So how fast are we actually moving?

[Nexus555]

Ok I'm having trouble trying to figure something out. There will be a series of questions in this post.

First of all, how fast exactly is the Earth moving? Our average orbital speed is around 30,000 mph (correct me if I'm wrong) around the sun. The sun orbits around the center of our galaxy at approximately 217 km/s, so about 485,415 mph if my math is correct. And right now it's not exactly known, but the Milky Way is approximatley hurling through space at around 552 km/s or 1,234,789 mph So if I add it all together, that's about 1,750,204 mph.

I guess my question is: Are we really moving that fast, total? I guess it's kind of like being in a car, and you're going 60 mph, but in your perception in the car, you're at 0. If Earth is going 30,000 mph and the sun is pulling us around the galaxy center at 485,415 mph, and the galaxy is traveling us at 1,234,789 mph, are we actually moving that fast?

Another question, is there a such thing as absolute 0 as far as speed is concerned? Is intergalatic space at a "stand still?" Is there any way to determine a 0?

Also another question. If the speed of light is 186,000 mp/s (roughly) converted to roughly 669,600,000 mph, are we actually already traveling at a fraction of the speed of light?

Last one! : When a spaceship escapes Earth's gravitational pull and is in orbit around the Earth in space, is the spaceship actually traveling the 1,750,204 + their speed?

Thanks for whoever answers these questions!

 

[Moridin]

Well, it is not as simple as adding velocities straight off without respect to their directions.

Your car is not going with a constant velocity in a straight line (curvature of the earth), so it isn't a perfect inertial frame of reference.

If your question is "Does the Universe move?" the answer is not as simple. How would you show or test it? A scientific hypothesis must be formulated in a way that allows it to be subjected to attempts to falsify it. "Does all books have 200 pages" is one, where as "Does God exist" is not a scientific hypothesis. If it is not a scientific hypothesis, it (generally) does not fall within the realm of science.

Velocity is relative and there is no special frame of reference where if an object has a relative velocity of 0 m/s with respect to that frame of reference is defined to be at absolute rest.

You cannot travel faster than the speed of light in any frame of reference according to the theory of relativity because that would demand an infinite amount of force.

 

[hover]

Ok I'm having trouble trying to figure something out. There will be a series of questions in this post.

First of all, how fast exactly is the Earth moving? Our average orbital speed is around 30,000 mph (correct me if I'm wrong) around the sun. The sun orbits around the center of our galaxy at approximately 217 km/s, so about 485,415 mph if my math is correct. And right now it's not exactly known, but the Milky Way is approximatley hurling through space at around 552 km/s or 1,234,789 mph So if I add it all together, that's about 1,750,204 mph.

I guess my question is: Are we really moving that fast, total? I guess it's kind of like being in a car, and you're going 60 mph, but in your perception in the car, you're at 0. If Earth is going 30,000 mph and the sun is pulling us around the galaxy center at 485,415 mph, and the galaxy is traveling us at 1,234,789 mph, are we actually moving that fast?

Another question, is there a such thing as absolute 0 as far as speed is concerned? Is intergalatic space at a "stand still?" Is there any way to determine a 0?

Also another question. If the speed of light is 186,000 mp/s (roughly) converted to roughly 669,600,000 mph, are we actually already traveling at a fraction of the speed of light?

Last one! : When a spaceship escapes Earth's gravitational pull and is in orbit around the Earth in space, is the spaceship actually traveling the 1,750,204 + their speed?

Thanks for whoever answers these questions!

This is impossible find out the TRUE speed of earth. In order to find the true speed of anything you must know the absolute reference frame, but in a universe that is constantly moving how can you? At best we can only use reference frames from different objects to find speed. Example- you are sitting in front of your computer right now and reading this, relative to the Earth you aren't moving at all. Relative to the sun though, you are moving 30,000 mph in an orbit. Then you take the relative value from the center of the milky way and get another value and then the center of the universe and get anouter value. The point is you can't determine the TRUE speed of an object.

 

[ray b]

to do a proper vector diagram you need directions
as Earth orbit is at what angle to solar orbit in the galixcy
and the angle to the galixcy's direction
unless every vector is lined up it is not a pure addition
and some motion may cancel

so what are the vectors victor?

 

[Jorrie]

Another question, is there a such thing as absolute 0 as far as speed is concerned? Is intergalatic space at a "stand still?" Is there any way to determine a 0?

Also another question. If the speed of light is 186,000 mp/s (roughly) converted to roughly 669,600,000 mph, are we actually already traveling at a fraction of the speed of light?

You obviously realize that speed and velocity are relative things. The closest we can come to determining our velocity relative to the universe at large, is to measure the temperature of the cosmic microwave background (cmb) radiation in all directions.

An observer that measures the average temperature to be the same in all directions can be considered as at rest relative to the cmb. As determined by COBE and WMAP, we are moving in the order of 0.1% of the speed of light relative to the cmb. This is due to the vector-summation of the velocities that you mentioned.

Jorrie

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

How would you go about finding a stationary point in the universe? Or the "centre of the universe"? If we could find a point we knew was motionless or at 0, then we could know our speed relative to this right? Problem is finding that point in the first place? finding a speed relative to the CMB means only that you have found your speed relative to the CMB, not necessarily your true speed relative to a stationary point, you could make the assumption, that the CMB's speed is relative to a stationary point? But how would you prove you were right?

 

[DaveC426913]

This is impossible find out the TRUE speed of earth. In order to find the true speed of anything you must know the absolute reference frame, but in a universe that is constantly moving how can you? ... The point is you can't determine the TRUE speed of an object.

I know your intentions are good, but this is misleading.

It is not simply impossible to find - simply out, there is no such thing as "true speed". It is a meaningless concept.

 

[MeJennifer]

Well cosmology is all very confusing to me.

First we had a wonderful and elegant theory, the general theory of relativity, where motion is relative, time is proper and space-time is defined by mass and energy. Then comes cosmology, where it feels like we are going back to Galilee, now we go back to absolute time, but of course we call it "cosmological time" and we replace the space-time geometry by some extra dimension on which space-time can expand.
And that is called progress.

 

[tehno]

Then comes cosmology, where it feels like we are going back to Galilee, now we go back to absolute time

Where did you get that impression from ?

 

[Jorrie]

Back to Galilee?

... Then comes cosmology, where it feels like we are going back to Galilee, now we go back to absolute time, but of course we call it "cosmological time" and we replace the space-time geometry by some extra dimension on which space-time can expand.
And that is called progress.

I know that you were writing this "tongue in the cheek", but I suppose somebody must complain about you calling cosmological time an "absolute time".

More seriously, I would like to know if the "extra dimension on which space-time can expand" is not applicable to a Schwarzschild vacuum as well? There space curves and as such also contracts and expands, depending on the reference frame, of course.

Jorrie

 

[Nexus555]

Another question

I understand the speed is relative to the perspective. Here is another question I have concerning speed in space:

Let's say you have a space shuttle that launches from earth, and the spaceship begins to orbit the earth. The space shuttle's speed is based off of Earth's perspective. How could you make the space shuttle come to a "halt" (minus the speed they're going, and the speed of Earth's orbit) ? What I'm saying is, let's say the space shuttle decides to let Earth whiz by, and halt, and within 1 year the Earth will pass back around. So in the space craft's perspective, the Earth is traveling at 30,000 MPH.

How could this be accomplish? Would you have to turn the ship in the opposite direction of the Earth's orbit, and begin accelerating at a particular speed? If so, would it not be much less than a year, considering that both the Earth and the spaceship are traveling in opposite directions? So how exactly could you accomplish this (assuming that you could stay in one "place" while maintaining around the same proximity to the sun and Earth's orbital path.) It's just confusing, because it seems if you use force to try and slow the spacecraft 's speed, it's actually moving, if not faster, just in a different direction.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you wanted the shuttle to stop moving wrt to something other than the Earth, for example, the Sun or the celestial sphere, you would have to escape Earth's gravitational field (you'd have to leave orbit) and accelerate in the opposite direction from Earth's movement around the Sun. Eventually, you'd lose the momentum gained by the Earth. As this happens, you'll start falling towards the Sun. You'll need to fire rockets to prevent this.

 

[Nexus555]

Okay your answer cleared that up.

Why would you start to "lose momentum?" I thought that once and object is in motion, it will stay in motion until acted upon by another force? Would the Sun's gravity be the agent (or force) that causes the lost velocity? Obviously it's what causes the ship to be eventually pulled towards it. But if you're traveling the opposite orbit of earth, it would seem if you're already traveling as fast or faster than Earth when you leave orbit, and travel through Earth's orbital path backwards, wouldn't that be enough to sustain an orbit around the sun (obviously you would eventually crash into earth.)

I guess the mass of the spaceship would determine if the spaceship would be pulled toward the sun, or continue it's speed until collison. Is this correct?

 

[DaveC426913]

Okay your answer cleared that up.

Why would you start to "lose momentum?" I thought that once and object is in motion, it will stay in motion until acted upon by another force?

Sorry, that may have been a confusing statement. What I meant was, if you want to "stop" in the solar system, you will have to activate your rockets to negate the velocity gained by your start from Earth.

Note that you would need this velocity to stay in orbit - just as Earth does. If you lose this velocity, you'll fall into the sun.

But if you're traveling the opposite orbit of earth, it would seem if you're already traveling as fast or faster than Earth when you leave orbit, and travel through Earth's orbital path backwards, wouldn't that be enough to sustain an orbit around the sun (obviously you would eventually crash into earth.)

Wait, when did we start traveling backwards? All we've done is stop. If you wanted to travel backwards, you'd need to keep blasting your rockets.

But yes, if you did, you'd eventually end up in an orbit the reverse of Earth's. And yes, it would be stable short term.

I guess the mass of the spaceship would determine if the spaceship would be pulled toward the sun, or continue it's speed until collison. Is this correct?

No. The mass of the spaceship will not affect its fall. Just like the Space shuttle and a lost wingnut will fall toward Earth at the same rate.

 

[heusdens]

Ok I'm having trouble trying to figure something out. There will be a series of questions in this post.

First of all, how fast exactly is the Earth moving? Our average orbital speed is around 30,000 mph (correct me if I'm wrong) around the sun. The sun orbits around the center of our galaxy at approximately 217 km/s, so about 485,415 mph if my math is correct. And right now it's not exactly known, but the Milky Way is approximatley hurling through space at around 552 km/s or 1,234,789 mph So if I add it all together, that's about 1,750,204 mph.

I guess my question is: Are we really moving that fast, total? I guess it's kind of like being in a car, and you're going 60 mph, but in your perception in the car, you're at 0. If Earth is going 30,000 mph and the sun is pulling us around the galaxy center at 485,415 mph, and the galaxy is traveling us at 1,234,789 mph, are we actually moving that fast?

Another question, is there a such thing as absolute 0 as far as speed is concerned? Is intergalatic space at a "stand still?" Is there any way to determine a 0?

Also another question. If the speed of light is 186,000 mp/s (roughly) converted to roughly 669,600,000 mph, are we actually already traveling at a fraction of the speed of light?

Last one! : When a spaceship escapes Earth's gravitational pull and is in orbit around the Earth in space, is the spaceship actually traveling the 1,750,204 + their speed?

Thanks for whoever answers these questions!

I think the current speed is 60 seconds a minute, or close to that.

What was your question?

(motion is relative, so we can't state that, unless you show us an absolute frame of reference)

 

[ray b]

I think the current speed is 60 seconds a minute, or close to that.

What was your question?

(motion is relative, so we can't state that, unless you show us an absolute frame of reference)

how about this one

X=Y=Z = 0 at the time of this post for the center of the earth
in units of your choise [miles, kM, fraction of a light year ect]

in one years time how far have numbers changed
adding in all known motion
[solar orbit around galixcy center + galixcy movement + any other]

or does nobody like vectors?

 

[heusdens]

how about this one

X=Y=Z = 0 at the time of this post for the center of the earth
in units of your choise [miles, kM, fraction of a light year ect]

in one years time how far have numbers changed
adding in all known motion
[solar orbit around galixcy center + galixcy movement + any other]

or does nobody like vectors?

What's your frame of reference?

 

[ray b]

earth center at time of post as stated
aline N to pole and Z axis as commonly done

basic questions is simple we were at a point and moved
one year later how far

no out side frame needed
we are just tracking Earth for one year

 

[DaveC426913]

Ray, if Earth's centre is your frame of reference then after one year Earth has not moved at all. The Earth is still exactly where it was all along wrt to its center and will continue to be so for as long as Earth remains a planet.

You need to supply a frame of reference OUTSIDE that of what yoiu want to measure, such as the Sun, or the Galactic core or perhaps the local galactic cluster.

 

[ray b]

Ray, if Earth's centre is your frame of reference then after one year Earth has not moved at all. The Earth is still exactly where it was all along wrt to its center and will continue to be so for as long as Earth remains a planet.

You need to supply a frame of reference OUTSIDE that of what yoiu want to measure, such as the Sun, or the Galactic core or perhaps the local galactic cluster.

quibbile quibbile quibbile
the current location of the center not the real center
I picked that to give a real feal to how far we move in a year
and picked a year to semi-cancil orbital motion around the sun

 

[PhanthomJay]

Mr. Hubble would not be pleased. For according to his Law, relative to a galaxy far far away,...some 14 billion light years away...the speed of the Earth relative to it, when you consider space-time expansion, even at a constant rate of expansion ..is...,,,,,,,,,,, drum roll, please......
the speed of light !.

 

[DaveC426913]

quibbile quibbile quibbile
the current location of the center not the real center

No. You're missing the point.

...location of the Earth with respect to what observing point?

Just tell us where your observer is standing.

If you're standing on the sun, you'll get a very different value than if you're standing at the centre of the galaxy (and if you're standing on Earth - well - it hasn't moved at all, has it? It's still right under you.). There IS no objective reference point, you MUST PICK one.

 

[ray b]

an X Y Z grid can start at any random point
I see no need to tie it to any external point

the point I picked is the LOCATION of the center of the earth
at the time posted this directly related to how far the Earth will move in one year that is what I seek to know
I see no need to tie the grid to any other point

or any need for an external observer

if the Earth move one unit on x and one on y then it has moved that EXACT
amount without any external grid or observer needed
put that into units like miles and give a direction and you get mile per year and a direction of travel
that is all I ask

 

[Chronos]

The most widely accepted measure of our velocity with respect to the universe is called 'heliocentric cz' - the radial velocity of our solar system relative to the Hubble flow [about 370 kilometers per seconds]. See
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
for the gruesome details.

 

[wilbur57]

Would we, in order to realize an "absolute 0" of movement, have to necessarily also have to find an "0" point in time?

 

[ray b]

NOW THIS SIMPLE
and everyone is trylng to make it hard
or quible

all I want to know is speed AND direction
not Hubble flow or streaching of space or red shift effects
and don't see any need to tie the question to a fixed grid
as none really is out there
JUST SPEED AND DIRECTION for the year
lets apply the KISS rule here

as the milky way is moving to hit big A in the far future
what the basic question is,
suns orbit direction and speed vector in the milky way
at what angle to the whole milky ways track to hit big A and speed vector
I would guess we are moving ruffly at big A now not exactly but where ever big A will be when the predicted hit is to take place
but have no idea of the true angle between the sun orbit vector and the milky ways movement

 

[DaveC426913]

At 26,000ly distance, the Solar system is about 2/3rds of the way out from the core or the Milky Way. we orbit the MW counterclockwise (if we take Earth North as "up" for the galaxy as well) every 250My or so.

Andromeda is about 2 million ly away right now*, but we are converging. We will begin merging in about 4 billion years.

*The http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/F_When_Gallaxies_Collide.html" makes a cool intuitive comparison. If our two galaxies were two music CDs (about right in diameter and thickness) then you would place them about 8 feet apart - quite close in galactic terms.

Andromeda can be seen almost in the plane of MW's disc - about 15 degrees below the disc of the MW.

I am unsure of the MW's North in relation to the SS's North. I think the'yre a roughly similar direction.


By the time we merge, the SS will have orbited the MW ~16 times. Because of this, it is kind of meaningless to ask where Andromeda will be when we merge. In that time, our whole galaxy including all our local stars will be nothing at all like it is now.

 

[ray b]

still want a speed and direction

 

[Chronos]

The question is still meaningless without external reference points.

The sun is a convenient local reference point, so we could start there. The Earth circles the sun one a year at a distance of about 1.5E08 km. The works out to about 30 km/s. The Earth's direction of travel, with respect to the rotational axis of the sun, is counterclockwise. Taking it a step further, the sun orbits the milky way. The distance from the sun to the center of the MW is roughly 3E13 km and it orbits it about once every 250 million years, which works out to a velocity of about 217 km/s in a counterclockwise direction [wrt to the polar axis of the MW]. For some linear measures, the Milky Way is moving toward the Andromeda galaxy at a speed of about 130 km/s as well as moving [along with the local group] at a velocity of about 600 km/s towards the constellation Hydra.

 

[Brain Dwarf]

Nexus555,

We do not know of anything that is still in the universe (make that stationary otherwise I'll be drummed out of the forum..) and since we have no way of measuring how fast space 'flys by' we er.. simply cannot answer your question. Everything is expressed relative to something else, in this case we just don't have a fixed point to measure against. Even if you did use the current coordinates of the Earth as a reference we could not tell whether we were moving away at 1mph or 10 million.

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess ray has given us the required reference point. By 'The Big A' I presume he means 'The Great Attractor'.

So, the question becomes how fast are we moving toward the Great Attractor?

I think he also wants to know the orientation of the galaxy wrt our movement towards the GA, and the orientation of the SS wrt the galaxy.

 

[marcus]

still want a speed and direction

the speed and direction were measured by George Smoot Berkeley team quite a long time ago and have been confirmed ever since as more and more data comes in

but he was already on the money as of around 1977!

and he didn't even need a satellite or anything, he did it (or his team did it) just using U-2 spyplane aircraft. Flying out of Moffat field near SF, and also out of someplace in Peru

beautiful measurements with simple resources. maybe i can get a link

 

[marcus]

Whoah! Ned Wright says that some other people measured it using balloon-borne instrument even before Smoot's team did it with U2 aircraft.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-dipole-history.html

But on brief inspection it looks like the earlier team was somewhat off on the speed. Smoot got very close to the figure later confirmed by COBE (1990s) and WMAP (2000s) satellite measurments.

I'll try to find the Smoot website with the U2 pictures.
Here is a Smoot U2 page
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/
NOTICE THE STAR MAP WITH THE CONSTELLATION LEO

In any case the DIRECTION of the solar system's travel is the same direction as currently occupied by the constellation Leo. It is away from the Great Attractor, which is kind of irrelevant as a landmark. Of course we are orbiting Milky center, and Milky is part of Local Group and Local group is falling towards Virgo Cluster and Virgo Cluster is falling towards HydraCentaurus direction "Attractor" but all those complicated motions are not what matters. and not what cosmologists want to know when they have to adjust measurments to compensate for solarsystem motion.

When cosmologists compensate for solar system motion the vector they use is approx 368 km/sec in direction of Leo (you can find the precise coords in Ned Wright site)

and that was what Smoot found with the U2 aircraft (approximately)

 

[marcus]

Back in 2003 I was discussing this kind of thing with, among others, Chroot and I wanted to know how fast Milky was going towards the Great Attractor or in the Hydra-Centaurus direction.

So I hunted around and found a peer-review journal article that gave coordinates and a speed IIRC around 600 km per second.

I posted the figure and the link.

But that does not mean that Milky is approaching Big A at 600 clicks!

In largescale astronomy speeds are typically relative to the CMB

The astronomers had determined that Milky, or the Local Group which is roughly the same speed, is going IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION AT A SPEED OF 600 CLICKS RELATIVE TO CMB.

That doesn't tell about our speed relative to Big A, because Big A itself could be moving in any direction whatever and we wouldn't know.

So Big A, or the Virgo Cluster, or whatever is a BAD LANDMARK and most of the time people simply do not use it.

Another thing I found out was that Milky and the Local Group are not actually moving towards the Great Attractor! Only very roughly. they are not even headed anywhere in the constellations of Hydra and Centaurus!

The coordinates of Local Group velocity vector are in a small Southern constellation called Crater, the drinking cup.

That is something you can see in the sky, in our latitude, in the summer.
and it marks the direction that our Local Fleet of a dozen or so galaxies is really going.

 

[Chronos]

Full circle?

 

[marcus]

Full circle?

Not quite full circle. Nobody like Chroot
I found a PF reference:
https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-41717.html

(EDIT here's another PF reference---January 2004 post, one or the other of these links should work
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=137931#post137931
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=137931&posted=1#post137931 )

The Local Group speed is about 600 km/second as measured by Smoot et al (recent Nobel for this kind of work)

==quote from a September post of mine==

hello king, you should have asked the direction as well
I have a fairly recent (2002) online source that may help.
http://arxiv.org/astro-ph/0210165

This source is a journal article (Phys. Rev. Series D, 2003) reporting an earlier measurment (Smoot et al) of the speed and direction of the Local Group (as usual wrt CMB)
the result IIRC is that motion is in direction of the constellation Crater
(a small faint constell in southern half of sky) or if you want a brighter marker try Corvus. And it gives the speed as 627+/-22 km/sec.
Part of this could be due, instead, to temperature fluctuation in the CMB itself but not enough to affect the rough idea of about 600 km/s.

the motion of Milky Way wrt center of mass of Local Group is small. It would not be too bad an approximation just to say equate Milky's speed wrt CMB and that of the Local Group. So one can say Milky is going about 600 km/s and in the direction of constellation Crater.

(the constellation stars just mark the direction in space, the other stars in the galaxy are not getting closer to them because they are moving along with the galaxy as well)

...
...
the celestial coords given for the Local Group velocity vector are
276 degrees, -33 degrees
so it is in the south hemisphere but not as far south as people usually associate with hydra and centaurus. the "Great Attractor" is in hydra/centaurus. therefore Local Group is not plunging directly at the Great Attractor. Virgo cluster might be, I don't know for sure, but Local deviates a bit from that.

==endquote==

BTW the orientation of the Galaxy as it moves in the Crater direction is sort of like a sailing Frisbee----a little tilted but roughly speaking the direction of motion is approximately in the galaxtic plane. (it's more that than it is parallel to the rotation axis)

 

[Ballon]

Absolut speed of 0, does exist, this is the speed of an object relative to itself...speed are always relative to a frame of reference.

 

[whipnet]

So this is a "physics forum" and no one corrected the OP who thinks the Earth is orbiting around the sun at 30,000 mph?

*

 

[Stratosphere]

So this is a "physics forum" and no one corrected the OP who thinks the Earth is orbiting around the sun at 30,000 mph?

*

Wow I'm surprised no one noticed that, the Earth is traveling at 66,622.17 mph.

 

[DaveC426913]

Absolut speed of 0, does exist, this is the speed of an object relative to itself...speed are always relative to a frame of reference.

This is directly contradictory. Relative speed is not absolute speed.

 

[ray b]

This is directly contradictory. Relative speed is not absolute speed.

two and a half years and still no answer but lots of quibbles
speed of the milky way/local group was given in the first post
how much does the sun motion in the milky way add or subtract to our
movement in one years time plus any other movments

we have known the Earth's speed around the sun
but cancel that as we are talking about a year
so that doesnot matter

the suns speed and direction in its orbit
the milky ways speed and direction in its local group orbit
speed and direction of the motion of the whole local group

THATS THREE VECTORS and SPEEDS
unless there is some other factor
that I am missing
so far we have one vector and speed
please no more quibbles
how about just some data
so HOW FAR DO WE [earth/sun] move in a year
and in what direction

 

[DaveC426913]

THATS THREE VECTORS and SPEEDS
unless there is some other factor
that I am missing
so far we have one vector and speed
please no more quibbles
how about just some data
so HOW FAR DO WE [earth/sun] move in a year
and in what direction

Two and a half years since it was first answered (in post #2), and still some people are failing to grasp that the question is ambiguous.

How fast are we moving relative to what?

 

[Quantum_Grid]

Relative to the speed at which this thread is advancing, aka absolute zero time...

 

[ray b]

Two and a half years since it was first answered (in post #2), and still some people are failing to grasp that the question is ambiguous.

How fast are we moving relative to what?

for the 3rd time
the Earth sun position one year ago or one year from now
relative to nothing else
just how far do we move in a year and in what direction
btw your are QUIBBLEING
I SAID NO QUIBBLES
so post some vectors or you are not adding anything at all

 

[Chronos]

Any 'position' is always relative to some landmark, some coordinate system. It appears you are asking for an absolute coordinate system, ray b, where none exists. The CMB reference frame is as good as it gets. I do not see how this is quibbling. We can, of course, deduce our relative postion with respect to some arbitrarily selected galaxies, or even stars within our own galaxy. Neither approach will produce entirely satisfactory results.

 

[DaveC426913]

btw your are QUIBBLEING
I SAID NO QUIBBLES

We are not quibbling. There is no answer to the question without a reference point.

We are moving relative to the galaxy, which is moving relative to our local group, which is moving relative to our supercluster, which is moving relative to ... what?

It is possible to give you a vector that tells us how we are moving relative to our local supercluster, but that is still relative to some reference point. We do not know what our supercluster is doing because there is no absolute reference frame.


Now stop being so churlish and accept that we're not just jerking your chain. We kind of know a little about this.




P.S. I want to request a new emoticon: : yourarequibblingIsaidnoquibbles :

 

[Quantum_Grid]

P.S. I want to request a new emoticon: : yourarequibblingIsaidnoquibbles :

hahaha

 

[Quantum_Grid]

Also, this may have been said already, but this is taken from "The Big Bang" by Joseph Silk:

The actual measured velocity of the Earth relative to the background radiation is only 390 kilometers/sec; the higher velocity for our galaxy results when account is taken of the Earth's motion around the sun (30 km/s), the solar motion around the galactic center (220 km/s), and the motion of the Milky Way toward the Andromeda galaxy in the local group of galaxies (100 km/s). The net direction of the Local Group's center of mass velocity is about 45 degrees away from the Virgo Cluster, consequently, when account is taken for the Local Group infall, the entire Virgo supercluster is inferred to be moving at a velocity of about 400 kilometers per second toward a region in the southern sky where the Hydra and Centaurus clusters are located. (The Big Bang, by Joseph Silk, p53​

)

 

[Quantum_Grid]

So, ray b, THE BEST ANSWER YOU ARE GOING TO GET: is 390 kilometers/sec.

Now, no more quibbles!

 

[ray b]

yes space is growing and everything is moving too so what
there is no fixed grid again so what
I simply made one up

BUT I still don't get why a dated Earth position at x=0 y=0 and z = 0 grid
line the x-axis with the suns motion in orbit around our galixcy's center
and y=90 degrees to x, z points as near as possible to north
wait a full year to cancel Earth orbit movement and where are we NOW
does not give a true reference frame to chart a new location for the earth
after a year has past
and a simple answer to the question of what is our speed and direction

I do understand everything else has moved to
and there is no center of the universe point
but why can't our motion be grafted
with a pick a point now and wait a year reference