The Sun's Movement

[Patty]

Hey folks,

I've been pondering the studies of stars and their movements away from earth (Doppler Effect, Red Shift, etc). 

Well, I wondered, if they're making an effort to account for the movement of stars, do they include the sun's movement through the universe, too, and how it relates to other celestial bodies' movements?

Just a thought.

 

[Orihalcon]

i'm not sure what exact reference point they use, but they do take in the fact that earth's sun moves around the galaxy and the galaxy moves too. they've calculated the time for a galactic orbit, you can look it up on a search engine

it's a pretty big thing for all astronomers to have overlooked without a whole lot pointing it out

 

[Quath]

They also look at where an object should be now even though the light we received from it is extremely old.

I am not sure if they store the position as seen from the solar system or from the galaxy. But they can convert it to any reference frame if they desire. The interesting thing is that there is no center to our universe that we can detect, so any reference frame will do.

Scott (Quath)

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 01:54 AM Patty said this in Post #1

Hey folks,

I've been pondering the studies of stars and their movements away from earth (Doppler Effect, Red Shift, etc). 

Well, I wondered, if they're making an effort to account for the movement of stars, do they include the sun's movement through the universe, too, and how it relates to other celestial bodies' movements?

Just a thought.

Patty, within our galaxy some stars will be moving towards us and some away. Red Shift is one possible shift of the Doppler Effect. The other possible shift is a Blue Shift if the star is moving closer.  And yes, they do take into account the sun's motion around the center of the Milky Way (our) galaxy.

Now, comparing our galaxy with the Local Group of galaxies, there are a few that are Blue Shifted due to motions relative to each other.

Move away from our local group of galaxies, and all the galaxies and other objects (like quasars) are Red Shifted.

Once you get outside of our galaxy, the speed of our sun is so minor compared to the speeds we are measuring that it is negligible.  You take a vector of all of our speeds (earth around the sun, sun around the galaxy, Milky Way thru space) and the first two are so small as not to matter.  Like measuring the speed of a snail and a turtle and a jet plane. Put all those speeds and directions together and you really get the speed and direction of the plane.

Make sense now? If it doesn't, keep asking.

 

[Patty]

Today at 01:06 PM lucaspa said this in Post #4


Once you get outside of our galaxy, the speed of our sun is so minor compared to the speeds we are measuring that it is negligible.  You take a vector of all of our speeds (earth around the sun, sun around the galaxy, Milky Way thru space) and the first two are so small as not to matter. 

Hey lucaspa,

Thanks.  I didn't know that scientists figured that the Milky Way is traveling through space!!

Wanna fill me in on this?

Thanks,

Patty

 

[Zadok001]

Patty:

The problem is that 'space' doesn't really have a fixed reference point. If I were to say "The Milky Way is my reference point," it wouldn't be traveling through space. If I were to say instead that Andromeda was my reference, the Milky Way would be mobile and Andromeda would be stationary.

So you can't really 'figure' that the Milky Way is moving. You just have to pick a reference point and run with it.

 

[Quath]

Also, space is spreading out like a stretched rubber band over time. (If that were not the case then the temperature of the universe would never have decreased down to its present day value of 3 Kelvin.) So one day in the far future, space will have stretched out so much that other galaxies will no longer be visible to our galaxy. (At least by current theories.)

Scott (Quath)

 

[Morat]

Patty: Everything is moving. However, since everything is moving, there's nothing stationary. There's no center to the universe, either.

So, basically, you can decide that any one point is both central and stationary) and chart the movements around it.

Think of...oh, two trains moving along tracks next to each other. One is moving at 80 mph, the other at 60 mph. Pretend (for some reason) that all the people on the trains can see is the other train. No ground, no reference points.

Now, say you want to determine how far each train will be from each other at a given point. You can find out the answer no matter how you assign reference points. You can say one train is moving at 60, the other at 80. You can say one train is still, and the other moving at 20. You can even say one train is still, and the other moving at -20.

You'll get the right answer, every time. Reference frames are arbitrary.

Same with astronomy. We're moving around the sun, and the Sun is moving around the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is moving around with the others in our local group, and our local group is speeding away from (or towards) other galactic clusters....

It doesn't matter how you handle reference frames. The math works out.

 

[Patty]

Well, thanks guys for the input.

However, guess what? I'm somebody who firmly believes that the universe is round. I came up with that myself, then I posted on a message board and a terrific gentleman responded with a URL link to an article about Albert Einstein's theory of a round universe. I'll have to search for it if you're interested in seeing it. But, let me know if you'd like me to post it.

Patty

 

[gentu]

Today at 10:18 PM Patty said this in Post #9 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=697867#post697867)

However, guess what? I'm somebody who firmly believes that the universe is round.

Even if it is, the universe being round wouldn't have any effect on determining a point of reference. Since the universe is expanding faster and faster, you can never get to the edge because you can't travel faster than light. There is also no discernible edge from our point of view for as far as our biggest telescopes can see, which is several billion light years. As far as humans are concerned, any reference point is as good as any other. You just have to be consistent and indicate what you're picking as a reference point.

 

[Patty]

Today at 02:31 PM gentu said this in Post #10

Even if it is, the universe being round wouldn't have any effect on determining a point of reference. Since the universe is expanding faster and faster, you can never get to the edge because you can't travel faster than light. There is also no discernible edge from our point of view for as far as our biggest telescopes can see, which is several billion light years. As far as humans are concerned, any reference point is as good as any other. You just have to be consistent and indicate what you're picking as a reference point.

Hey Gentu,

That makes a lot of sense, except that I disagree with the Big Bang Theory.  However, I agree wholeheartedly with you that one has to be consistent and indicate what the reference point is.

I'd like to recommend a reference point.  Please keep in mind that I'm not kidding around with this.  The reference point that I'd like to suggest is - VOILA!! - the COMET.

Yep, the comet.  I believe that what is seen in the skies that folks refer to as 'comets' whizzing by is actually one single stationary object in the universe.  It is at the top of the universe.  And, our solar system is speeding in a spiral pattern throughout the universe.  I believe that we traverse the universe once every 82 years.

If you'll simply set aside the research you've learned from for just a few moments and consider this, it might be interesting.

Hey, to see what I mean, just take a flashlight outdoors to a wide-open area at night and ask a friend to accompany you.  One of you holds the lit flashlight stationary.  The other walks slowly in a wide arc pattern around you, observing the flashlight's beam while walking.  Then, swap places.  Check it out.  The flashlight's beam looks somewhat like a comet.

Woo-hoo. I have a feeling you'll think I'm bonkers on this one.  But, why not look where no man has looked before, guys? 

Patty

 

P.S.  To give more evidence to what I believe about the comet (singular), just check out the timetable of comet sightings.  Chart them by date and name.  And, check out the SIZE of the comet as seen from earth (ie: what the scientists may say is 'distance' from earth)  I have a feeling you'll see that there's a pattern here.

After Halley, the sighted comets get smaller then bigger over the years.

 

[gentu]

Are you picking one comet in particular or just all comets in general? You might have something if you went with only one, but comets move relative to each other. In terms of relativity, you could say that everything is moving relative to a comet, because if there was nothing else around but you and the comet, you could never tell the difference. Any reference can be arbitrarily chosen, and there is really no way to determine which is right due to the effect of relativity.

When I said that you had to pick with a point and stick with it, I just meant in terms of referencing the locations of different objects. There aren't any "longitude and latitude" for the universe, but you can say that a certain star is 100 light-years away, etc.

 

[Yinlowang]

We traverse the universe once every 82 years?

Hmmmm, we can see 13.5 billion light years in every direction we look. So at a minimum the diameter of the Universe is 27 billion light years. That means the minimum circumfrence of the universe is 84.78 Billion Light Years.
Or, 498,020,932,085,760,000,000,000,000 miles arround Someone check my math I got a little dizzy doing that

So to go arround the universe once every 82 years we would have to be moving 1,033,902,439,024 times the speed of Light.

 

[Patty]

Today at 03:08 PM gentu said this in Post #12

Are you picking one comet in particular or just all comets in general? You might have something if you went with only one, but comets move relative to each other.

This is what I said:

I believe that what is seen in the skies that folks refer to as 'comets' whizzing by is actually one single stationary object in the universe. 

and:

To give more evidence to what I believe about the comet (singular), just check out the timetable of comet sightings.  Chart them by date and name.  And, check out the SIZE of the comet as seen from earth (ie: what the scientists may say is 'distance' from earth)  I have a feeling you'll see that there's a pattern here.

 

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yinlowang: So to go arround the universe once every 82 years we would have to be moving 1,033,902,439,024 times the speed of Light.

I get 1,033,902,439 times the speed of light, about 1000 times less that you got. Maybe you used the traditional British billion of 10^12 rather than 10^9 for your calculation. I did mine in Excell so I think it is probably correct. Still that is very very fast and much too fast for anything to move in our universe. Maybe what, warp 10,000 or something?

Patty: I believe that what is seen in the skies that folks refer to as 'comets' whizzing by is actually one single stationary object in the universe.

Yep, the comet. I believe that what is seen in the skies that folks refer to as 'comets' whizzing by is actually one single stationary object in the universe. It is at the top of the universe. And, our solar system is speeding in a spiral pattern throughout the universe.

I believe that we traverse the universe once every 82 years.

What an unusual idea! Where did you get it? Which comet are you talking about? There are lots and lots of them but take Shoemaker-Levy for example. It hit Jupiter at about 60 km/sc and I think this is typical of many other comet velocities relative to the earth depending some on where they are in their orbits. This may seem pretty fast but I calculate it to be more than 40 million times too slow for the earth to have a relative velocity fast enough for the solar system to orbit the universe every 82 years. I make that out to be about 2,600,000,000 kilometers per second give or take a few hundred million.

Best Regard

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[ardipithecus]

Yesterday at 04:40 AM Zadok001 said this in Post #6

Patty:

The problem is that 'space' doesn't really have a fixed reference point. If I were to say "The Milky Way is my reference point," it wouldn't be traveling through space. If I were to say instead that Andromeda was my reference, the Milky Way would be mobile and Andromeda would be stationary.

So you can't really 'figure' that the Milky Way is moving. You just have to pick a reference point and run with it.

One common choice for that reference point is the 2.73 K blackbody radiation -- the Cosmic Microwave Background. The Milky Way is moving with repect to it.  Indeed the images shown in the press for COBE and WMAP satellite results have had this effect corrected.  This I guess might also serve as an answer to the original question to the thread as well.


If anyone is really interested one might ask the question at the board of www.badastronomy.com since a number of knowledgable astronomy types hang out there.

 

 

[gentu]

Yesterday at 10:42 PM Patty said this in Post #11 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=697916#post697916)

I believe that what is seen in the skies that folks refer to as 'comets' whizzing by is actually one single stationary object in the universe.

I don't really see what you're getting at, because you are saying 'comets' plural and 'one single' object in the same sentence. How can something be one single object and many objects at the same time? By the way, ardipithecus, do you know if the CMBR is directional? I'm not sure if it is directional radiation or if, like how all stars are accelerating with us, it travels in all directions simultaneously, "permeating" the universe.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

This is what I said:

quote:
I believe that what is seen in the skies that folks refer to as 'comets' whizzing by is actually one single stationary object in the universe.


and:

quote:
To give more evidence to what I believe about the comet (singular), just check out the timetable of comet sightings. Chart them by date and name. And, check out the SIZE of the comet as seen from earth (ie: what the scientists may say is 'distance' from earth) I have a feeling you'll see that there's a pattern here.

But there are some seen within a year of eachother or less...

Why can we track so many at once if they are really just one thing?

Sometimes science doesn't look at ideas (like this one) because they are just plain silly...

 

[Yinlowang]

Yesterday at 11:50 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #15

I get 1,033,902,439 times the speed of light, about 1000 times less that you got.

Doh, I guess I should not do math when I am running late to go get pizza.  I used a trillion instead of a billion Still 1,033,902,439 times the speed of light is as you say very very fast

 

 

 



 

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Nevermind - misread someone's comment.