- #1
shimun
- 10
- 0
Hello Dear Ones.
1. How Scientists exactly calculated movement speed of solar system ?
thank you very much.
1. How Scientists exactly calculated movement speed of solar system ?
thank you very much.
Movement with respect to what?shimun said:Hello Dear Ones.
1. How Scientists exactly calculated movement speed of solar system ?
thank you very much.
That does not appear to be a meaningful phrase. What do you have in mind? Do you understand that all motion is relative and that it is meaningless to say speed unless you say relative to what?shimun said:...default movment speed.
There are various methods, but usually it involves measuring radial velocity to some object or objects using a spectrometer. The Doppler shift of some reference spectral lines in the light of the observed object reveals its relative velocity along the line of sight.shimun said:-Speed of Sun Around Milky Way 230km/s. - This One.
RELATIVE TO THE CMB ! You really should state that since this thread is at a beginner level.CygnusX-1 said:This speed is much less than the speed of the Local Group of galaxies through the universe.
Yes, you are correct.Chronos said:Technically speaking, that would be 'relative to the CMB rest frame', would it not?
This is complete and total nonsense. You really need to come to grips with the fact that all motion is relative. There IS no absolute speed as you think there is. You are arguing against science that was established LONG ago.shimun said:I think this measurement is absolutetly wrong, due lack of understading of simplicity of human mind. What is default speed ? Let's be simple in thoughts. sun is moving, no doubt. we can reduce this movement to the simple movement of object trough infinite space, imagine as dot moving trough black space. so if its moving it has its own energy, and ITS OWN SPEED , it doesn't matter how is relative with other cosmical objects are, it moves, it has is OWN speed. We looking for is true speed, not relative speed.
Again. Total nonsense. There IS NO "true speed". ALL speed is relative. Space is just geometry. There is nothing to "feel"shimun said:Please read my statements very carefuly. I SAID THAT we don't look for relative speed, we looking for its true speed. relative speed is just comparison of two movement speed of objects. WE measure object speed in SPACE. You can transform movement speed to termodynamical energy, and it going to gave its own units. if you cannot feel space, its your own psychological problem
Since you won't listen to @phinds, I'll repeat: there is no such thing as "true speed".shimun said:Please read my statements very carefuly. I SAID THAT we don't look for relative speed, we looking for its true speed.
As others said, there is no absolute speed. If you transform movement speed to heat then all you have done is measure the original speed relative to the frame where the object came to rest. The math works out the same regardless of which frame that is. So it does not provide any additional information.shimun said:You can transform movement speed to termodynamical energy, and it going to gave its own units.
lomidrevo said:@shimun maybe you can start http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node47.html, in order to get correct understanding of what is relative motion, and why there is nothing like "true" (or absolute) speed
Chronos said:All speed is coordinate dependent, like every fraction has a denominator. Without a coordinate system [reference frame] the very concept of speed lacks any meaning.
Yeah, but he had his own set of "facts".Chronos said:Listening does not alter the facts.
shimun said:I think this measurement is absolutetly wrong, due lack of understading of simplicity of human mind. What is default speed ? Let's be simple in thoughts. sun is moving, no doubt. we can reduce this movement to the simple movement of object trough infinite space, imagine as dot moving trough black space. so if its moving it has its own energy, and ITS OWN SPEED , it doesn't matter how is relative with other cosmical objects are, it moves, it has is OWN speed. We looking for is true speed, not relative speed. So if you imagine this movement as dot in black infinite space and you will put other immovable object in front of movement trajectory, after collosion sun as dot to for example to wall, will transform kinetical energy to another kind of energy and there`s no doubt that WILL HAVE precisely measurment of units, of speed, energy. etc. This measurment is wrong , because is relative. not true. We don't measure what speed of object is relation to other object, because it will give wrong result, we looking for speed of object in subject, as sun in space, its own.
The OP is not here any more...RandyD123 said:That entire statement is just FALSE. You can mix and match your thoughts any way you like, but they would ALL still be wrong. Listen to what others are saying here because they are trying to help you get an understanding of real facts, not alternative facts!
phinds said:Presumably due to a couple of posts that have been deleted (and who knows what else) the OP has left the building.
That is preferred in the sense “here is some matter relative to which we personally prefer to draw our coordinates. It is not preferred in the physical sense that the laws of physics are unique in that frame.jeremyfiennes said:a preferred 'at-rest' for speeds would be 'stationary on the balloon surface' – in practical terms: 'with respect to the CMB'.
Because not all sequences of translations are inertial.jeremyfiennes said:And since rotation is 'coordinated translation' – every point on the disk moves instantaneously translationally in a direction perpendicular to its radius – how come there can be everyday absolute rotation, but no absolute translation?
shimun said in post #11 in response to Bandersnatch's post #8Speed of Sun around Milky Way 230km/s
I think I understand what shimun is trying to say - and I agree! A measurement of a velocity relative to other objects in motion will not result in an objective observation. Let's think for a moment about a merry-go-round. The horses in the middle will see the horses closer to the center move at a slower relative velocity while seeing the horses near the edge move faster. Any conclusion the middle horse makes based on these relative velocities is bound to not be the horses "true" velocity. For that you need an impartial observer on the ground, one who does not take part in the carousel's motion. The disk of the galaxy is like the carousel. shimun is right to be suspicious about trying to draw any conclusions about our velocity around the center of the galaxy based on stars that are participating in the disk's motion. Fortunately for us, we have something like the impartial observer on the ground. What shimun didn't get from Bandersnatch's post, is that there are stars in the galactic halo, a spherical region outside of the disk, that don't participate in the disk's rotation. Some of these stars are even distributed in the disk near our location. These stars can be identified because they have very little heavy elements in their composition and this shows up in their spectra, and so these stars can be excluded from being disk stars. We can then use these stars to establish our velocity about the galaxy's center.I think this measurement is absolutely wrong...We are looking for it's true speed, not relative speed.
This measurement is wrong, because it is relative. We don't measure what speed of an object is in relation to another object, because it will give a wrong result...
Well, you shouldn't. Velocity IS relative. You are digging yourself into the same hole that ended up with him not being here any longer (see that line through his name?)alantheastronomer said:...I think I understand what shimun is trying to say - and I agree!
Lets think for a moment about a merry-go-round. ... you need an impartial observer on the ground,
Looks like that's a different method from the one in my link. Do you know of any specific papers using it? I wonder how accurately one can identify halo stars from spectroscopy only.alantheastronomer said:What shimun didn't get from Bandersnatch's post, is that there are stars in the galactic halo, a spherical region outside of the disk, that don't participate in the disk's rotation. Some of these stars are even distributed in the disk near our location. These stars can be identified because they have very little heavy elements in their composition and this shows up in their spectra, and so these stars can be excluded from being disk stars. We can then use these stars to establish our velocity about the galaxy's center.