714100
>measure us to be more massive
only if we collide with something
rest mass is unchanged, so basic properties concerning mass are irrelevant at any velocity(otherwise we would know which frame we are in, which invalidates General relativity/Special relativity)

Relativistic speeds have literally no effect other than that the two frames will disagree on when and where an observed event occurs. that's it.

>>7714104
>which invalidates General relativity/Special relativity)
You had me until here but I don't consider this a reason. I don't claim to have found a profound loophole in some theory but what I suggest may be a shortcoming of the very theory with which you are refering to refute my point.

>>7713530
>were not in the same spot
From our perspective. There is a perspective from which we are all everywhere, and no where.

To a photon, or any other massless thing traveling at C, we are everywhere because all space and time might as well be a single point to a photon. It experiences no time.

So no we do not know that we are absolutely in a given location, or even in different locations. Any scenario you can think of as an absolute arrangement of things there is some perspective from which it is different.

faster than c in some reference frames

>>7714092
>what is Foucault Pendulum
>what are seasons
> oh that's right, I'm just a troll

>>7714114
Nope.

>>7714114
>faster than c in some reference frames
That's not how additive velocity works.
You forgot to divide by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

>>7714121
>>7714124
what are spacelike separated points?

>>7713838
>An absolute reference frame needs to exist, otherwise relativity wouldn't exist.

nigga what

something not relative must exist for relativity to exist?

>>7712647

I saw the OP image and immediately thought it read

"What if the earth was round?"

>>7714178
let me explain my stupid question

I'm on observer at A. i observe two objects moving away from me at c in opposite directions due to expanding spacetime. does it make any sense to say that they are moving away from each other at faster than c? i believe they can not observe that fact directly.

>>7714118
He wasn't talking about rotational motion you useless cunt waggle

>>7714110
I have a surprise for you:
There is no reference frame for objects moving at the speed of light.

Now fuck off with all your misconceptions and metaphysical bullshit

>>7714192
maybe what i'm thinking is that there are scenarios in which communication between spacelike separated sources is always(?) impossible

>>7713551
>>7713826
Ok. What is matter? At a fundamental level it is an entaglementvof energy. If there is no motion, then the entanglement cannot exist, therefore nothing exists where 'motion stops'. Now either that propagates and everything ceases to exist, or, to use an old adage, 'nature abhors a vacum' , something moves in to fill that void. Therefore, motion HAS to happen. I hope I explained that reasonably understandably

>implying the earth is moving
>implying the whole universe doesn't revolve around the earth

>>7714202
I'm aware there are no light speed observers I'm just trying to show this idiot there's no absolute frame of reference.

>>7714211
Yea there is relative motion no one is debating that accept you.

>>7713826
Oh, and if I may add, I had the pleasure of studying ToE under a protege of Penrose, whom I was delighted to witness lecturing at Birkbeck college. I agree therefore that I am not qualified to talk on any subject, you sir, clearly are and I apologise unreservedly.

>>7714227
Revolve how though? Clockwise? Counter-clockwise?

>>7713902
No mental contortion is occurring. That you can't even respond shows you probably don't understand the bigger picture implied, and demanded by, the very theory you religiously cling to.

You don't understand your own beliefs, nor do you understand what I'm saying. Evidence me wrong.

>>7714502
Counter-clockwise if you look down from the north pole.

>>7714262
Penrose is a mathematician, not a scientist.

His scientific ideas are completely laughable. His protege must be a shit-eater, which I guess makes you a second rate shit-eater.

>>7714542
Mathematical Physicist.
We will see who eats the shit over the next 10 years. It wont be me.

>>7714562
Imagine eating shit for 10 whole years and not fully knowing it.

if we directed a lightbeam in each direction wouldnt they move at different speed from earth's viewpoint because of max speed in vacuum?

File: CBR n Earth Movement.jpg (24KB, 489x284px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 489x284px

>nobody even mentioned background radiation yet
You disappoint me, /sci/.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v222/n5197/abs/222971a0.html

>>7714703
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

File: 1449835758859.png (980B, 104x104px) Image search: [Google]

980B, 104x104px

>>7713780
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.

File: 1449813347787.gif (806KB, 350x260px) Image search: [Google]

806KB, 350x260px

>>7713431
I could not help but notice your gif was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your gif.
Your gif is now optimized.

>>7714708
Hey, my Uni did that!

>>7714705
>Implying the CMB is stationary
You disappoint me even more.

File: heredeycome.jpg (93KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 900x506px

>>7712659
>Relative to the invasion fleet from Tau Ceti, we're moving about 0.33c

They'll be here in a half a million years.

>>7712647
Speed v.

What is my prize?

File: cant stifle the nigel.jpg (29KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 620x388px

>How fast is the earth moving relative to a stationary object?

>>7715006
wow missed by an inch

>>7713530

All that and you didn't even put forward a single argument

>>7712647
> How fast is the earth moving relative to a stationary object?
You will have to perform an experiment to determine that for a given stationary object.

>>7715710
All of that is the argument.