Jump to content

Universal an Galactic speeds?


rigney

Recommended Posts

Just about the time one of my unsolved mysteries of the universe seems close to an answer, something else always sets me back on the straight and narrow, letting me know that I'm not even in the same ball park. According to Hubble, our universe is zipping along at the speed of light. As we look deeper out into time, supposedly, 13.5 billion light years, that speed even surpasses light speed. A couple of weeks ago I came across some information on Google that many of you have likely read and understand. I'm still trying to make sense out of it. The information below got me back to a bit of rational thinking.

 

Speed of the Milky Way in Space

The Physics Factbook™

Edited by Glenn Elert -- Written by his students

An educational, Fair Use website

 

topic index | author index | special index

 

Bibliographic Entry Result

(w/surrounding text) Standardized

Result

Kraan-Korteweg, Renée C. & Ofer Lahav. "Galaxies Behind The Milky Way." Scientific America. October 1998. "These measurements, confirmed by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite in 1989 and 1990, suggest that our galaxy and its neighbors, the so-called Local Group, are moving at 600 kilometers per second (1.34 million miles per hour) in the direction of the constellation Hydra." 600 km/s

Does the Milky Way move in space or does it just stay put? Archive of Ask the Space Scientist FAQs. NASA/GSFC. "The total speed is about 300 kilometers per second or so." 300 km/s

AstroFile -- Future Fate of the Milky Way Galaxy. Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy. 21 October 1997. "The Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy are approaching each other with a speed of 300,000 miles per hour." 130 km/s

 

My question: If our universe is actually moving at the speed of light, how can these different speeds be interpreted as anything more than guesses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question: If our universe is actually moving at the speed of light, how can these different speeds be interpreted as anything more than guesses?

 

rigney; Yes and no;

 

The Earth is spinning at 1040 MPH, at the equator, as is everything on the planet....

 

The Earth is orbiting the Sun at about 66,600 M/H, taking one earth year to complete each orbit...

 

It's thought our Sun, in orbit around the Milky way core has a velocity (speed) of 558,000 M/H, taking near 250 Million years to complete one orbit.

 

It's believed our local group of Galaxy, is moving slightly faster through space at 660,000 M/H.

 

The speed of light is 186,200 Mile per SECOND.

 

These are mathematical calculations, based on known or estimated figures.

 

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Speeds.shtml

 

Andromeda, the Milky Way are in a natural orbit and it is felt by SOME, these orbits will put the two Galaxy in near the same place in approximately 4.5 Billion Years. There are two Dwarf Galaxy much closer to the MW and expected to be absorbed, think in about 15-25 Million years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision

 

According to Big Bang Theory, 'expansion' of the Universe into some unknown entity (nothingness, but not now Universal Space) is at a near C speed or in some models faster than C, which is creating SPACE between objects, not moving objects. That is if the Universe, has a speed, not logical under BBT, this expansion and that velocity have nothing to do with each other. In my opinion, for space between objects to increase at speed anywhere near C, that expansion would have to be very large multiples of C velocity. To explain my feelings, in some models this expansion, was in fact extremely rapid in the first seconds of expansion, yet we claim to see the energy emitted from objects, back to the approximate times of the BB itself.

 

As we look deeper out into time, supposedly, 13.5 billion light years, that speed even surpasses light speed. [/Quote]

No, we're looking at what WAS, 13.5 BYA, not what is. Energy travels at a constant speed, what we are seeing is coincidental as the demitted energy from those times happens to hits the lenses of Hubble or other telescopes. These images, for the most part offered as artist interpretations, at those longer distances are based on very low amounts of received photons, over lengthy time periods.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The universe does not have a speed. As jackson said, the "expansion of space" is not objects moving, but the space in between objects growing.

 

Because this growth is distributed equally throughout the universe, nearby objects recede from us slowly, and farther away objects recede more quickly. If you get far enough away, then objects are receding at even faster than the speed of light. This is true no matter what the "rate" of expansion is - if it were slower, it would just mean the objects moving at faster than the speed of light were farther away.

 

Another thing to mention is that there is no such thing as absolute speed. What I mean by this is that it is meaningless to say that the galaxy is moving at 600km/s or whatever. It only makes sense to say that the galaxy is moving 600km/s relative to some other object. That is measurable. It's like saying your car is going 100km/h. What you really mean is that your car is going 100km/h relative to the road. Relative to the sun, it's moving a whole lot faster. Relative to the person driving, it's not moving at all. And relative to the car, it's the road that is moving 100km/h. All of those statements are true, and the math still works the same way no matter who you decide is moving. This is called the Principle of Relativity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question: If our universe is actually moving at the speed of light, how can these different speeds be interpreted as anything more than guesses?

 

rigney; Yes and no;

 

The Earth is spinning at 1040 MPH, at the equator, as is everything on the planet....

 

The Earth is orbiting the Sun at about 66,600 M/H, taking one earth year to complete each orbit...

 

It's thought our Sun, in orbit around the Milky way core has a velocity (speed) of 558,000 M/H, taking near 250 Million years to complete one orbit.

 

It's believed our local group of Galaxy, is moving slightly faster through space at 660,000 M/H.

 

The speed of light is 186,200 Mile per SECOND.

 

These are mathematical calculations, based on known or estimated figures.

 

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Speeds.shtml

 

Andromeda, the Milky Way are in a natural orbit and it is felt by SOME, these orbits will put the two Galaxy in near the same place in approximately 4.5 Billion Years. There are two Dwarf Galaxy much closer to the MW and expected to be absorbed, think in about 15-25 Million years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision

 

According to Big Bang Theory, 'expansion' of the Universe into some unknown entity (nothingness, but not now Universal Space) is at a near C speed or in some models faster than C, which is creating SPACE between objects, not moving objects. That is if the Universe, has a speed, not logical under BBT, this expansion and that velocity have nothing to do with each other. In my opinion, for space between objects to increase at speed anywhere near C, that expansion would have to be very large multiples of C velocity. To explain my feelings, in some models this expansion, was in fact extremely rapid in the first seconds of expansion, yet we claim to see the energy emitted from objects, back to the approximate times of the BB itself.

 

 

No, we're looking at what WAS, 13.5 BYA, not what is. Energy travels at a constant speed, what we are seeing is coincidental as the demitted energy from those times happens to hits the lenses of Hubble or other telescopes. These images, for the most part offered as artist interpretations, at those longer distances are based on very low amounts of received photons, over lengthy time periods.

 

 

I realize my whole concept of creation is likely unfounded and less than rudimentary. But somehow I just can't think of the BB as anything other than a huge explosion of energy that hurled matter out in all directions at a constant rate of speed and into a never ending void. I hate using the word, but every time I try continuum, someone takes a stick to me. Yes, great minds have developed numerous schism(s) proving their points to some degree, and for which we should all be thankful. But being thankful doesn't solve the problem. Why are there so many variables? Such as, we started out at x speed, increased to y speed and now have slowed to z speed, while seemingly at the far reaches of our universe, have again exceeded the speed of light. My initial question was not to add conjecture, but only something I came across and wondered about??? Thanks 33

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize my whole concept of creation is likely unfounded and less than rudimentary. But somehow I just can't think of the BB as anything other than a huge explosion of energy that hurled matter out in all directions at a constant rate of speed and into a never ending void.[/Quote]

 

rigney; For starters the whole concept of BBT, to me is junk science based on theology and itself has almost become a religion in itself (Creation). However to explain something that comes from BBT (expansion) I have no choice but use the theory. In this vain, there was no explosion, rather an expansion of an unexplained "singularity", made up of something that can't be explained by modern physics, that for some unexplainable reason had just been setting someplace not definable and had been there presumable forever (eternity). To explain the expansion (explosion) they use the four major energy forces known to man, along with extremely high temperatures effects on sub-atom particles. If your interested here is a good description.

 

In physics, fundamental interactions (sometimes called interactive forces) are the ways that the simplest particles in the universe interact with one another. An interaction is fundamental when it cannot be described in terms of other interactions.

 

The four known fundamental interactions are electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction (also known as "strong" and "weak nuclear force") and gravitation. With the possible exception of gravity, these interactions can usually be described, in a set of calculational approximation methods known as perturbation theory, as being mediated by the exchange of gauge bosons between particles. However, there are situations where perturbation theory does not adequately describe the observed phenomena, such as bound states and solitons.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

 

I hate using the word, but every time I try continuum, someone takes a stick to me. Yes, great minds have developed numerous schism(s) proving their points to some degree, and for which we should all be thankful. [/Quote]

 

Well, I've been fighting BBT long before it became mainstream, advocated in part Fred Hoyles version of SSU (you might google him) and for many years had been winning that fight, until it has almost become anti-science to question the premise. I'll put it this way; if all your education, effort, testing and analysis is lined to advance one theory over another, then there can be only one result. While I'm not ungrateful, I'm certainly not convinced that questioning the theory, especially the hundreds of explanations that have advanced that theory, has not actually harmed the Science of Astronomy and Astrophysics.

 

Why are there so many variables? Such as, we started out at x speed, increased to y speed and now have slowed to z speed, while seemingly at the far reaches of our universe, have again exceeded the speed of light.[/Quote]

 

If the U, had expanded at the explained initial velocity, we would literally see only our Star and planets held together by our gravity, the nearest other Star, simply too far away to detect, it had to slow down to quantify BBT. Not all BBT advocates think that expansion has increased, or gone past C, since atom matter formed, think the latest models suggesting 300 Million years after BB.

 

My initial question was not to add conjecture, but only something I came across and wondered about???[/Quote]

 

Questioning IMO, is a good thing and as I think I've mentioned to you before, we come from a time when an eternal Universe (always existed), was the accepted, were taught this and the theory behind it, whether Steady State or other theory was easily explain and easy to understand. However for the record, your question added no conjecture, to what's not already thought by millions of people and of all ages. I don't know a topic in the sciences that in some manner is asked to be explained more...

 

 

I didn't have time earlier to get you a link on 'photon' capturing from the past, but the point was it's arguably an inconclusive observation, at least for me.

 

Hubble's ACS picture required a series of exposures taken over the course of 400 HST orbits around Earth from Sept. 24, 2003, to Jan. 16, 2004. About the size of a phone booth, ACS captured ancient photons of light that began traversing the universe even before Earth existed. Photons of light from the very faintest objects arrived at a trickle of one photon per minute, as opposed to millions of photons per minute from nearer galaxies.[/Quote]

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_ultradeep_040309.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question: If our universe is actually moving at the speed of light, how can these different speeds be interpreted as anything more than guesses?

 

rigney; Yes and no;

 

The Earth is spinning at 1040 MPH, at the equator, as is everything on the planet....

 

The Earth is orbiting the Sun at about 66,600 M/H, taking one earth year to complete each orbit...

 

It's thought our Sun, in orbit around the Milky way core has a velocity (speed) of 558,000 M/H, taking near 250 Million years to complete one orbit.

 

It's believed our local group of Galaxy, is moving slightly faster through space at 660,000 M/H.

 

The speed of light is 186,200 Mile per SECOND.

 

These are mathematical calculations, based on known or estimated figures.

 

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Speeds.shtml

 

Andromeda, the Milky Way are in a natural orbit and it is felt by SOME, these orbits will put the two Galaxy in near the same place in approximately 4.5 Billion Years. There are two Dwarf Galaxy much closer to the MW and expected to be absorbed, think in about 15-25 Million years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision

 

According to Big Bang Theory, 'expansion' of the Universe into some unknown entity (nothingness, but not now Universal Space) is at a near C speed or in some models faster than C, which is creating SPACE between objects, not moving objects. That is if the Universe, has a speed, not logical under BBT, this expansion and that velocity have nothing to do with each other. In my opinion, for space between objects to increase at speed anywhere near C, that expansion would have to be very large multiples of C velocity. To explain my feelings, in some models this expansion, was in fact extremely rapid in the first seconds of expansion, yet we claim to see the energy emitted from objects, back to the approximate times of the BB itself.

 

 

No, we're looking at what WAS, 13.5 BYA, not what is. Energy travels at a constant speed, what we are seeing is coincidental as the demitted energy from those times happens to hits the lenses of Hubble or other telescopes. These images, for the most part offered as artist interpretations, at those longer distances are based on very low amounts of received photons, over lengthy time periods.

 

rigney; For starters the whole concept of BBT, to me is junk science based on theology and itself has almost become a religion in itself (Creation). However to explain something that comes from BBT (expansion) I have no choice but use the theory. In this vain, there was no explosion, rather an expansion of an unexplained "singularity", made up of something that can't be explained by modern physics, that for some unexplainable reason had just been setting someplace not definable and had been there presumable forever (eternity). To explain the expansion (explosion) they use the four major energy forces known to man, along with extremely high temperatures effects on sub-atom particles. If your interested here is a good description.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

 

 

 

Well, I've been fighting BBT long before it became mainstream, advocated in part Fred Hoyles version of SSU (you might google him) and for many years had been winning that fight, until it has almost become anti-science to question the premise. I'll put it this way; if all your education, effort, testing and analysis is lined to advance one theory over another, then there can be only one result. While I'm not ungrateful, I'm certainly not convinced that questioning the theory, especially the hundreds of explanations that have advanced that theory, has not actually harmed the Science of Astronomy and Astrophysics.

 

 

 

If the U, had expanded at the explained initial velocity, we would literally see only our Star and planets held together by our gravity, the nearest other Star, simply too far away to detect, it had to slow down to quantify BBT. Not all BBT advocates think that expansion has increased, or gone past C, since atom matter formed, think the latest models suggesting 300 Million years after BB.

 

 

 

Questioning IMO, is a good thing and as I think I've mentioned to you before, we come from a time when an eternal Universe (always existed), was the accepted, were taught this and the theory behind it, whether Steady State or other theory was easily explain and easy to understand. However for the record, your question added no conjecture, to what's not already thought by millions of people and of all ages. I don't know a topic in the sciences that in some manner is asked to be explained more...

 

 

I didn't have time earlier to get you a link on 'photon' capturing from the past, but the point was it's arguably an inconclusive observation, at least for me.

 

 

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_ultradeep_040309.html

 

 

 

Wish I could wrap my head around the whole enchilada 33, and go on to something else, but I can't. your explination is straight-forward, and in most part pretty much the norm that I've read and heard over and over again. But, it's still a mystery to me how the universe can be theorized as creating space at a speed perhaps grearer than light, yet considered only as expansion. The loaf of raisin bread used in many demonstrations is a good example. Yes, the stationary loaf of bread is rising, expanding if you will, but not moving faster, only increasing in size. Sisyphus put it on a level of things being relative to one another much as Einstein did in his theories. which is very true. I suppose my fallacy is in believing the universe as something eternal, "cyclical", and having nothing to do with GOD. Yet not being able to substantiate this origin, makes it a conundrum? I have put together an unfounded thesis as to how the process might work, but am reluctant to take the heat for it's radicalism. That's pretty much how things stand at the moment in our own world. Quite a bit of proven theory, but much of the "I think" Or we believe that:? Or the theory is:? Anyone can hypothesise a chain of events leading up to some conclusion, but it's only a pipe dream unless you have some fundamental proof backing up the theory. My story at the moment is nothing more than just that, a story.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose my fallacy is in believing the universe as something eternal, "cyclical", and having nothing to do with GOD. Yet not being able to substantiate this origin, makes it a conundrum? [/Quote]

 

rigney; Cyclical or a pulsating Universe is very old theory, mentioned in Hindu Mythology. Simply stated the Universe has died from Heat/Cold (Newer theory for cause), regenerating back to basically the same thing, some thinking many times.

 

I suspect, your trying to substantiate a Religious viewpoint into an understanding of what might have happened or the 'Old Testament' Genesis version of how we came to be. Many years ago I discussed this with an ardent believer in the 'time periods' (verses days) and of the Jewish faith, suggesting if the OT, had any validity with Science, at least today, he should consider those time periods to the formation of the solar system (not the Universe) and if so done could justify his personal belief's, better. He did agree, but....

 

If in your mind, the U is in fact eternal (I would agree to, in some form) then in itself there should be no conundrum (problem). Again if Religion is in your mind, maybe trying to believe in an afterlife or reason for personal existence, then wouldn't any God/Creator, also have to be eternal or possibly the U and your feeling of a God, be the same total entity?

 

Noun: entity en-ti-tee

That which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)[/Quote]

 

I have put together an unfounded thesis as to how the process might work, but am reluctant to take the heat for it's radicalism. [/Quote]

 

rigney I am dead serious here; There is nobody on this forum, that is going to give you heat on any issue. You have long since displayed yourself as a person willing to learn and participate gracious manner, almost to a fault. They might argue a point (should be expected) or change the venue you have posted in, but they for the most part have always responded in accordance to the poster, the attitude. People like myself, iNow, bascule and a few other are not always congenial in our approach, the responses then likewise.

 

That's pretty much how things stand at the moment in our own world. Quite a bit of proven theory, but much of the "I think" Or we believe that:? Or the theory is:? Anyone can hypothesis a chain of events leading up to some conclusion, but it's only a pipe dream unless you have some fundamental proof backing up the theory. My story at the moment is nothing more than just that, a story. [/Quote]

 

Whether you offer a thread or send a PM, I'll respond to "My Story", but I have a feeling their are a great many people, that casually read these forums, or surf the net for answers to the very questions you are pondering with....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say I'm pi-sed is to be using a mild expletive. I spent the better part of an hour editing an answer to Sisyphus only to find that when I tried to post, my time had ran out and I couldnt get it done. I signed back in, but the message was lost. How the hell does an old fart like me get around in this new can of worms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say I'm pi-sed is to be using a mild expletive. I spent the better part of an hour editing an answer to Sisyphus only to find that when I tried to post, my time had ran out and I couldnt get it done. I signed back in, but the message was lost. How the hell does an old fart like me get around in this new can of worms?

 

Yep, it's a real pain when that happens. If you think you are going to ponder on writing a post over a long period it might be a good idea to do it in a word processor and then copy and paste it to SFN when you are ready to post it. Put your W/P software icon in the quickest launch position so you don't have to mess around too much.

 

Instead of using Word or Open Office which are slow to open and overkill for this purpose you could use a much smaller /faster opening and simpler W/P called Abiword (8Mb)and stick its icon in the Quick Launch position (bottom Left)if you are using Vista/7. You can then ponder and manipulate your post as you desire. :)

 

Here's a link for it: http://www.abiword.org/download/

 

You could also copy and paste the question on to your Abiword document so you have the relevant points on the page while you think...remember to Save occasionally!

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding to SJ post, noting time is not always the problem...

 

 

rigney; Everyone that uses any forums posting system has lost its content, likely many times. It's extremely frustrating, but not necessarily anyone's fault. We went through this in suggestions, not to long after your joined, but I'll go back over it;

 

If you have Microsoft 'Jarte Word Processing Hardware' is compatible and you might consider downloading, it cost nothing....

 

http://www.jarte.com/download.html

 

If you do, an icon will appear on you screen and the system has it's own spell check, right click on a word, then left click dictionary. Spell checking while on site, can cause many problems and should be avoided IMO.

 

Now, I don't believe you fully understand how to copy/paste items. Play around with this a short while and you'll get the hang of it. Left click your mouse while moving the arrow over a sentence, paragraph or in the case of transferring a formed message, off word pad, text Document or Jarte, from bottom up the entire message. Once you get everything you want in blue, release your click. Then right click (anyplace on the blue) and click copy. So long as you don't copy something else or turn off your computer, it will be maintained in your system. Be careful not to click "cut"... Go to where you wish to place what's copied, a forums message system, right click and then click paste, whatever copied will show up.

 

Anything you want boxed, quotes and so on, type "quote" ahead and "/quote" at the end with [ ] around each word. I am posting this publicly (opposed to PM) because I am Computer Illiterate myself and if not 100% correct, assume someone will correct my explanation.

 

Normally I don't have much time to during market hours to form post, wanting to keep track of my few stocks, business news, emails or some news program on TV, kind of a priority thing in my mind. In fact I'm forming this post, off site on Jarte and will shortly go to the site, if everything goes as planned, will then delete this item from my system. If wanted for future reference, I would file it under the Jarte System titling it appropriately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding to SJ post, noting time is not always the problem...

 

 

rigney; Everyone that uses any forums posting system has lost its content, likely many times. It's extremely frustrating, but not necessarily anyone's fault. We went through this in suggestions, not to long after your joined, but I'll go back over it;

 

If you have Microsoft 'Jarte Word Processing Hardware' is compatible and you might consider downloading, it cost nothing....

 

http://www.jarte.com/download.html

 

If you do, an icon will appear on you screen and the system has it's own spell check, right click on a word, then left click dictionary. Spell checking while on site, can cause many problems and should be avoided IMO.

 

Now, I don't believe you fully understand how to copy/paste items. Play around with this a short while and you'll get the hang of it. Left click your mouse while moving the arrow over a sentence, paragraph or in the case of transferring a formed message, off word pad, text Document or Jarte, from bottom up the entire message. Once you get everything you want in blue, release your click. Then right click (anyplace on the blue) and click copy. So long as you don't copy something else or turn off your computer, it will be maintained in your system. Be careful not to click "cut"... Go to where you wish to place what's copied, a forums message system, right click and then click paste, whatever copied will show up.

 

Anything you want boxed, quotes and so on, type "quote" ahead and "/quote" at the end with [ ] around each word. I am posting this publicly (opposed to PM) because I am Computer Illiterate myself and if not 100% correct, assume someone will correct my explanation.

 

Normally I don't have much time to during market hours to form post, wanting to keep track of my few stocks, business news, emails or some news program on TV, kind of a priority thing in my mind. In fact I'm forming this post, off site on Jarte and will shortly go to the site, if everything goes as planned, will then delete this item from my system. If wanted for future reference, I would file it under the Jarte System titling it appropriately.

 

Thanks Jackson. While I'm not overly cocerned with quotes and such, it does piss me off to lose what I think is a well thought out message because the damned program says I've ran out of time. From now on I'll simply edit and save it. Then I don't have to worry.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.