It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How Fast Are We Travelling and How Can We Prove It ?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by CLPrime

Ah. I'll give you a star for that definition by example. It helped to visualize it.

So, This frame drag is all theoretical, or can we get a measurement by going outside of Earth's gravitational field? What I mean is - is Earth's gravitational pull on space strong enough to measure?

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by Bleeeeep

Gravity Probe B measured the Earth's rotational frame dragging recently, confirming its correspondence with GR.
Linear frame dragging is far too subtle to currently measure.

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:01 AM
According to relativity, you can assume the earth is sitting still and everything else around us is moving...

...However, you could also say that the Sun is sitting still and everything else is moving relative to the Sun -- or that, say, the star Sirius is sitting still and everything is moving relative to it. Relativity tells us that any spot in space could be the reference point of all other things moving relative to that point -- the "origin point", or 0,0,0 point on an x,y,z axis.

Of course, since the "origin point" could be anywhere, it's actually nowhere.

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:06 PM
I have an idea. One of the things that prevents us having very simple methods of measuring distance, speed , and so on, within the structure of a cosmos, is that EVERYTHING is moving relative to everything else. Every atom, every mote of dust, and every electron.
That means , that when measuring something like distance and time, we have to pick the best of a bad lot, in terms of reference points.

BUT we have massively improved our capacity to create simulations in the last ten years. Even computer games are VERY well informed in terms of the math upon which thier physics is based.

In terms of the problem as posed, I have therefore , a proposition. You take a probe , out to a certain distance from the sun , and you turn it to face the sun. Ensure that the probe can see Mars, the Earth, Mercury all at once, and then take a still snapshot. Its important to have several items to lock onto in order to create a decent simulated environment. Using a simulated environment based on this snapshot as a replacement reality for the computer that keeps the probe oriented, make the computer keep the probe stationary according to ITS reality.

In another section of the probe, there ought to be a device that tracks the true course and speed of Earth, relative to this stationary object, and sends that data back to Earth for examination by accumulated boffins and brainiacs, so that the answer can be gained properly , at least on the scale of in system measurement.

What do we think of this idea folks?

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:35 AM
reply to post by franspeakfree

The simplest way to prove the earth is in motion is to pull out a gyroscope and observe the natural gyroscopic procession created by the rotation and orbit of the Earth.

As far as what others are saying - motion may be relative, but velocity is not. Relativity predisposes a maximum velocity, and in doing so establishes a universal frame of reference. This is really not noticeable until you start getting into the extremes of velocity that require relativity over classical Newtonian physics.

we have a ball moving through space at 0.2 the speed of light, and another at 0.4 the speed of light along similar parallel vectors. Standard relativity would have you believe that observers on each of the balls would be of the impression that the other ball is moving away at 0.2c - along opposite (yet still parallel) vectors. In this case - redshift is rather nondescript - the red-shift is apparent in both objects, but its source is relative motion (time dilation in the faster causes blue-shift in front of the slower to not be apparent).

However, what is really going on in the space around these objects tells more about the situation. The speed of light is limited - much like the speed of ripples across a pond, or waves at the front of a boat. An object moving faster will not make faster waves - only compress them further at its bow. The time-dilation effects of velocity make it appear as though everything is hunky-dory, however. Relativity, alone, allows for an infinite amount of time dilation by velocity increases. Planck constants, however, says otherwise. At some point, no more energy can be compressed into the 'bow wave' - exactly what happens when you reach this limitation would be purely theoretical (though the creation of Planck-particles within the mass of the object in question would be my first guess - which would rapidly evaporate into ... something - no one quite knows what the final product of evaporating quantum-singularities will be).

The point being - at some point, you simply cannot go any faster and any additional energy added to that vector will not go toward accelerating the object.

Although a method of measuring this would require technology we don't have yet, or engineering extremes that are currently not of practical consideration.

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 06:27 AM
reply to post by franspeakfree

In relation to what? If you determine such a speed and you are walking a certain direction and me theopposite ; then you are wrong in my instance LOL How do you write a question? I am new and can't find a clue to this.
edit on 10-8-2011 by MichelJCardin because: Because I am confused about this site and kind of like it and I am getting annoyed about it's workings and the info on such not available.
And to answer your question ; I would have to say that nobody know where the standstill area is as to determine our swivelling speed in proximity to it so for all we know we are only spinning or are we even at that ; maybe we are standing still and all of our surroundings are moving where the probability of it is doubtful sensibly and still what is staying still and the point of axis really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
edit on 10-8-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)
The only fact establishable on movements are those of relations to other frequenting composits in any vascinaties.
edit on 10-8-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)
The only way to determine the workings of our earth's speed and it's projection really is to mesure it's g-force where as it will differ if such as the whole galaxy or beyond such is being swong around also and just because you think some astronomer says that it is travelling a certain speed does not make it so as it is not established and I don't think that it will as we are alive. Cheers
edit on 10-8-2011 by MichelJCardin because: To finally explain the answer to you.

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:18 PM
The Hubble space telescope has observed through redshift light studies that distant galaxies in every direction are moving away from the earth at fantastic and ever increasing speeds.

But only after you get away from our own galaxy and it's attending satellite cluster, which will in time merge into one big blob.

The earth is not at the center of the universe, it is at the center of our "observable" universe. If you were on a planet, orbiting a sun at the edge of our observable universe and fixed your ultra powerful telescope on earths position you would see me moving away at close to the speed of light relative to your position. You would also see that everything else at the edge of your observable universe was moving away at close to the speed of light too.

If you were on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy and did the same thing, you would see me rushing toward you at 100-140 km/s. But everything at the edge of view in the opposite direction would be moving at close to the speed of light.

Depending on where you look, in relation to the movement around you, you are either moving incredibly fast or close to impossibly fast, or not at all.

The only way to know for sure how fast we here on earth are going would be for us to be able to "stop" one point in our universe in relation to all other peripheral movement, and then measure our distance traveled over time from that point.

This is beyond science at this time, and may always be impossible to define with any certainty.

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:32 PM
All motion of one thing is relative to something else. You are asking about motion relative to empty space. The politically correct answer, these days, is that space, itself, does not exist; there is only emptiness between objects. I disagree; there is a preferred reference frame, namely the cosmic microwave background (CMB). I believe empty space has substance, but that is irrelevant. What matters is the existence of a preferred reference frame.

The average motion of all the visible galaxies, relative to the CMB, is zero, but local groups of galaxies do have motion relative one another. We can measure our own motion relative to the CMB by measuring the temperature of the CMB in all directions. The CMB appears slightly warmer in the direction of Virgo, and that can be explained as Dopple shift toward the blue. If the blueshif of the CMB in the direction of Virgo is due to relative motion, then our solar system is moving toward Virgo, relative to empty space, at approximately 627 km/s.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in