Earths Absolute Velocity

[maddog]

CMB anisotropy has been observed JQ, it's a matter of interpreting it. AFAIK it isn't currently considered to be a detection of absolute motion.

 

No Boerseun, not a "very loose analogy" at all, it's the exact same thing! :Waldo: So is Cherenkov light.

I always like how you get right to point Qfwfq. ;-) I am also in agreement with you

on BlameTheEx's comment that CMB would not be an accurate way to proceed at

measuring Absolute 0 Velocity. Depending on whether you subscribe to Alan Guth's

Hyperexpansion or VSL using phenomenae in the early universe to determine "relative

rest" now is presuming behavoir then is like now. Not a good idea. Sorry. :-(

 

maddog

[Qfwfq]

Straight to the point: :hyper:

Einstein overturned the Absolute Velocity of Newton

Try reading corollary V in Newton's Principia, just after the three axioms. In the following scholium he also mentions "the experiment of the ship" which clearly refers to Galileo's illustration, considered to be the first published statement of the principle of relativity.

 

Try reading corollary VI as well, you might be mildly surprised. :Waldo:

[maddog]

Try reading corollary V in Newton's Principia, just after the three axioms. In the following scholium he also mentions "the experiment of the ship" which clearly refers to Galileo's illustrtion, considered to be the first published statement of the principle of relativity.

 

Try reading corollary VI as well, you might be mildly surprised. :hyper:

I think I will take you up on that, though I am behind writing three documents with a

deadline of last week. Yikes! :-?

 

maddog

[EWright]

Come on, this is a science forum, not a "clouded comments chalkboard". :confused:

 

Space has several semantic meanings. But when we talk about space in a cosmological sense we mean the place that is our universe, and everything it contains. "Space" is the void in which everything in our universe exists.

 

What we don't know is what the fabric of space is made of. That may be something we can find out eventually. Nor can we know for sure how big it is, whether it is infinite or not, nor what shape it has. We cannot know what lies outside our universe, except that if it is not a part of our universe, then it is not "space".

 

I am not claiming that this is the only answer but please refrain from hit-and-run comments like the one I am replying to.

 

In some ways, Tormod, you are interchanging the meanings of space and the universe. The universe is the region in which everthing, including space, matter, time, and energy exist. Space or space-time is the medium, in which all other matter and energies exist.

 

The universe is said to have a specific radius, so whether it is infinite or not depends on whether it then wraps back upon itself or not. This can still be argued to be infinite or not. By this I mean, one might say that if you travel far enough and return to the same point in space, it is still finite. Another might say that by the time you'd return to this same 'point' in space, that the conditions and surroundings will have changed as such that it is not longer the same place, and thus perhaps not the same 'universe'... it will have expanded, stars died and others were born and and any objects that still exist will not exist with the same relative distances from each other due to expansion.

 

Also, becaue the UNIverse means ONE by definition, it is generally said that it is therefore meaningless to speculate about what might exist outside of it, as nothing can or does because anything new we would discover, if observable within the physical context of this universe, is thus a part of it. Then again, Brane theories do speculate about another dimension that is out of phase with our universe, but interacts with in every so many trillion years in an endless cycle and alternative to the big bang.