Earths Absolute Velocity

[Little Bang]

Tormod, I'm not pointing out any flaws. I'm saying that if you interview someone who comes up with a new theory their only going to point out the good points of their theory not the bad.

[Harzburgite]

If they are any kind of a scientist, other than a charlatan, they will point out the areas of uncertainty and weakness. These are the areas where future investigation would appropriately be focused..

[Tormod]

Tormod, I'm not pointing out any flaws. I'm saying that if you interview someone who comes up with a new theory their only going to point out the good points of their theory not the bad.

 

You said "flaws in his logic". There is a huge difference in someone's logic and their theories!

 

...and by the way, an in-depth interview would probably focus on weaknesses in a theory, like Harz points out. Do you read New Scientist, Scientific American, American Scientist...? Pick one up and see how popular science writing is done.

[Little Bang]

I suppose there have never been any scientists that massaged the data to make their theory appear more plausable.

[Tormod]

I suppose there have never been any scientists that massaged the data to make their theory appear more plausable.

 

Of course there have. There are famous examples of it. What are you trying to communicate here? That all scientists are liars and frauds?

[Harzburgite]

I suppose there have never been any scientists that massaged the data to make their theory appear more plausable.

You also need to distinguish between science and scientists. Science uses the scientific method:

 

Observe==>form hypothesis==>make predictions==>test==>amend or abandon hypothesis==>repeat as necessary

 

Scientists are meant to use the scientific method, and most of the time, most of them do. The system of refereed, peer reviewed journals is designed to minimise the rare occasions when a scientist goes rogue or doolally.

[Little Bang]

No I'm not, just trying say everyone should keep an open mind. I apologize for pissing you off, that was not my intention.

[Tormod]

No I'm not, just trying say everyone should keep an open mind. I apologize for pissing you off, that was not my intention.

 

No problem. I prefer to call it junk science myself.

 

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

 

:hihi:

[Little Bang]

I suspect that anything that does not agree with your view of the universe is considered junk science.

[Tormod]

I suspect that anything that does not agree with your view of the universe is considered junk science.

 

My apologies. I mistook you for someone who was interested in science. I understand now that you are simply out to debunk something you have no idea about. Forgive my ignorance. I will waste my time in some other thread.

[BlameTheEx]

Hmm. I have just read 8 pages to find that nobody has come up with an absolute velocity.

 

There is a way to give a probably valid absolute velocity, or at least a local absolute velocity. Assuming the cosmic background radiation is as universally constant as it appears to be then you are at rest when it has the same average temperature in all directions.

 

Earths velocity could be measured by observing the Doppler shift in different directions. Probably not that accurate a measurement but its a start.

[lindagarrette]

Hmm. I have just read 8 pages to find that nobody has come up with an absolute velocity.

 

The question was answered in the second post in this thread.

 

Velocity is always relative to something. Pick a point and determine how fast the earth is moving toward or away from it. That's simple.

[C1ay]

Hmm. I have just read 8 pages to find that nobody has come up with an absolute velocity.

Hmm, this thread's only 2 pages long. Where did you find the other 6?

[Harzburgite]

On my system your reply is the first post on page 9. Does this mean admins don't have to put up with adverts? !!! :xx:

[BlameTheEx]

The question was answered in the second post in this thread.

 

Velocity is always relative to something. Pick a point and determine how fast the earth is moving toward or away from it. That's simple.

Well, that is not so much an answer as an assertion that no answer is possible. I on the other hand am arguing that an answer might be possible - that there is, or at least might be a universally valid way of determining zero velocity.

 

I am suggesting that normalising against cosmic background radiation is not just picking a point but rather picking THE point.

 

If you assume that expanding universe theory is valid then there is an absolute velocity for a particular location. This could be defined as the velocity of an observer who sees equal expansion in all directions. Naturally that would be a rather rough and ready definition because the relative velocity of distant objects is not only determined by the hubble constant. The distant objects have other components of velocity. Still, within rather wide limits we CAN determine (local) absolute velocity this way. In principle if we could totally separate out the hubble component of the velocity of distant objects then we could determine (local) absolute velocity with precision.

 

Using Cosmic Background Radiation is just a way of refining this principle because it appears to be universal and remarkably constant. There just doesn't seem to be much in the way of other components of velocity for the original emitters of this radiation. It is as if we are receiving the radiation from a multitude of small very distant sources. The sources being almost perfectly spread across the sky and having almost no component of apparent velocity bar the hubble red shift.

[BlameTheEx]

Hmm, this thread's only 2 pages long. Where did you find the other 6?

I guess our software handles pages differently. Frankly I figure my computer should fight its own battles. Lets leave our computers to dispute the difference with whatever weapons come to hand while we get on with the cosmology.

[Tormod]

On my system your reply is the first post on page 9. Does this mean admins don't have to put up with adverts? !!! :xx:

 

No. Only paying sponsors will be able to lose the adverts...soon. :)

 

But there is a setting somewhere in your user cp where you can set the number of topics per page, I think.