When a photon is released, which way does it head?

[tar]

Michel123456,

 

Well yes I suppose I am searching for that.

 

But here is my thinking, It is true we move every day relative to the surface of the Earth, and the Earth moves relative to the Sun, with both a rotation and a revolution, and the Sun moves relative to the center of the Galaxy in reference to the other galaxies in the local cluster, and that all the nearby galaxies that we have determined the vector motion of, in relationship to us and to the other galaxies, all seem to be describing a certain motion relative to a great attractor. If we were to choose the great attractor as a stationary point, then any and all movement we will ever see, in a thousand lifetimes, will be absolute in reference to that great attractor. It will never cease to be a reference point that we can use...forever. At least until well after the Sun burns out.

 

That's absolute enough for me.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 25, 2014 by tar

[Strange]

If we were to choose the great attractor as a stationary point, then any and all movement we will ever see, in a thousand lifetimes, will be absolute in reference to that great attractor. It will never cease to be a reference point that we can use...forever. At least until well after the Sun burns out.

 

That would be true whatever you choose as a reference point. You can arbitrarily make any point your reference, which is what "no absolute motion" means.

[tar]

Strange,

 

Right. But how absolute is it important to be?

 

We can choose any point in the universe we want to be a reference point, and then we can choose another in relation to it. All that is important is that it is a reference point that every body can find, and find in the same place, every time they ever look, and that it makes sense to choose it as a reference point.

 

If you were describing to me where to take the left when looking for your house, you would tell me to turn at the three big Oak trees, the same three big Oaks that everybody has been using as a landmark for the last 75 years.

 

The Earth is the Earth for all Earthlings, the Sun is the Sun for everybody in the Solar system, the center of the Galaxy is the same spot for everybody in the MilkyWay. For a hypothetical observer in Andromeda the Milkyway is over there and is moving in relationship to Andromeda in the same geometrical setup, as us over here figure.

 

If there is absolute motion in reference to a geometrical space that the entire local cluster of galaxies exists in, that is close enough to absolute to count as absolute. It is not arbitrary, it is evident.

 

If the whole local cluster is inside a glass ball being struck by a strange looking creature, as at the end of "Men in Black", and we are "absolutely" going primarily in the direction just struck, but could never know anything from that perspective, and it did not affect anything we could sense, it would not matter here, to consider that direction as a consideration. All that makes a difference is that which we know makes a difference.

 

When the world was considered flat, that was good enough to explain most important things.

When the world was the center of the universe, that was good enough to explain most important things.

Now that we have knowledge of the great attractor, and the Cosmic background radiation we have reference points, absolute reference points that will stay absolute reference points for billions of years. That is good enough to explain most important things. As in establishing an absolute frame of reference that everything we will ever see move, can move against.

 

Everything forever. How much more absolute than that do you think its important to get?

 

Regards, TAR

And if we find in a few years that the great attractor is moving in reference to some other point, then we can readjust our bearings to that. What we were holding as absolute before the adjustment was not wrong, just not as right as possible to know.

 

In any case there are things like distance to take into consideration when defining the space that Andromeda and the MilkyWay both inhabit, and a particular item in the complex is only absolutely in one spot, at the moment...and because of the time it takes light to get from one place to another, that spot has to be figured and "known", not sensed. But as long as you are willing to know a thing is in a different spot than you are witnessing it to be in, we can all absolutely agree on its motion relative to everything else we will ever know about.

 

Regards. TAR

[Strange]

But how absolute is it important to be?

 

It isn't important at all. In fact it is impossible. You are using "absolute" to mean "some arbitrary choice I made". That is not what absolute means.

 

 

If there is absolute motion in reference to a geometrical space that the entire local cluster of galaxies exists in, that is close enough to absolute to count as absolute.

 

There isn't such an absolute reference reference space.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Strange

[tar]

Strange,

 

Well we go by agreed upon definitions. There is no North Pole. We put one there. There is no border between Canada and the U.S. we put one there.

 

The Earth does not go around the Sun in a counter clockwise direction if you look at the Solar system from below. It goes Clockwise. But its the same "relative" direction, only one direction, that is the case whether you look at it from below or above.

 

So what if there is there are different angles from which you can judge the direction of the Earth's movement around the Sun, it is still only going one way, and that is the direction it is absolutely going.

 

We could figure the direction and speed that we are moving, if you add up all the motions we have sensed, at all the scales we have measured and figured and draw a vector line in that absolute direction. We could absolutely do the same with any other object we have knowledge of. Every other item in the universe would have a geometrical, an exact geometrical relationship to this vector line. Absolute relationship to every other object in space and time, would make absolute motion a sensible consideration, not an impossible idea.

 

You are the one that is arbitrarily saying there is no such thing. If we define it carefully, using our motion in reference to the background cosmic radiation and our known position and movement amoung the stars, then absolute motion is real and definite.

 

Not arbitrary.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

Well we go by agreed upon definitions. There is no North Pole.

 

Actually there is. Well, there are several. There is magnetic north. There is the axis of rotation. Etc. These are not just decided by convention, they reflect some underlying physical reality. You can't decide that the north pole is in London or on Betelgeuse because it isn't.

 

Similarly, "absolute motion" would mean some definition of motion independent of convention. One that reflected something fundamental about the universe. Choosing some point in space is not absolute because you could equally well choose some other point. You could choose London, Betelgeuse or the CMB (this is known as "co-moving coordinates) as your reference. But they are still arbitrary, none of them is any more "real" then the others.

 

 

We could figure the direction and speed that we are moving, if you add up all the motions we have sensed, at all the scales we have measured and figured and draw a vector line in that absolute direction.

 

But all of those motions are just relative to some arbitrary choice. It would be equally valid to say the Earth is not moving and all the bits of the universe are moving relative to us.

 

You are the one that is arbitrarily saying there is no such thing.

 

It is not arbitrary. It is a fundamental part of physics since Galileo's day.

 

If we define it carefully, using our motion in reference to the background cosmic radiation and our known position and movement amoung the stars, then absolute motion is real and definite.

 

But those are all arbitrary choices. It doesn't make any difference if you choose those or the tip of my nose.

[Ophiolite]

tar, unusually - to my recollection - you are totally wrong. The only absolute concerning motion is that your idea on it are absolutely incorrect. Quit while you are only behind.

[tar]

Ophiolite,

and Strange,

 

Well I obviously am using a word here, in "absolute" that is a stronger word for you, than it is for me. But I am not suggesting any arbitrary choice of a reference point where just any old spot is just as good as another to measure from and establish a geometry about. I have submitted the Earth, and the Sun and the Center of the Galaxy and the location of the great attractor and the CMB as our reference points. All real things. I will even add the tip of our nose, as that point is one we are all used to judging the rest of the universe in reference to.

 

The general idea, in my estimation of what we do as conscious peices of material, is internalize the world and build a model of it. An analog model of it, within the synapses and signals of our brains and bodies. To this a geometric understanding of the world, is something we are capable of possesing. And we have the ability to change grain size, to have something as big as the Milkyway be a spiral with a bulge and a top and a bottom and a direction of rotation and such, as if we are seeing it from the outside.

 

If we take that picture of the Milkyway, and give it a bottom and a top and direction of spin, and measure where we are as a solar system, in reference to it, we have an absolute angle of tilt and direction of motion, as a solar system in reference to the picture of the Milky way. The direction the top of the Milkyway is pointing is a particular solid angle different than the top of the Solar system is pointing. If you make the true analog transformation between the different scales, that of the galaxy and that of the solar system, but retain the idea of up for the Galaxy and up for the Solar system, and up for the Earth, and up in reference to your nose, you will find that absolutely the each is definitely related to the other, in a measurable definite way, Not abitrarly chosen, but real and evident.

 

In this manner the direction your nose is pointed in can be defined in reference to the spin of the Earth and its revolution around the Sun, and the Sun's angle to the center of the Milky Way. In other words the direction your nose is pointing has a definite analog to the direction the MilkyWay is headed in reference to the great attractor. There is only one great attractor, and you can point to it, from here and point your nose toward it, away from it, or normal to it, or all the angles inbetween. So absolute direction is not a problem to figure.

 

Then you have to figure absolute speed in a particular direction, and fortuneately we now have the CMB radiation coming in from all directions equally so that if we should see it a little hotter in one direction than the other we know we are absolutely going in that direction.

 

So if we know which direction we are going in reference to the CMB, and we know how fast and in what direction relative to our noses everything we see is going, and can relate that to our model of the solar system and the galaxy and the local cluster, what more do we need?

 

Why worry about our "absolute" motion in reference to that which we don't know about, when we can absolutely figure our motion in reference to everything we do know about?

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

In this manner the direction your nose is pointed in can be defined in reference to the spin of the Earth and its revolution around the Sun, and the Sun's angle to the center of the Milky Way. In other words the direction your nose is pointing has a definite analog to the direction the MilkyWay is headed in reference to the great attractor. There is only one great attractor, and you can point to it, from here and point your nose toward it, away from it, or normal to it, or all the angles inbetween. So absolute direction is not a problem to figure.

 

Then you have to figure absolute speed in a particular direction, and fortuneately we now have the CMB radiation coming in from all directions equally so that if we should see it a little hotter in one direction than the other we know we are absolutely going in that direction.

 

So it seems that by "absolute" you mean "total" or "overall" motion. That overall motion is still with reference to something you have chosen (and you could equally well choose something else).

 

It would be better if you avoided using the word absolute for that as it will cause confusion. For most people, absolute motion means that there is some place which is genuinely still in some real sense. The trouble is, it is impossible to define what that sense is because there is no such absolute reference!

 

Why worry about our "absolute" motion in reference to that which we don't know about, when we can absolutely figure our motion in reference to everything we do know about?

 

No one does worry abut it because it has been known, since Galileo, that there is no such thing.

 

Well, almost no one. The few people who do worry about it are physics cranks. Which is why you may get an unpleasantly negative reaction if you use the word "absolute".

[Ophiolite]

The difficulty then seems to be, Tar, that you have been using absolute in a colloquial sense. On a science forum this is ill advised. Absolute has a defined meaning in science, distinct from the dictionary definition that can serve us well enough in everyday conversation. (Of that, I am absolutely convinced.)

[tar]

Strange, and Ophiolite,

 

Yes I guess I mean total motion. That vector upon which our nose is heading when you add up the motion of the Earth and the Sun and the Center of the Galaxy.

 

But in terms of what physics has known for thousands of years, we have had a few recent findings that change the discussion a little and give us some different "hooks" to hang our hats on, than Archemedies had. Einstein and Dyson and Feymen and Hawkings for instance changed what if was we figure we have to hang our hats on. And the background microwave radiation is quite a thing to behold. The atoms that released the photons we measure now in the radio wave frequencies, did so soon after our universe became transparent, and those photons that we see today. started off in this direction, then, and have been traveling at C, toward us since, up until the day they arrived here and entered our equipment.

 

Much we can gleen from the vector direction from which a CMB photon arrives and the energy it has when it arrives about the structure of the observable universe. The geometrical structure, what is in that direction, and what is in that direction over there.

 

So we have a great deal of information about how space works, and how matter warps the place, and how energy is transported "through" it. Enough for me to define the exact direction I am pointing in, in reference to real stuff, in such a manner as your would be sure if the direction you were pointing in was the same direction, or a different direction. And if it was a different direction exactly the difference in coordinates we are talking about.

 

So OK, total direction and speed measured against the background of the CMB which is present and consistent for all Earthbound observers. It was Michel123456 that said what I was seaching for seemed like a search for absolute motion. I did not introduce the term to the discussion. But it seems from your "sounds like a crank" remarks that it has already been decided that if you sound like you are looking for an absolute reference point, you are automatically a crank and wrong.

 

I don't accept that label, because I don't see yet, where it is that I am considering something that is not evident.

 

Are we having a religious discussion and I am not aware of it? Or a philosophical one? Or a physiological/psychological one? In addition to a physics one?

 

Is this a "no preferred frame of reference" discussion at the moment?

 

If it is, let me say this about that. I prefer my frame of reference, as it is the only one I have, the only one I can ever have, and the only one that makes sense to me. I can easily add everybody elses to that, and put myself in their shoes and see what reality looks like from both perspectives. I can even put myself in imaginary "other's" shoes, anywhere in the universe at any time, past present and future, consistent with all available information about the place. But, since my internal model of the universe is an analog representation of the actual place and it is consistent with your internal analog model of the place and we are both Earthlings, talking about the place with the Earth as a preferred reference frame is completely sensible.

 

Therefore there IS a preferred reference frame. This one. That there are other's is a fact, but I am 100 percent sure that an Andromidan considers Andromeda "their" preferred frame of reference. And they would be correct.

 

Regards, TAR

And in terms of absolute direction if an Andromedan was facing the part of the Milkyway where the Solar system is, and I was pointing at Andromeda, I would be pointing in the absolute direction that her back was facing.

[Strange]

 

Therefore there IS a preferred reference frame. This one. That there are other's is a fact, but I am 100 percent sure that an Andromidan considers Andromeda "their" preferred frame of reference. And they would be correct.

 

You may prefer yours, and they may prefer theirs. Which is why neither is absolute.

 

An absolute frame of reference would be one that you, I and the Andromedan (and everybody else) agreed was somehow unique, special, and ... well, absolute.

 

Compare with temperature for example. We have various scales with 0 degrees at different places. For Celsius it is conveniently chosen as the freezing point of water. For Fahrenheit it is chosen as <I have no idea what>. But these are just arbitrary conventions. But we also have Kelvin where the zero is absolute, not just a random choice. Everyone in the universe would agree that 0K is a unique, special, and absolute zero of temperature.

 

 

And in terms of absolute direction if an Andromedan was facing the part of the Milkyway where the Solar system is, and I was pointing at Andromeda, I would be pointing in the absolute direction that her back was facing.

 

And, as our local cluster moves through space, that "absolute" direction would change making it, again, just a randomly chosen relative direction. No one else in the universe would see any special significance to that direction over any other.

 

An absolute velocity, direction or position would need to have some measurable characteristic that made it uniquely different from all the other possible velocities, directions or positions.

 

 

But it seems from your "sounds like a crank" remarks that it has already been decided that if you sound like you are looking for an absolute reference point, you are automatically a crank and wrong.

 

Yes. Unless that person had some truly extraordinary evidence. If so, that would be a totally world-shattering discovery that would get them not just a Nobel prize but worldwide and eternal fame!

 

That is why you should not misuse specialised words (jargon, terms of the art, etc) to mean something different.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Strange

[Ophiolite]

Tar, you continue to misuse terms. Indeed, your persistence in this regard leads me to say you abuse those terms.

 

Preferred reference frame is being used by you, seemingly, to mean a reference frame that you like. In the same way that I might prefer chicken tikka jalfrezi to prawn vindaloo. That is not how it is used in physics. The wikipedia article is rather weak on the matter, but should show you how you are misusing the concept..

 

Once we remove the results of your improper use of terminology I am at a loss to see what you are saying that is not already very well known and very well accepted. Perhaps you will clarify your thinking, ideally in a concise manner.

[tar]

Strange,

 

I am imagining the Great Attractor as a common reference point for everybody and anybody anywhere in the world. This alone, would be enough to call it an absolute reference point, because its always going to be in only one of all possible directions, for anyone on the Earth, any time anyone pointed to it.

 

But its in only one direction for anyone in the MilkyWay, as well.

 

And in only one direction, for anyone in the local cluster, as well.

 

We are already talking about a situation that was the case for millions of years and will be the case for at least a million more.

 

Any one on Earth, which constitutes a complete set of anyone and everyone that will ever talk about direction and motion, as far as we currently are aware, can measure the great attractor in only one of all the possible directions. Anyone and everyone we can ever possibly meet, or talk to, or have talk to us, or that we can leave a message for, or that can leave a message for us, can measure the thing in exactly the same direction. It is absolutely real and any changes in its position over time can be measured and accounted for, and where it was yesterday and where it will be tomorrow, will be absolutely known. Not only by everyone within a ly of Earth, but by everyone within 1 million lys. That knowledge of direction, of the same direction is perhaps not universal, but is as comprehensively universal as is possible to get. If you get as comprehensive as is possible to get, that is enough. Enough to say that a photon leaves an atom going toward the great attractor, away from the great attractor, or some angle inbetween the two. This direction, thusly defined would be a direction that would associate with any other such determination, anywhere within the local cluster. Even anywhere within the great wall of galaxies we are a part of.

 

Good enough for me.

 

Regards, TAR

If someone else, somewhere in the universe is not aware of "our" great attractor...so what. Their determination of direction makes no nevermind to me.

Ophiolite,

 

From the Wiki link.

 

"Although there is no preferred inertial frame under Newtonian mechanics or special relativity, the set of all inertial frames as a group may still be said to be "preferred" over noninertial frames in these theories, since the laws of physics derived for inertial motion only work exactly in this special category of frames."

 

It is important to my understanding of the universe to consider a simple invariant rule. Everything must fit.

 

That is that there is only one reality, and although it is very large and very long-lived, it is completely internally consistent. There is nothing that can therefore happen independantly of everything else.

 

If you light a match and hold it to the night sky, the photons go outward 'til they get absorbed by some atom which then releases a like photon, that goes outward from there. This has been happening since the universe became transparent. We are thusly connected to everything we see, and can imply that our position is thusly available to every position in sight.

 

So take any position "out there" and figure it in terms of past, present and future, in reference to a photon leaving the one place and traveling to the other. There is a "place" that contains the event from beginning to end, that contains both places. Anything happening in this place that consists of the two places, has to fit together and make sense, because universe can not be or do anything that is not internally consistent.

 

In this picture, no reference frame is arbitrary, because no matter what, anything that happens in it, must transform to any other reference frame, because both frames are real and occurring, and must fit with the universe.

 

And no matter what frame you chose, or what inertia you have, or whether you are accellerating or decellerating in reference to any other mass, you are always going to be doing that something in reference to the great attractor. So it can be used, for all intents and purposes as an absolute reference point.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

I am imagining the Great Attractor as a common reference point for everybody and anybody anywhere in the world. This alone, would be enough to call it an absolute reference point, because its always going to be in only one of all possible directions, for anyone on the Earth, any time anyone pointed to it.

 

You can, of course, choose that. But there is no reason to consider it special, or even unique. It is just your (arbitrary) choice. There are other large masses, such as the Shapley supercluster, that contribute to our motion against the CMB. You could equally well choose one of those. Or the center of a large void. Or a particular star. Or ...

 

An "absolute" reference would require physics to be different when considered with respect to that reference. (WHich is why there is no such thing.)

 

 

It is important to my understanding of the universe to consider a simple invariant rule. Everything must fit.

 

Indeed. The universe appears be like that (or, at least, our models of it are - which might just say more about us than the universe). And that is exactly why there is no absolute reference. It would make physics "lop-sided". The laws of physics would change depending on your position and speed. We don't expect that to happen, and there is no evidence that it does.

 

 

In this picture, no reference frame is arbitrary,

 

Or they are all equally arbitrary. Either way: none are absolute.

[tar]

Strange,

 

OK no absolute motion figured here. But the consideration came about, wondering if a massless thing like a photon goes in a straight line, independantly of the masses around it.

 

And I read some equation that seemed to indicate that a photon must have a tiny mass, and am wondering which is true.

 

Does a photon have no mass and therefore might travel in a straight line in some "absolute" sense of the word straight, or does it have some small mass that would tie it to an inertial frame of reference, carrying some directional momentum with it, as the lab stays stationary to the land its on, because it is locked by its mutual momentum with the land, to the land, along with a mutual pull toward the center of mass of the Earth.

 

In this distinction between an electron and a photon, one with mass and the other without mass, I would expect that the double slit equations and premises and conclusions should not be identical when considering a particle with mass and one without mass.

 

Regardless of the electric and magnetic fields associated with an electron and with a photon, that may show similar effects, the simple fact that one has mass and the other does not, would indicate to me that one, namely the massless photon, should head in a more absolute type of straight line, than a straight line defined by the lab's walls.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

OK no absolute motion figured here. But the consideration came about, wondering if a massless thing like a photon goes in a straight line, independantly of the masses around it.

 

Even massless photons are affected by gravity. This is easy to show, even with Newtonian gravity (and easier to explain in GR).

 

And I read some equation that seemed to indicate that a photon must have a tiny mass, and am wondering which is true.

 

I am not aware of any evidence that photons have mass. But they do have momentum.

 

In this distinction between an electron and a photon, one with mass and the other without mass, I would expect that the double slit equations and premises and conclusions should not be identical when considering a particle with mass and one without mass.

 

The only differences are due to their different wavelengths. Mass is not a factor.

 

Regardless of the electric and magnetic fields associated with an electron and with a photon, that may show similar effects, the simple fact that one has mass and the other does not, would indicate to me that one, namely the massless photon, should head in a more absolute type of straight line, than a straight line defined by the lab's walls.

 

 

They are both wavelike (as is everything) and so they are both diffracted and both show interference patterns.

[tar]

Strange,

 

So would you say, if we were to imagine a photon going off in a certain direction, that this direction was parallet to the straight lines of the lab, the straight lines of the Solar system, the straight lines of the Galaxy, the straight lines of the local cluster, or the straight lines defined by some other frame of reference?

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

So would you say, if we were to imagine a photon going off in a certain direction, that this direction was parallet to the straight lines of the lab, the straight lines of the Solar system, the straight lines of the Galaxy, the straight lines of the local cluster, or the straight lines defined by some other frame of reference?

 

I'm really not sure what you mean by all those straight lines.

 

But, in general, I would say no. In the presence of gravity (i.e. pretty much everywhere) the photon will follow a path that is not straight. (But then we get into what the word "straight" means. Arguably it is the path a photon follows. That is why this sort of verbal question doesn't really have an answer; it is too ill-defined.)

[MigL]

Tar, what if the Great Attractor is spinning ( more than likely ), and we are orbiting around it ?

That means in the time it takes for one orbit, the direction "towards the Great Attractor" has changed by 360 deg. i.e. half an orbit ago, you were pointing backwards !

Any frame, no matter which you choose or how big, will always be moving with respect to another. So there cannot be an absolute one.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Tar, I must apologise,

 

I have been away from the forum for quite some time , with painting expeditions etc and when I came back a few days ago, I saw everybody talking about photons and peering through telescopes and one thing and another about photons. This fired me up to talk about photons as bubbles. I now find I am next to you in speculations with this huge thread on directions of photons. I have not read it all. As it's pages and pages long.

 

Have you anything in there about photon production. It might help me with my bubbles.

 

It will take me days to read your 3500 odd long viewed thread . If I am trespassing on anything you have discussed please say so. I do not want to duplicate what has already been said . Or upset you ! We had debated that the double slit phenomenon needed rationalising .

 

I had no idea you were debating this subject. There is so much peering through telescopes and split threads , directions and big bangs , and photons going this way and that.

 

I have been in the physics forum , rummaging around on entropy and things. It's only on coming down in the basement again ,as usual ,that I have come across your massive thread. On photons ! Sorry !

 

Mike

Edited November 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

MigL,

 

Good point about the orbiting and spinning. And in addition, there is the distance to the great attractor, which compicates the figuring, as one would have to define whether we are concerned with the direction the great attractor was in before, or now, or later, when viewed from a faster than light imaginary view, that could contain the whole combination at once.

 

So OK, no absolute direction, would be obtainable from calling the great attractor stationary.

 

But still, there is a kind of standard space and directional reality implied by the actions of pendulums and gyroscopes. If their motion sets a standard, from which one can gauge other motion, isn't that something? If mass and gravity guide the motion of other mass and gravity, then the motion and position of other mass is important. And figuring that there is no absolute motion, the only valuable and real motion and direction, is that with regards to other mass and motion.

 

That is, the great attractor can be assumed to spin or not, and our relation to it would be the same.

 

If photons exist in reality, which they certianly must do, then they must be somewhere in respect to all the other mass in the universe, they must be, or one must be close to this peice of matter, and far away from that. Headed toward this piece of matter, and away from that. Whether their path is curved from this perspective, and straight from that, does not matter. It is still taking only one path, in reference to everything else. The transforms can be made. The vast distances and speeds that the thing travels can be figured.

 

It still must head off in a certain direction, in reference to the stuff around it, which is heading in a certain direction in reference to the stuff around it, which is heading in a certain direction in reference to the stuff around it.

 

To a certian degree, we have to worry about what we are going to have for dinner, even though there is someone somewhere, who might be going without. That is, as I have asked before, is it not functionally accurate enough to "go by" the great attractor?

 

If we found there was indication, that judging motion by the CMB, and the great attractor, was not sufficient to account for all motion and physical interactions and measurement, and that there was reason to believe there was another motion occurring as well, then we could add that other motion to the mix. But if using the CMB and the great attractor, accounted for all motion and physical interactions we can sense, then that would be enough to go on...at least until dinnertime.

 

 

Mike,

 

You can't disturb this thread. Your ideas about the tubes of opportunity and relative motion, and the great attractor, and the entropy discussions we were having, put me thinking about the double slit experiment in the first place.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ophiolite]

MigL,

 

Good point about the orbiting and spinning. <snip>If we found there was indication, that judging motion by the CMB, and the great attractor, was not sufficient to account for all motion and physical interactions and measurement, and that there was reason to believe there was another motion occurring as well, then we could add that other motion to the mix. But if using the CMB and the great attractor, accounted for all motion and physical interactions we can sense, then that would be enough to go on...at least until dinnertime.

And yet, after all that, the motion would still not be absolute.

[Strange]

 

But still, there is a kind of standard space and directional reality implied by the actions of pendulums and gyroscopes.

 

Is there? Why?

[tar]

Ophiolite and Strange,

 

Not absolute, but functional, true and accurate.

 

Was reading today about the binary star system that has one of its stars in its last stage before death, which is only 8000 lys from here. The cosmic rays that would be released upon the collapse/explosion of said star would boil our oceans should the jet of cosmic rays be pointed within 16 degrees of us.

 

Not absolute direction, but direction sufficient enough to make a difference for us.

 

The thing may have already exploded, might explode tomorrow and destroy our planet in 8000 years, or be "pointed" enough away from us, for us to survive the aftermath.

 

Not absolute direction, but direction enough to count as real and meaningful direction.

 

Regards, TAR