Speed of going No miles an hour!

Marcus · Jul 17, 2009

I can't sleep right now.

I'm a bit irked that my sleep schedule is so jacked up...

So i'm laying trying to go to sleep, and I can't stop thinking about the relative speed of being "truly Motionless"

we are on a planet traveling around our sun at a speed of "XXXX" miles an hour relative to the sun... right?

our sun is traveling around the center of our galaxy at "XXXXXX" miles an hour.. right?

Our galaxy is traveling at a speed away from.... something at "ZZZZZZZ" miles an hour...

I'm pretty sure the speed of our galaxy traveling in space is the biggest number, sorry i don't want to do any internet research at the moment... just how fast are we going right now as we sit in front of our computers "motionless" we are still cruising around space on a planet that is moving pretty damn fast...

IF i was a rocket, (lets picture an Einstein experiment for a moment) and i wanted to be motionless vs. earth, i travel away from earth at the speed of earth traveling in space, but that only gets me part of the way to motionless, or i should say devoid of speed/inertia completely...

what would i have to do to accomplish the removal of all inertia?

I have no idea why I'm thinking about this... Can this even be accomplished? Is the question even relevant for anything?

shake head, i'm going to be worthless at work tomorrow.

Lhun · Jul 17, 2009

There is no being completely motionless because there is no preferred frame of reference.

Higgins · Jul 17, 2009

Lhun said:
There is no being completely motionless because there is no preferred frame of reference.

Against the background of the cosmic microwave radiation we are moving at 600km a second.

so go 600 km a second in the opposite direction and you are relatively motionless in relation to the largest possible frame of reference.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

Lhun · Jul 17, 2009

Higgins said:
so go 600 km a second in the opposite direction and you are relatively motionless in relation to the largest possible frame of

Yes, but it is still no less arbitrary a choice of a reference frame than any other.

Higgins · Jul 17, 2009

Lhun said:
Yes, but it is still no less arbitrary a choice of a reference frame than any other.

It's not all that arbitrary. It's a really big reference frame. Holds all of visible spacetime. Much less arbitrary than say the corner of a tile under the kitchen table.

Lhun · Jul 17, 2009

Higgins said:
It's not all that arbitrary. It's a really big reference frame. Holds all of visible spacetime. Much less arbitrary than say the corner of a tile under the kitchen table.

The edges of the visible universe are always at rest relative to you. It's not as if your reference frame could get bigger or smaller. Background radiation is just a pretty big thing to tie your reference frame to. But since you cannot paint lines on actual space to see where it's moving, there is no reference frame more valid than any other. That's what general relativity is all about after all.

Marcus · Jul 17, 2009

lol after i posted this i cracked open stephen hawkings "a brief history of time"

i have NO idea why i'm thinking about this...

the overall idea though was to get into the mind set of an einstein thought experiment...

if you Could get to -0- inertia... what could you do? I would think you could do things with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle you couldn't do otherwise.... IDK...

I need more school, I know...

Lhun · Jul 17, 2009

Marcus said:
if you Could get to -0- inertia... what could you do? I would think you could do things with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle you couldn't do otherwise.... IDK...

I'm not quite sure that you're quite sure about what inertia is. There is no way to reduce or increase inertia of a given mass.

Ruv Draba · Jul 20, 2009

Sometimes inertia just means mass; sometimes it means 'momentum'. I think it means 'momentum' here: mass at relative velocity.

Speaking as a scientist, I prefer to think of zero momentum relative to our biggest measurable frame as Absolute Floatiness, in which by the Conservation of Whizziness, we transfer our Whizziness to the frame around us. This as distinct from (say) free-fall which is Virtual Floatiness in which we still retain a Whizzical Residuum.

Paradoxically, in the perfect state of Absolute Floatiness there can be a lot of Perceptual Whizzitude, which arises from all the whizziness you transferred to the things around you to achieve this state -- especially near things which will often hurtle past you like a Bondi tram. The main benefit of Absolute Floatiness then is the brief but enjoyable sense of Gloatitude it gives us -- as well as a Jedi-like challenge at dodging Near and Newly-Whizzy items.

I certainly commend your search for that state, Marcus -- though I hope that when you achieve it, I'm nowhere near you.

Lhun · Jul 20, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
Sometimes inertia just means mass; sometimes it means 'momentum'.

That's just a matter of perspective.

Pthom · Jul 20, 2009

And, as can be readily demonstrated, all perspectives spring from, or diminish to, a vanishing point.

> piff <

Marcus · Jul 21, 2009

Ruv, that was one of the best posts i've ever read!!!

blacbird · Jul 21, 2009

Higgins said:
Against the background of the cosmic microwave radiation we are moving at 600km a second.

so go 600 km a second in the opposite direction and you are relatively motionless in relation to the largest possible frame of reference.

Except that there is no "opposite direction". The cosmic microwave radiation comes to us from every direction.

caw

Rabe · Jul 22, 2009

Marcus said:
I can't sleep right now.

This post reminds me of a song from Animaniacs. Second season I believe...where they sing about all the movement in the universe.

Gotta love them Warner Brothers - and their sister Dot.

Rabe...

Higgins · Jul 22, 2009

blacbird said:
Except that there is no "opposite direction". The cosmic microwave radiation comes to us from every direction.

caw

There's a blue direction (toward which we are moving at 600 km a second) and a red direction (away from which we are moving at 600 km a second)...so just go 600 km a second in the red direction and you are at rest with respect to the largest frame in the visible universe.

Higgins · Jul 22, 2009

Higgins said:
There's a blue direction (toward which we are moving at 600 km a second) and a red direction (away from which we are moving at 600 km a second)...so just go 600 km a second in the red direction and you are at rest with respect to the largest frame in the visible universe.

See for example:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

Marcus · Jul 22, 2009

Rabe said:
This post reminds me of a song from Animaniacs. Second season I believe...where they sing about all the movement in the universe.

Gotta love them Warner Brothers - and their sister Dot.

Rabe...

OMG! i loved the animaniacs! that was an awesome show!

Justin K · Sep 27, 2009

The concept of relative speed on a universal or multiversal scale makes it possible for the sun to in fact be going around the earth as once suggested, but I'm pretty sure the odds of it are ungodly. I often wonder about the validity of proposed cosmic speeds; if our solar system/galaxy/universe is in fact traveling at a rate of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx miles a second through an xyz plane of nothingness, don't you think that in the billion years of our existence we would have slammed into an area of somethingness and have been obliterated in the blink of an eye? Or that that could at least happen at any given second?

Speed of going No miles an hour!

Marcus

sept 5th and I'm Out

Lhun

New kid, be gentle!

Higgins

Lhun

New kid, be gentle!

Higgins

Lhun

New kid, be gentle!

Marcus

sept 5th and I'm Out

Lhun

New kid, be gentle!

Ruv Draba

Lhun

New kid, be gentle!

Pthom

Word butcher

Marcus

sept 5th and I'm Out

blacbird

Rabe

the living dead

Higgins

Higgins

Marcus

sept 5th and I'm Out

Justin K