186.000 miles a second. Why?

[studiot]

Just because there is nowhere for the universe to translate to doesn't preclude the universe as a whole possessing rotational motiom.

Edited May 23, 2014 by studiot

[Mitch Bass]

Just because there is nowhere for the universe to translate to doesn't preclude the universe as a whole possessing rotational motiom.

 

What do you mean by the "universe to translate"?

All motion is relative to something else. What is the universe moving relative to?

 

 

If only one object existed, are you saying it could not move?

Edited May 23, 2014 by Mitch Bass

[Delta1212]

 

What do you mean by the "universe to translate"?

 

 

If only one object existed, are you saying it could not move?

How would you be able to tell if it was moving?

[Mitch Bass]

How would you be able to tell if it was moving?

 

Could a person not looking out a window on a plane moving at a constant speed know the plane was moving? My point being, what does being able to tell if an object is moving have to do with the object actually moving?

Edited May 23, 2014 by Mitch Bass

[Delta1212]

 

Could a person not looking out a window on a plane moving at a constant speed know the plane was moving? My point being, what does being able to tell if an object is moving have to do with the object actually moving?

I'll get to the last question if you bear with me for a bit: Yes, a person looking out the window would be able to tell if the plane was moving (with respect to the Earth) because they can see the Earth moving outside their window.

 

If the plane and its passenger were the only things in the universe and all the passenger saw when looking out the window was blackness, would there be any way to tell if the plane was stationary or moving at a constant speed?

[studiot]

 

What do you mean by the "universe to translate"?

 

 

There are two sorts of movement. Rotation about its own axis (ie spin) and translation.

I am guessing you understand about rotation.

Translation means what I think you you mean by movement. This may be straight line movement or along some curved path.

[Mitch Bass]

 

If the plane and its passenger were the only things in the universe and all the passenger saw when looking out the window was blackness, would there be any way to tell if the plane was stationary or moving at a constant speed?

Let us say that the passenger's only means of knowing was sight and sensation, the answer would be an absolute "no". The passenger would have no way of knowing it was on a plane that was moving. Yet, if the passenger said the plane was not moving, the passenger would be wrong. do you agree?

[Delta1212]

Let us say that the passenger's only means of knowing was sight and sensation, the answer would be an absolute "no". The passenger would have no way of knowing it was on a plane that was moving. Yet, if the passenger said the plane was not moving, the passenger would be wrong. do you agree?

Well before we get to answering that question. Let's say the plane is parked on Earth. What's its speed?

[Mitch Bass]

Well before we get to answering that question. Let's say the plane is parked on Earth. What's its speed?

Ahhh, my friend…I see now we are truly getting somewhere and I thank you for this. So earlier in this post I wrote about how fast our solar system travels around the Milky Way. Add that to how fast the Milky Way moves and keep going from there and maybe (this computer is failing, i need to long onto another, or fix the slowness)

[Mordred]

Just because there is nowhere for the universe to translate to doesn't preclude the universe as a whole possessing rotational motiom.

 

Just a side note The Godel universe is a rotating model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric

 

"Constructing the Godel Universe"

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0106/0106070.pdf

"Is the Universe Rotating"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.4575v3.pdf

[Mitch Bass]

Just because there is nowhere for the universe to translate to doesn't preclude the universe as a whole possessing rotational motiom.

 

along with evidence suggested by the clues found in the

Just a side note The Godel universe is a rotating model.

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

 

Part of why I started this post was to find out what the speed of the universe is. A few people responded that the universe only moves with itself but does not itself move but rather expands which has been stated is different from moving. The two people I have just quoted indicate the possibility that the universe as a whole is in fact moving. The reason I called this post "186,000 miles a second. Why?" Was because I was and still am attempting to get an answer to the question of "how fast is" the universe moving because once this question can be answered it is very possible to explain why the speed limit of the universe is 186,000 miles a second.

[studiot]

One of the characteristics of rotational motion is that different parts are moving at different velocities and that somewhere there is a part that has zero velocity.

 

Now the question arises, could we detect such a movement.

 

Well since cosmology is not my field I will leave that answer for Mordred and the Cosmologists, (Are they playing at Glastonbury this year?)

[zapatos]

The reason I called this post "186,000 miles a second. Why?" Was because I was and still am attempting to get an answer to the question of "how fast is" the universe moving because once this question can be answered it is very possible to explain why the speed limit of the universe is 186,000 miles a second.

Please define what you mean by 'how fast is the universe moving'. Until you do that you will not get an answer that satisfies you.

[Mordred]

I can't find the paper right now, but the Godel universe and subsequent rotating models have been discounted. AFAIK . To define the problem, a rotating universe would have a center or rotation. So if you watch the movement of galaxies there would be a tendency for galaxies on the other side of the center of rotation to be moving one direction. Opposite to ours. None has been observed to do so. The other consideration is when the Universe was smaller that rotation would have to be faster. However keep in mind we can only see the observable portion. So these two observations alone are difficult to determine a rotation. That being said even if the center was somewhere outside our observable portion, expansion wouldn't be homogeneous or isotropic. All the galaxies would appear to be moving in the same direction (outward) with different rates depending on how close to the center the galaxy is. Think in terms of angular momentum.

 

None of the data sets support a rotating model. The universe is extremely homogeneous (no preferred location) and isotropic (no preferred direction). Also as the CMB is essence all around us, we would have been able to measure a rotation in the temperature spectrums, with varying values due to expansion.

 

Counter argument is of course the rotation being incredibly slow, however it would have to be so slow to maintain an isotropic universe that 1 revolution would need to be longer than the age of the universe if memory serves correct.

Unfortunately I lost the paper when my older comp crashed, I've never been able to relocate it.

 

a simple way to visualize the problem is to take a large flat round object. place numerous points on the object then rotate it, the outer edge will have a faster apparent velocity than the dots towards the center. regardless of your reference point, then place sand on that plate as you rotate the plate the sand will move towards the outer region on the plate (assuming you rotate the plate fast enough). Now visualize the motion in a 3d object such as a balloon. (with a layered center lol). This would represent our observable universe. If you can visualize the 3D multilayer, you can see how easy it would be to detect a rotation regardless of location.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Mordred

[Mitch Bass]

Now visualize the motion in a 3d object such as a balloon. (with a layered center lol). This would represent our observable universe. If you can visualize the 3D multilayer, you can see how easy it would be to detect a rotation regardless of location.

 

This being said, consider a ballon that does not have a layered center of sand but rather, consider a ballon that contains sand and nothing besides? A ballon void of voids. I have been told that a universe that contains a sole substance without empty space could not exist as it does because there would be no movement. If this is correct than I will most likely not be able to determine the question posed at the start of this post: "Why is the speed limit of the universe 186,000 miles a second?" The moderator has made it clear that this is not the part of the forum to develop new theories. Respecting this rule I am only asking that according to what is known, if an object like a balloon was filled with a single substance and contained no empty space, could that substance be in motion?

Edited May 25, 2014 by Mitch Bass

[studiot]

 

if an object like a balloon was filled with a single substance and contained no empty space, could that substance be in motion?

 

 

What would prevent motion?

[Mordred]

Even a solid has plenty of empty space between the particles.

 

That being said if everthing in the universe is held together by the strong force. Or a solid the only observer inside that toy universe would need to be able to percieve beyond a solid from his view point. In other words he wouldn't be able to measure anything if he couldn't. If he could see between the particles making up the solid. The same messurement and momentum rules would apply.

 

Keep in mind this is a highly conjectural toy universe

[Mitch Bass]

Even a solid has plenty of empty space between the particles.

 

 

What would prevent motion?

 

It seems that Mordred is saying that the empty space between particles would allow for motion. However, Mordred and perhaps you studiot do not realize what my question was intended to answer. In a balloon that contains only one substance and nothing besides, meaning an absolute void of voids, zero empty space, and this includes that the sole solid substance has no empty space.

 

Let me instead ask a question that people who have a better understanding of certain aspects of physics than I do. Could there be motion if solids had no (using the words of Mordered " empty space between the particles."

Please define what you mean by 'how fast is the universe moving'. Until you do that you will not get an answer that satisfies you.

 

Excellent question zapatos. It makes me wonder if I shouldn't redefine my question entirely. Hmmm…well..I wrote earlier in the post about the speed that our solar system is moving around the Milky Way galaxy. So then the question becomes is the entitre MIlky Way Galaxy moving at some velocity and then so on an so forth. Perhaps I can make better sense at what I am trying to get at in the words in the next paragraph.

 

Imagine if a person is in a car traveling at sixty miles an hour. If that person throws fa gun out the window at four miles an hour the total speed of the gun would be sixty four miles an hour. if, after the gun was thrown out the window, the gun went off and a bullet was fired, the speed of the bullet would be the speed of the car plus the speed of the thrown gun plus the speed of the bullet. So if the bullet travels at three hundred miles and hour and the gun was thrown out the window at four miles an hour and the car was moving at sixty miles an hour…would I be wrong to suggest the bullet would travel at three hundred and sixty four miles an hour.

 

So... if the Earth is traveling at a certain speed and the solar system is traveling at a certain speed and the Milky Way is traveling at a certain speed and then finally in the very end, what if the universe as a whole, if everything that the universe included was moving at a certain speed…hmmm….maybe the entire universe is moving as one at a certain speed while what is contained within it moves the speed of the universe plus however fast the indivual sections of the universe are moving.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Mitch Bass

[Mordred]

 

Imagine if a person is in a car traveling at sixty miles an hour. If that person throws fa gun out the window at four miles an hour the total speed of the gun would be sixty four miles an hour. if, after the gun was thrown out the window, the gun went off and a bullet was fired, the speed of the bullet would be the speed of the car plus the speed of the thrown gun plus the speed of the bullet. So if the bullet travels at three hundred miles and hour and the gun was thrown out the window at four miles an hour and the car was moving at sixty miles an hour…would I be wrong to suggest the bullet would travel at three hundred and sixty four miles an hour.

 

 

correct

 

So... if the Earth is traveling at a certain speed and the solar system is traveling at a certain speed and the Milky Way is traveling at a certain speed and then finally in the very end, what if the universe as a whole, if everything that the universe included was moving at a certain speed…hmmm….maybe the entire universe is moving as one at a certain speed while what is contained within it moves the speed of the universe plus however fast the indivual sections of the universe are moving.

 

we measure how movements of different bodies relate to each other all the time. We do this by comparing how one bodies movement is different from another in the same way your using 2D vectors, we use 3D vectors. To correlate this with the time component we need 4D vectors.

 

Now if there is an overall rotation the vectors of motion will show motion due to how points on any rotating object or universe works. Take the solid example lets forget open spaces, simply make the solid clear so light can move through it (visibility). place any number of measurement points throughout that solid ball. Now rotate that ball. the points on the other side of the center will move in the opposite direction as the points on your side of the ball.

 

When you think about it the only reason we know the Earth rotates is due to comparing our planet to other planets, how many years did we think the universe revolved around us?

 

Its easier to detect a rotating universe, than say if that entire ball was moving moving in the same direction without rotating, in this case we would not have any measurement reference point to tell us differently, We can only measure within our universe, if every reference point was say moving right at the exact same vector and velocity, we wouldn't know. (solid case, linear motion)

 

now the real universe is not a solid, far from it. remember f =ma, also remember newtons 3 laws of motion.

if the universe has a rotation this causes centrifugal force, less massive bodies would move outward at a higher rate than massive one, rotation would also tend to flatten the universe into a sphere, just like it does for a galaxy.(provided the center of rotation in is our observable portion) So there would be a higher energy density near the equatorial epicenter. We see no evidence of this. We would see the same point to point correlations as the solid but with the added considerations of how forces work.

 

In the case of of a consistent linear motion with absolutely no change in rate of velocity and absolutely no rotation we wouldn't be able to detect this (a body in motion will stay in motion till a force acts upon it).

 

in the case of rotation with a center of rotation outside our observable universe, the objects closer to the center would have a slower rate of apparent movement than those further away from the center, also objects will still have a preferred direction outward away from the center. As f=ma smaller objects will move outward faster than larger objects. (centrifugal force) In many ways you can think of what occurs in a centrifuge used to separate red blood cells from white blood cells, why do they separate ? after all the same centrifugal force acted upon those blood cells.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Mordred

[Mitch Bass]

 

now the real universe is not a solid, far from it. remember f =ma, also remember newtons 3 laws of motion.

 

 

Here I might now be asking the most vital question I have so far asked of the people within this forum. How, as Mordred seemingy indicates in the above quote, does force equaling mass times acceleration or any of Newton's three laws prove that the real universe is not a solid?

 

Consider the following scenario: there is a cement truck a school bus and motorcycle. Imagine the cement truck is in front the motorcycle is in the middle and the school bus is in in the last position. Imagine it is bumper to bumper traffic and all three vehicle are traveling at the same rate and there is no empty space between them. These three vehicles are moving but there are bumpers are physically touching one another. What would happen if a large tree suddenly fell in front of the cement truck? A tree so large the cement truck came to an almost sudden stop. The school bus would suddenly be closer to the cement truck than it was before because the bus would push the motorcycle behind the cement truck. The cement truck being much more massive than the the school but would move from the collision but maybe very little because of the tree, this tree is more massive than even the cement truck, and the fact that the push of the motorcyle by a relatively unmassive schoolbus compared to the cement truck would make it so that the bus, being more massive than the motorcycle would crush to some degree, comprees to some point, the motrorcyle and now be closer to the cement truck. So the school bus was not pulled closer to the cement truck because of some attractive force, it was pushed towards because of the drop in speed of all three vehicles. Correct if I am wrong, but the school bus being more massive than the motorcyle would have more momentum traveling at the same velocity. If the cement truck was massive enough than it would move very little because fo the collsion motorcycle being pused from behind by the school bus.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Mitch Bass

[Mordred]

I never stated f=ma proves a solid lol, f=ma simply behaves differently from within a solid, how would it work within a solid? ok that lines need a bit more detail lol it simply intended to say the universe is not a solid.

 

then I wanted to describe how forces acted on different mass bodies within a fluid,or gas like state sorry for the confusion, that evidently got lost in translation lol.

 

The perfect fluid calculations are commonly used in numerous cosmology applications so the synonym is applicable

Edited May 27, 2014 by Mordred

[studiot]

Mitch, I didn't ask Mordred, I asked you, and you have no right to assume my question was in any way linked to any of Mordred's posts.

 

So I ask you again.

 

 

Posted 25 May 2014 - 10:57 PM

Quote

 

Mitch Bass

 

if an object like a balloon was filled with a single substance and contained no empty space, could that substance be in motion?

 

 

Studiot

 

What would prevent motion?

 

Particles were not mentioned in your question, nor in my response.

 

Since you mention them now, please specify the shape and scale of the these 'particles'.

 

Classical particles (atoms and larger) are subject to packing laws, which generally leave lots of empty space.

 

Subatomic particles exhibit quantum tunnelling.

[Mitch Bass]

 

I never stated f=ma proves a solid lol, f=ma simply behaves differently from within a solid, how would it work within a solid? ok that lines need a bit more detail lol it simply intended to say the universe is not a solid.

 

then I wanted to describe how forces acted on different mass bodies within a fluid,or gas like state sorry for the confusion, that evidently got lost in translation lol.

 

The perfect fluid calculations are commonly used in numerous cosmology applications so the synonym is applicable

If you have the ability and time and energy, I would very much appreciate the answer to what defines a solid as opposed to a fluid as opposed to a gas. Perhaps you can easily answer this question just by answering another question I've had for years but never attempted to find an answer. If I throw a water ballon at a my brother the next time I see him, I only see him once ever few years, he mght laugh at the suprise. If I throw a water ballon at him that I've kept in the freezer overnight and the water has turned to ice and I throw it at him, my brother could end up with a concussion and maybe I'd be fortunate enough that he'd forget I thew it. One ballon filled with water as opppsed to a ballon filled with ice that became ice from the same amount of water in the first ballon could break a persons skull, where the first ballon could only annoy or suprise a person.

[Mordred]

here is the chemistry definitions

 

Solid Definition: state of matter characterized by particles arranged such that their shape and volume are relatively stable. The constituents of a solid tend to be packed together much closer than the particles in a gas or liquid. - the state in which a substance has no tendency to flow under moderate stress; resists forces (such as compression) that tend to deform it; and retains a definite size and shape

 

A liquid has a definite volume, but takes the shape of its container. liquid state - the state in which a substance exhibits a characteristic readiness to flow with little or no tendency to disperse and relatively high incompressibility

 

A gas has neither a definite volume nor a definite shape. The state of matter distinguished from the solid and liquid states by relatively low density and viscosity, relatively great expansion and contraction with changes in pressure and temperature, the ability to diffuse readily, and the spontaneous tendency to become distributed uniformly throughout any container.

 

Plasma has neither a definite volume nor a definite shape.
Plasma often is seen in ionized gases. Plasma is distinct from a gas because it possesses unique properties. Free electrical charges (not bound to atoms or ions) cause plasma to be electrically conductive. Plasma may be formed by heating and ionizing a gas.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Mordred

[Mitch Bass]

Mitch, I didn't ask Mordred, I asked you, and you have no right to assume my question was in any way linked to any of Mordred's posts.

 

So I ask you again.

 

 

Particles were not mentioned in your question, nor in my response.

 

Since you mention them now, please specify the shape and scale of the these 'particles'.

 

Classical particles (atoms and larger) are subject to packing laws, which generally leave lots of empty space.

 

Subatomic particles exhibit quantum tunnelling.

Ouch, I just spent about fifteen minutes responding to this post. I wrote in detail the evidence to suggest that I did not assue anything and what you think I did not have the "right" to do is something I never did .Also I wrote about the point you were making about wanting to know about particles and what kind I was considering. I wrote Ouch as the first word after I pasted your quote because i put a lot of effort into attempting to make you understant that I am not the kind of person you seem to have made me out to be and it hurts that I lost the writings due to a mistaken key hit and now I have not the energy to try to remember how I attempted to clear things up. But after some rest I will because its important to me.

 

Let me at least say that as far as particles…You spoke of two sizes, one being subject to packing laws which generally leave lots of empty space. I would greatly appreciate it if you told me what you mean by packing laws. I will look it up if you would rather not explain it .However, what I am guessing you mean by packing laws I am guessing does not in fact make it so that there is room for empty space.

 

 

As far as smaller particles that you say allow for quantum tunneling. My educated guess as to what quantum tunneling is, and i am pretty sure I have it right, is not what it appears to be.

 

keep in mind that when I have only about three beliefs and everything else I have is educated guesses. Conjectures. Using these words in this post, educated guess, is me saying this is my thinking after a lot of deductive reasoning and logistical thought.

 

You said I brought up particles but I did not. Mordred started using the word when he said motion would be possible because of the empty space between particles. MY response was to ask what if there was no empty space between particles.

 

I would greatly like the opprutunity to speak with you about the issue of particles and empty space and quantum tunneling.

 

But the orginal question, if the universe was filled with a single substance and no empty space, would there could there be motion. Your response was why coudlnt there be motion. Let me get to a a more profound and poignant question. If there is only a sole substance in our universe and there is no empty space. couid our universe be exactly as it is. Do you think it could be possible that the universe we live in has no empty space and is made of only one substance?

I never stated f=ma proves a solid lol, f=ma simply behaves differently from within a solid, how would it work within a solid? ok that lines need a bit more detail lol it simply intended to say the universe is not a solid.

 

F=MA would work within a solid just like that metaphor of bumper to bumper activity where there solid does not consist of particles that are surrounded by empty space. So for example, in the metaphor I wrote a few posts back, well,,,,let me ask you,…I understand that force =mass times acceleration,,,,in my metaphor I am describing how moition would be thinking in terms measuring force by how the degree of mass that is moving in the same direction times the speed at which it is moving.

 

You have made me understand why being hit by ice would do more damage than water, I thank you for the detail at which you wrote out what makes a solid a solid a liquit a liquid a gas a gas and a plasma a plasma. So, in this subject area, can you tell me what FIRE is?