What is our actual Hubble speed ?

  • Thread starter Imagine
  • Start date

Imagine

What is our actual Hubble "speed" ?

Bonjour,

Upon Hubble constant, recession speed is decreasing with distance (or time!-). That could be interpreted as deceleration but some persons articulate that as metric expansion (or metric expansion decelerating over time ?-).

What is our own recession speed? Zero ? Since temperature seams to decrease with time, is it, or could it be, related to CMB?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,866
5,051
Re: What is our actual Hubble "speed" ?

Originally posted by Imagine
What is our own recession speed?
With respect to what? We use ourselves as the frame of reference, so we arbitrarily define our speed as zero.
 

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
34
Perhaps you mean 'what is our proper motion with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation frame?'

If that's what you mean, we're moving at 370 km/s in the direction of Leo w.r.t. the CMBR ('comoving') frame.

- Warren
 

subtillioN

Originally posted by chroot
Perhaps you mean 'what is our proper motion with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation frame?'

If that's what you mean, we're moving at 370 km/s in the direction of Leo w.r.t. the CMBR ('comoving') frame.

- Warren
absolute frame of reference!!!
 

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
34
It's not an absolute frame of reference. It is one frame of reference, no more valid than any other.

- Warren
 

subtillioN

Originally posted by chroot
It's not an absolute frame of reference. It is one frame of reference, no more valid than any other.
It is absolute wrt the motion of the galaxy. There are real frames of reference and there are imaginary frames of reference. This happens to be a real one. Thanks to Einstein, however, we are no longer allowed to make this critical distinction.

We can use this frame of reference EXACTLY as if it were an absolute universal frame of reference. Therefore, to follow the positivist strain, this actually IS an absolute frame of reference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
34
You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Moderators, when is this guy going to get dealt with?

- Warren
 

subtillioN

Originally posted by chroot
You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Moderators, when is this guy going to get dealt with?

- Warren
lol!

I predicted you would say that!!

[zz)]

[[[ a true sign of intellectual integrity is the tolerance of diversity in thought ]]]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

subtillioN

Originally posted by chroot
You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Moderators, when is this guy going to get dealt with?

- Warren
Einstein used a positivist argument for his definition of simultaneity as non-simultaneously relative to the observer. He said that because one cannot functionally determine absolutely the simultaneity of two events in all frames of reference then these two events are not simultaneous. This is a core tenet of his hermetically sealed chain of subsequent reasoning which denied the possible existence of of an absolute frame of reference. He did this without the knowledge of the CMBR and its functionality as an absoulte frame of reference.

Using the same positivist style of reasoning one can easily argue that this frame of reference is absolute wrt our local space. This is simply because the CMBR frame acts exactly like an absolute universal (if perhaps local) frame of reference.

Such a functional absolute frame of reference dissolves Einsteins original positivist reasoning for the relativity (non-simultaneity) of simultaneity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
398
0
Originally posted by subtillioN
Einstein used a positivist argument for his definition of simultaneity as non-simultaneously relative to the observer. He said that because one cannot functionally determine absolutely the simultaneity of two events in all frames of reference then these two events are not simultaneous. This is a core tenet of his hermetically sealed chain of subsequent reasoning which denied the possible existence of of an absolute frame of reference. He did this without the knowledge of the CMBR and its functionality as an absoulte frame of reference.

Using the same positivist style of reasoning one can easily argue that this frame of reference is absolute wrt our local space. This is simply because the CMBR frame acts exactly like an absolute universal (if perhaps local) frame of reference.

Such a functional absolute frame of reference dissolves Einsteins original positivist reasoning for the relativity (non-simultaneity) of simultaneity.
The CMB does provide a sort of local definition of an aboslute frame of reference but it doesn't in any way invalidate the relativity of simultaneity. What's more, because the universe is expanding, none of these local frames agree, and if by chance some did, that agreement wouldn't last very long. And you still wouldn't be able to define "absolute rest" if your experiment was isolated from the outside world. So relativity still holds.
 

subtillioN

Originally posted by Tyger
The CMB does provide a sort of local definition of an aboslute frame of reference but it doesn't in any way invalidate the relativity of simultaneity.
Well you effectively side-stepped my argument.

What's more, because the universe is expanding, none of these local frames agree, and if by chance some did, that agreement wouldn't last very long.
The "proof" that the universe is expanding has been falsified by the many anomalies in the doppler interpretation of the redshift so this "expansion" is now a purely hypothetical assumption.


And you still wouldn't be able to define "absolute rest" if your experiment was isolated from the outside world.
Sure we can make a special case for anything. Einsteins original point was to consider whether we could determine an absolute frame of reference. It just so happens that we can!!!


So relativity still holds.
Yes it still holds the understanding of physical reality in check even though it is wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,866
5,051
Originally posted by chroot
Moderators, when is this guy going to get dealt with?

- Warren
I just ignore him for the most part, but lemme give it a shot this time:

Subtillion, the problem with your statement is that its self contradictory, ie how can a frame of reference be local and absolute at the same time? If its local, its not absolute, and if its absolute, its not just local.
The "proof" that the universe is expanding has been falsified by the many anomalies in the doppler interpretation of the redshift so this "expansion" is now a purely hypothetical assumption.
Go collect your Nobel Prize, Subtillion.
Yes it still holds the understanding of physical reality in check even though it is wrong.
And while you're at it, go pick up your Nobel Prize for replacing Relativity too.
 

ahrkron

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
735
1
Note from a moderator: SubtillioN is speaking from the point of view of his own ideas, many of which contradict well established, experimentally supported physical theories; without references and further support, they should be regarded as his personal opinion

Originally posted by subtillioN
The "proof" that the universe is expanding has been falsified by the many anomalies in the doppler interpretation of the redshift so this "expansion" is now a purely hypothetical assumption.
That's a false statement. There may be some controversy about minute details, but in no way has it been "falsified", as you so boldly claim.

Einsteins original point was to consider whether we could determine an absolute frame of reference. It just so happens that we can!!!
You are confused about this. The important point is not whether we can "find" or define an absolute frame of reference; rather, it is whether there is any difference between the behavior of physical phenomena on that frame and on all others.

And there is no evidence at all showing any difference between the local behavior of nature among reference frames.
 
Last edited:

subtillioN

Originally posted by russ_watters
Subtillion, the problem with your statement is that its self contradictory, ie how can a frame of reference be local and absolute at the same time?
Easy. Local reality is as absolute as any other reality. "Space" is not a static frame of reference. It is in constant fluid motion depending on its local structure. This motion, on a local scale, is the absolute (physical) local frame of reference.

Go collect your Nobel Prize, Subtillion. And while you're at it, go pick up your Nobel Prize for replacing Relativity too. [/B]
Yeah, that is what I am after...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
398
0
Originally posted by ahrkron
Note from a moderator:You are confused about this. The important point is not whether we can "find" or define an absolute frame of reference; rather, it is whether there is any difference between the behavior of physical phenomena on that frame and on all others.

And there is no evidence at all showing any difference between the local behavior of nature among reference frames.
Amen Brother
 

subtillioN

Originally posted by ahrkron

That's a false statement. There may be some controversy about minute details, but in no way has it been "falsified", as you so boldly claim.
The fact is that doppler interpretation gives erroneous maps of distance. This is well documented and I can give several references if you wish. If you feel they are ignorable then that is ok with me.


You are confused about this. The important point is not whether we can "find" or define an absolute frame of reference; rather, it is whether there is any difference between the behavior of physical phenomena on that frame and on all others.

And there is no evidence at all showing any difference between the local behavior of nature among reference frames. [/B]
And the simple truth is that the data is not in. The M&M experiment was done in a locally moving frame of reference. There was no reason to expect a relative motion of the earth through the ether because the ether was not a solid with the sheer modulus of elasticity no less than that of steel, as classically thought.

We simply do not have the data to prove that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent wrt c. The true test would be to take an interferometer into space and have its beams open to the reference frame of space (unencapsulated). Then accelerate this apparatus at high speeds and look for the fringes. You have to get out of the locally moving fluid frame of reference to see any relative motion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

subtillioN

Originally posted by ahrkron
Note from a moderator: SubtillioN is speaking from the point of view of his own ideas, many of which contradict well established, experimentally supported physical theories; without references and further support, they should be regarded as his personal opinion
Wow I get my own special warning!!

Note: They are NOT my own ideas. They are the ideas of a very many people, and many of which are professional physicists developing alternative models to solve the deep problems in physics. They are ALL supported by observational evidence. Just ask me and I will give references and supporting information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

subtillioN

Originally posted by ahrkron
The important point is not whether we can "find" or define an absolute frame of reference; rather, it is whether there is any difference between the behavior of physical phenomena on that frame and on all others.

And there is no evidence at all showing any difference between the local behavior of nature among reference frames.
There is plenty of evidence if it is not interpreted away by the changing clocks and shifting parameters of Relativity theory.

The simple fact that motion wrt an absolute local frame of reference, causes a time-dilation would prove it if this nonsense as to who is looking, and from where, were removed. Is it not true that the Pan Am time-dilation experiments showed that earth is just such an absolute frame of reference because the speed of the clocks were directly influenced by the direction in which they flew wrt to the absolute rotation of the earth? This result was not predicted by Einstein and the frame of reference had to be changed later to that of the sun in order to explain it. How convenient that we can select an arbitrary inanimate body as the frame of reference that was originally defined to be dependent on the observer.

When "space" is defined as a fluid it becomes apparent that frames of reference are not equivalent wrt c. They all possess their own specific local motion and density. The absolute reference frame of the earth moves through the absolute frame of the sun etc. etc. etc...

BTW, time-dilation is much easier to explain when you abandon relativity based interpretations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
There is plenty of evidence if it is not interpreted away by the changing clocks and shifting parameters of Relativity theory.

The simple fact that motion wrt an absolute local frame of reference, causes a time-dilation would prove it if this nonsense as to who is looking, and from where, were removed.
*grin* In other words, if you force everyone to use a single frame of reference, you can prove that everyone is using a single frame of reference. Real slick.
 

Related Threads for: What is our actual Hubble speed ?

  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
508
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
12K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top