Absolute stationary

[Scribble]

Probably not the best use of english, but I couldn't figure out how to describe it better.

 

Now, my idea goes like this (please don't be critical, I haven't done much physics and this is something I sort of just came up with):

 

Everything in the universe is moving relative to some stationary point. This point I will call absolutly stationary. There is probably no reason to find the direction and velocity (relative to say, earth) but would this work?

 

Take a particle and entangle it with another, put it in a spaceship (or whatever) send it off in a direction at a set velocity. Do this thousands of times in many directions around a sphere. After a period of time (from the start point) use the entangled particle (don't know how yet) to transmit the time from each of the thousand particles that have been sent away. Whichever particle that reads the least amount of time passing will be the correct direction.

 

Now do the same experiment, but send some of the particles in the direction found above, another lot in the opposite direction (or would they all just be sent in the one direction?) this time they are sent with different velocites. Now with the time data that is sent back there should be 1 time that is in the middle. It's in my head, but I can't explain it better than that for the moment.

 

This would give a velocity and direction (relative to everthing) that is 'stationary'

 

Would this work, or am I just completely wrong?

[Johnny5]

 

Take a particle and entangle it with another' date=' put it in a spaceship (or whatever) send it off in a direction at a set velocity. Do this thousands of times in many directions around a sphere. After a period of time (from the start point) use the entangled particle (don't know how yet) to transmit the time from each of the thousand particles that have been sent away. Whichever particle that reads the least amount of time passing will be the correct direction.[/quote']

 

I don't understand what you are trying to do here, nor what it has to do with absolute rest.

[swansont]

Everything in the universe is moving relative to some stationary point. This point I will call absolutly stationary.

 

How do you distingish this point from any point in an another inertial reference frame?

[Johnny5]

How do you distingish this point from any point in an another inertial reference frame?

 

Isn't the total gravitational field at the center of the universe necessarily zero? Maybe he could distinguish it that way.

[Scribble]

I don't understand what you are trying to do here, nor what it has to do with absolute rest.

 

I thought's were along the line that if the start point is already moving (relative to absolute rest) then sending probes in different directions at speed would alter (speed up or slow down) time relative to the start point. Meaning if the start point is moving at 25,000km/s and the probe is sent out at 50,000km/s in all directions, then adding the velocities would give you the direction as some of the velocities would be negative because the probe is traveling err, toward? absolute rest so time would speed up (relative to the start point)

[Scribble]

How do you distingish this point from any point in an another inertial reference frame?

 

I don't understand what you mean. As I said, I haven't done a lot of physics. Please explain so I can understand (I'm here to learn).

[J.C.MacSwell]

If entangled communication could work that and the experiment would yield consistent results (disregarding gravity strength anomalies) and if the results produced a "fastest clock" in a particular direction and speed then that would distinguish that reference frame.

 

It's an interesting bit of thinking even though we would expect a null result due to the second if (I think that was Swansont's point) and in fact probably no results at all due to the first if.

[swansont]

I don't understand what you mean. As I said, I haven't done a lot of physics. Please explain so I can understand (I'm here to learn).

 

 

You have defined a point to be absolutely stationary. What measurement can you do to determine what that point is?

[Scribble]

You have defined a point to be absolutely stationary. What measurement can you do to determine what that point is?

 

Well, if you went in any direction from that point, time would slow relative to that point. I guess I'm using time dilation as the measurement?

 

This would only work if you can communicate instantaniously with the reference point (entaglement). It's the only way I can see of being able to share information between reference frames without distortion.

 

I guess it's like being in deep space and moving off in a direction, how do you work out your velocity? (do you use the stars as a reference, or calc it based on accel time, etc?)

 

I'm probably barking up the wrong tree, aren't I?

 

As I said, I haven't done anything above our college (same as american high school) level physics, I've just read some stuff and thought about this.

 

Thanks for your input guys and not making me feel like a complete idiot

[alt_f13]

You have defined a point to be absolutely stationary. What measurement can you do to determine what that point is?

 

The Earth does have a velocity relative to the average velocity of the universe, does it not?

 

Is there any reason that the point (or points... we don't completely know how spatial dilation and spacetime distortion works... but I'm sure there is more than one simmilar point ) in the universe that is moving simmillar to the average speed of the universe should not be considered "absolutely stationary?" (gr?)

[swansont]

Well' date=' if you went in any direction from that point, time would slow relative to that point. I guess I'm using time dilation as the measurement?

[/quote']

 

 

But that's true of any two points in inertial frames.

[swansont]

The Earth does have a velocity relative to the average velocity of the universe' date=' does it not?

 

Is there any reason that the point (or points... we don't completely know how spatial dilation and spacetime distortion works... but I'm sure there is more than one simmilar point ) in the universe that is moving simmillar to the average speed of the universe should not be considered "absolutely stationary?" (gr?)[/quote']

 

I don't know that you can say the universe has an average velocity. The universe is a pretty big thing, so how do you measure its velocity and with respect to what do you measure it?

[bascule]

"Absolute stationary" is basically defined by the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) reference frame which permeates the universe equally in all directions... the time dilation of our motion relative to the CMB reference frame (determined because it's slightly doppler shifted) is taken into account when calculating the age of the universe via the CMB (and since we are in motion relative to it, our [i.e. the Milky Way Galaxy's] perception of the age of the universe is slightly less than the actual value)

[alt_f13]

I don't know that you can say the universe has an average velocity. The universe is a pretty big thing, so how do you measure its velocity and with respect to what do you measure it?

 

I am suggesting that an absolutely stationary point in the universe would be that which is not moving relative to the average velocity of all other points in space. It wouldn't be measurable, nor practical to use as a reference frame even if one could be found, but we could say the same for fashion in the 80's. I'm not saying Hammer Pants are the ruler by which we measure all other apparell, just that they exist.

 

Moving on...

 

I'm just saying that if you were moving at 5km/h, Mr.A was moving at 15km/h and Mr.B was moving at -5km/h all in the same direction and someone was asked to pick the unmoving player, the logical choice would be you, playa, because yours is the reference frame in which the average velocity of all other players is 0.

 

Stop. Hammer time.

[bascule]

I am suggesting that an absolutely stationary point in the universe would be that which is not moving relative to the average velocity of all other points in space. It wouldn't be measurable, nor practical to use as a reference frame even if one could be found, but we could say the same for fashion in the 80's. I'm not saying Hammer Pants are the ruler by which we measure all other apparell, just that they exist.

 

You desire a Machian universe. Mach's ideas greatly influenced Einstein in his creation of General Relativity, however Einstein later rejected them and insisted that spacetime itself was absolute.

[swansont]

You can define a coordinate system and say that we'll do all measurements with repect to it. But the choice is arbitrary. There's no preferred result you get in that coordinate system.

[Spyman]

You can define a coordinate system and say that we'll do all measurements with repect to it. But the choice is arbitrary. There's no preferred result you get in that coordinate system.

But it's still a interesting question, if it is somehow possible to by measurements confirm a zero velocity relative space itself. Just look at all the threads on the subject or related to it.

 

When saying that nothing can move through space faster than light one can easily start thinking nothing can move through space slower than zero.

 

Off topic:

Isn't the total gravitational field at the center of the universe necessarily zero? Maybe he could distinguish it that way.

At the center of universe the gravitational potential should be at maximum, the sum of gravity forces is zero.

[Scribble]

When saying that nothing can move through space faster than light one can easily start thinking nothing can move through space slower than zero.

 

Yes, this is what I was trying to figure out. Truely zero velocity on a universal scale.

[Spyman]

Yes, this is what I was trying to figure out. Truely zero velocity on a universal scale.

Finding a way to measure it and experimentaly prove it would probably change the view of relativity.

 

On the other hand if Big Bang Theory is correct then as mentioned in other posts above the CMB is the true frame of zero velocity on a universal scale. (The predicted, (by me), results of Your experiments.)

 

So I think You might like reading this Quote of Martin:

this sticky seems to be growing! more people are adding astronomy links!

thanks to admiral' date=' nightsky, and nalos

 

I just thought of a good link which is a starmap with the Microwave Background dipole temperature variation superimposed

 

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/

 

it shows there is a doppler hotspot in the direction of Leo

because we are heading in that direction at some speed like

1.23 thousandths of the speed of light---in absolute space terms

 

I think it is a really cool map and rather old----the result was reconfirmed by satellite observatory in the 1990s--- but the original result, gotten by U2 plane flying around measuring the microwave temp in various directions, turned out quite accurate.

 

 

-----------------------------[/quote']

[swansont]

On the other hand if Big Bang Theory is correct then as mentioned in other posts above the CMB is the true frame of zero velocity on a universal scale. (The predicted' date=' (by me), results of Your experiments.)

[/quote']

 

The CMB frame may be a rest frame. That doesn't make it the rest frame.

 

You can always see if you are moving or at rest, with respect to something. What abolute rest means is that you can say for sure that you, or the other object, is the one that is at rest.

[Spyman]

The CMB frame may be a rest frame. That doesn't make it the[/i'] rest frame.

Well if the Big Bang Theory is correct please explain how the CMB could be moving in a direction relative the Universe.

 

You can always see if you are moving or at rest, with respect to something. What abolute rest means is that you can say for sure that you, or the other object, is the one that is at rest.

Yes, that is what Scribble tries to figure out, a way to by measurements determine this.

 

And I belive if such determination ever is possible it will match with CMB.

(Or else BB theory will be totaly wrong or seriously flawed.)

[swansont]

Well if the Big Bang Theory is correct please explain how the CMB could be moving in a direction relative the Universe.

 

The question makes no sense until you've adequately defined what "a direction relative to the universe" means.

[Spyman]

The question makes no sense until you've adequately defined what "a direction relative to the universe" means.

swansont, You know what I mean, "pecking" on my English is not helping...

 

AFAIK The Big Bang Theory claims that the Universe is all there is.

 

And to have the Universe moving it has to have something to move relative, thus if BB is correct then the Universe is at absolute rest as You Yourself defined it a few posts ago.

[Deviation]

...

 

This would only work if you can communicate instantaniously with the reference point (entaglement). It's the only way I can see of being able to share information between reference frames without distortion.

 

I guess it's like being in deep space and moving off in a direction' date=' how do you work out your velocity? (do you use the stars as a reference, or calc it based on accel time, etc?)

...[/quote']

 

All things have speed of time relative to each other. ie. Faster the object slower its time and viceversa. So if we can find objects that have the fastest time relative to all the objects in the universe then thoes objects must be very near to the Origin point of the universe.

 

Send probes at certain points in universe and make them stay for 1 year and then calculate the difference when they are brought together.

 

Thanks.

[J.C.MacSwell]

swansont' date=' You know what I mean, "pecking" on my English is not helping...

 

AFAIK The Big Bang Theory claims that the Universe is all there is.

 

And to have the Universe moving it has to have something to move relative, thus if BB is correct then the Universe is at absolute rest as You Yourself defined it a few posts ago.[/quote']

 

The rest points of the CMB frame arguably represent a prefferred "volume" but how can you claim they are at absolute rest?

 

The rest points of the CMB frame are only at rest wrt each other locally.

 

They represent an inertial frame locally but are moving with respect to each other at greater velocity with distance apart.