A possibly better way to measure our own galaxy speed moving through space

July 18, 2018 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
Top: all-sky isotropic distribution of a Monte Carlo simulated sample of distant extragalactic objects. On the left panel, 2-dimensional blue vectors show the (out of scale) CAD signal expected for the LG moving towards the apex of the CMB temperature dipole, while on the right panel a random, and dominant, error component, illustrating astrometric imprecisions is added. Bottom: we simulate the CAD signal reconstructed from a sample of 2·106 sources with an EoM astrometric accuracy on proper motions of σ = 0.6 and 1.4 µas yr−1 respectively. The red color scale shows the amplitude of the signal (the red diamond represents the simulated direction of the observer’s motion), while the green/blue regions display the solid angle within which 68% of the reconstructed apex directions lie. The imprecision in the dipole position is estimated using 10000 Monte Carlo realisations and compared to the analytical predictions given in the text (thick black lines). Credit: arXiv:1802.04495 [astro-ph.CO]

A pair of physicists at Aix-Marseille University has offered a possible way to measure the speed of our own galaxy more accurately as it moves through space. In their paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters, Julien Bel and Christian Marinoni describe their theory and how it might be tested.

Most people know that our planet is moving not just around the sun, but through space as part of the Milky Way galaxy. Prior research has suggested that our galaxy is moving through space at over 1 million miles per hour. Such estimates are based on measuring changes in the position of the Earth relative to very distant objects in the by measuring the amount of redshift and then comparing them against each other. Bel and Marinoni argue that it should be possible to get betters estimates of our galaxy speed by studying objects that are much closer to us.

The researchers suggest that the key to measuring our own speed is to measure our own acceleration relative to the acceleration of other objects in the universe (they note both instances of acceleration are due to dark energy-driven universal expansion and gravitational pull between objects). They suggest it could be done by watching and measuring other very closely and tracking just how much their positions relative to Earth change over time. They note that doing so would not be easy—some might even claim it is impossible with today's technology. But Bel and Marinoni argue that new technology like that used on the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope or even the Square Kilometer Array would likely be all that is needed. It would just take a concerted effort to use them for such a purpose.

The researchers note that their is still just a proposal at this time. They are still working on more concrete details, a hint that it is unlikely efforts to test their ideas with new telescopes will be undertaken any time soon. They note that if their ideas do pan out some day, information learned in such an effort could help prove some theories and perhaps constrain others.

Explore further: Hubble's dazzling display of galaxies

More information: Julien Bel et al. Proposal for a Real-Time Detection of our Acceleration through Space, Physical Review Letters (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.021101 , On Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.04495

ABSTRACT
Our proper acceleration with respect to the cosmic microwave background results in a real-time change of the angular position of distant extragalactic sources. The cosmological component of this aberration drift signal, the noninertial motion generated by the large-scale distribution of matter, can, in principle, be detected by future high-precision astrometric experiments. It will provide interesting consistency tests of the standard model of cosmology, set independent constraints on the amplitude of the Hubble constant and the linear growth rate of cosmic structures, and be instrumental in searching for evidence of new physics beyond the standard model. We present the formalism of this novel cosmological test, discuss the physics to which it is sensitive, and show simulated forecasts of the accuracy with which it can be implemented.

Related Stories

Hubble's dazzling display of galaxies

July 9, 2018

This busy image is a treasure trove of wonders. Bright stars from the Milky Way sparkle in the foreground, the magnificent swirls of several spiral galaxies are visible across the frame, and a glowing assortment of objects ...

How do you weigh a galaxy? Especially the one you're in?

June 6, 2018

A new technique for estimating the mass of galaxies promises more reliable results, especially when applied to large datasets generated by current and future surveys, according to a research team led by Ekta Patel at the ...

Galaxy in the early universe contains carbon after all

July 2, 2018

In 2015, Jorryt Matthee thought he discovered an extremely distant galaxy called CR7, which lacked elements heavier than helium. Three years later, he shows with measurements using the ALMA telescope that the galaxy does ...

Recommended for you

Researchers study interactions in molecules using AI

October 19, 2018

Researchers from the University of Luxembourg, Technische Universität Berlin, and the Fritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society have combined machine learning and quantum mechanics to predict the dynamics and atomic ...

Pushing the extra cold frontiers of superconducting science

October 18, 2018

Measuring the properties of superconducting materials in magnetic fields at close to absolute zero temperatures is difficult, but necessary to understand their quantum properties. How cold? Lower than 0.05 Kelvin (-272°C).

The big problem of small data: A new approach

October 18, 2018

Big Data is all the rage today, but Small Data matters too! Drawing reliable conclusions from small datasets, like those from clinical trials for rare diseases or in studies of endangered species, remains one of the trickiest ...

81 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

granville583762
2.9 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2018
Using light waves to obtain galactic velocities
The simplest way to measure our velocity through the vacuum is by the theory of the absolute velocity of light as a wave; Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter! This simple rule means that whatever velocity we in our galaxy move, it can be subtracted from the frequency of light because nothing goes faster than light and the galaxy being the emitter only changes its emitting lights frequency, it does not change the velocity of its emitted light.
By this method of utilising this unusual property of light it is possible to get an extremely accurate and directional velocity of our galaxies in the vacuum.
milnik
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2018
If science does not know the laws of moving celestial bodies, it will not be possible to determine the speed of movement of light aids and its indicators. It is necessary to understand that all matter in the universe is moving around a center of mass, which is the center of mass of all galaxies. Each galaxy must have its own center of mass around which all solar systems are moving, and the sun's system has its own center of mass around which planetary systems are moving. And planetary systems have their center of mass around which they move and planets and its satellites. But the doctrine did not realize that around the center of the mass there is an invasion of the kind of movement: around the center of the mass of the lowest system (as Earth and Moon, the center of the mass of the month moves along the ellipse around the Earth,
milnik
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2018
and at the same time has a rotation around its axis and the supra direction of the sinusoidal rotation around the center of mass This applies to all systems in the universe. These are complicated movements and can not be measured by the arrival of light.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2018
Everything in the vacuum rotates about its centre of mass
It is necessary to understand that all matter in the universe is moving around a center of mass, which is the center of mass of all galaxies. Each galaxy must have its own center of mass around which all solar systems are moving, and the sun's system has its own center of mass around which planetary systems are moving. And planetary systems have their center of mass around which they move and planets and its satellites. But the doctrine did not realize that around the center of the mass there is an invasion of the kind of movement: around the center of the mass of the lowest system (as Earth and Moon, the center of the mass of the month moves along the ellipse around the Earth,

I like this theory milnic, it has imagination, verve and brilliance, when it comes down to it milnic you are extremely conventional
milnik
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2018
I'm glad there is at least someone who understands the truth !! OK granville !!
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2018
Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter!
granville

https://en.wikipe...r_effect
"...The relativistic Doppler effect is the change in frequency (and wavelength) of light, caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer ..."

And there are so many observations of this that to deny it would make you almost as loony as a flatearther.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2018

By this method of utilising this unusual property of light it is possible to get an extremely accurate and directional velocity of our galaxies in the vacuum.


It does not because this is not emission relative to the vacuum but relative to moving bodies. (And if it was that simple, don't you think that had been used as well?) They measure relative to the cosmic background radiation.
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2018
all matter in the universe is moving around a center of mass, which is the center of mass of all galaxies.
milnik

That has got to be one of the most idiotic assertion I have seen you make to date and even more idiotic than most of your great many idiotic assertions.
There is several things wrong with it but lets just stick to; there is no evidence of the existence of a center of mass of all galaxies and understanding of modern physics and cosmology implies there is no such a center of mass.

Almost every assertion you make is wrong and at odds with known scientific facts and you don't explain any valid premise for any of them.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2018
If science does not know the laws of moving celestial bodies, it will not be possible to determine the speed of movement of light aids and its indicators. It is necessary to understand that all matter in the universe is moving around a center of mass, which is the center of mass of all galaxies.


Newton's mechanics has been known for 5 centuries.

That the universe has no center has been known for a century, and that it observably does not rotate has been known for decades by the very methods mentioned in the article and by standard cosmology.

*Everyone should know this by now* - it is in the nearest encyclopedia such as Wikipedia - or at least search or ask first instead of *making erroneous claims without evidence and against evidence*.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2018
Everything in the vacuum rotates about its centre of mass – Its barycentre
milnic> all matter in the universe is moving around a centre of mass, which is the centre of mass of all galaxies. Each galaxy must have its own center of mass around which all solar systems are moving, and the sun's system has its own center of mass around which planetary systems are moving.

granville583762> I like this theory milnic,

torbjorn_b_g_larsson> *1 / 5 (1)

torbjorn_b_g_larsson:- Are you saying all matter in the vacuum does not spin down to the smallest Cometary grain torbjorn_b_g_larsson, because for a grain and an atom to spin means to spin about its barycentre - Sir Eric Laithwaite on his Christmas lecture observed and pronounced all thing in the heavens spin torbjorn_b_g_larsson, so you have contradicted a wide range of eminent scientists.
Would you care to elaborate torbjorn_b_g_larsson
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2018
Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter is the relative motion of the source and the observer
granville583762> Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter!

Humy> Granville https://en.wikipe...r_effect
The relativistic Doppler effect is the change in frequency of light, caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer there are so many observations to deny it would make you almost as loony as a flatearther.

Humy we are agreeing with our selves "The Doppler Effect is the change in frequency caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer" this statement is exactly the same as "Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter" because how do we know unless we have observed it which then becomes caused by "the relative motion of the source and the observer" the Wikipedia statement and "Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter" statement are one and the same.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2018
I think the point would be that saying that everything spins is vastly different from saying everything rotates around a single point in the universe.
LagomorphZero
5 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2018
I changed my name to Barry Center, now the whole universe actually revolves around me!
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2018
I think the point would be that saying that everything spins is vastly different from saying everything rotates around a single point in the universe.


Correct. However, we are having to deal with a number of scientifically illiterate people here, for whom such logic is outside their grasp. That is why they post here. A physics forum would soon show up their deficiencies, so they do their Dunning-Kruger inspired act in places like this. A bit sad, really.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2018
I changed my name to Barry Center, now the whole universe actually revolves around me!


Changing it to Donald Trump would have the same effect.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2018
There is an art to deciphering theories
zz5555> I think the point would be that saying that everything spins is vastly different from saying everything rotates around a single point in the universe.

zz5555:- You have to see milnik's theories, you cannot take them at face value and mark them down as torbjorn_b_g_larsson has just done, it takes several months of getting to know milnik before you can realize his theories, zz5555
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2018
zz5555:- You have to see milnik's theories, you cannot take them at face value and mark them down as torbjorn_b_g_larsson has just done, it takes several months of getting to know milnik before you can realize his theories, zz5555


No, you don't. You just need a reasonably good education in the sciences to see that milnik hasn't got a bloody clue what he's talking about. If one cannot see that, then one is as scientifically illiterate as he is.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2018
Georges Lemaitre's spinning cosmic egg
Has no one heard of the bigbang and Georges Lemaitre's, an entity that is expanding presumably from a central point from whence it formed which being a massive blackhole was and still is spinning about its barycentre, so milnik's assertion all things in the heavens spin around a central point is correct!
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2018
granville583762> zz5555:- You have to see milnik's theories, you cannot take them at face value and mark them down as torbjorn_b_g_larsson has just done, it takes several months of getting to know milnik before you can realize his theories, zz5555

jonesdave> No, you don't. You just need a reasonably good education in the sciences to see that milnik hasn't got a bloody clue what he's talking about. If one cannot see that, then one is as scientifically illiterate as he is.

Well J.D. he's got a bloody good clue about Georges Lemaitre and his cosmic egg!.
Because J.D, it is spinning around a central point
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2018
.....so milnik's assertion all things in the heavens spin around a central point is correct!


Nope. Only if you are stupid.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2018
@Granville,
Let me ask you a question; to what level are you scientifically qualified? PhD? BSc? High school? Primary school? Kindergarten? Internet woo sites?
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2018
.....so milnik's assertion all things in the heavens spin around a central point is correct!


Nope. Only if you are stupid.

Only little fragments of what everyone says are true, most of what we say J.D are only partly true and if you wait and watch J.D, milnik will materialise out the quauntum flutuations on a different wavelength contrary to my complements and then I will have to rearrange my complements.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2018
I doubt I would believe anyone's claim as to what their qualifications are on this site!
jonesdave> @Granville,
Let me ask you a question; to what level are you scientifically qualified? PhD? BSc? High school? Primary school? Kindergarten? Internet woo sites?

Disregarding your Internet woo sites because the science of woo I leave to the specialists, with a lifelong immersion in science and experience of the above listed you appear to have difficulty in holding your own, as to any degree level you yourself might profess to own I doubt I would believe you, no matter how much you protest because this site is being dragged down by some excessive pottymouth's and you're not the worst, take that as a complement if you will.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2018
Certainly the mistakes today concerning particles rotating about their respective barycentre are not the mistakes that were being made at the universities J.D, which is one of the reasons I doubt I would believe anyone's claim as to what their qualifications are, you know I could considerably elaborate at great length J.D as there are countless numbers of hilarious examples if you so wish them to be dragged out the quantum fluctuations for their regular airing!
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2018
Ultimately in the begging everything was spinning around a central point!
granville583762> so milnik's assertion all things in the heavens spin around a central point is correct!

jonesdave>Nope. Only if you are stupid.

granville583762> Well J.D. he's got a good clue about Georges Lemaitre and his cosmic egg!.
Because J.D, it is spinning around a central point

Is your assertion J.D that the original primordial blackhole was not spinning when everything this primordial blackhole contained is spinning!
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2018
Disregarding your Internet woo sites because the science of woo I leave to the specialists, with a lifelong immersion in science and experience of the above listed you appear to have difficulty in holding your own, as to any degree level you yourself might profess to own I doubt I would believe you, no matter how much you protest because this site is being dragged down by some excessive pottymouth's and you're not the worst, take that as a complement if you will.


As I thought. You never got beyond primary school. Correct? Bit thick to be discussing this, aren't you, woo boy?
Never did science. Nor maths. Couldn't understand it. Got a chip on your shoulder about it. Struggle with written English. Need somewhere to let off steam due to your ignorance, and lack of IQ points? Go for it. Just don't expect anyone to take a blind bit of notice. Yes?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2018
Ultimately in the begging......


WTF does that mean? In English? Dear god.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2018
Ultimately in the begging everything was spinning around a central point!
jonesdave> As I thought. You never got beyond primary school. Correct? Bit thick to be discussing this, aren't you, woo boy?
Never did science. Nor maths. Couldn't understand it. Got a chip on your shoulder about it. Struggle with written English. Need somewhere to let off steam due to your ignorance, and lack of IQ points? Go for it. Just don't expect anyone to take a blind bit of notice. Yes?

I suppose J.D that is of way of answering - Is your assertion J.D that the original primordial blackhole was not spinning when everything this primordial blackhole contained is spinning!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2018
Time to face reality J.D, what are you trying to achieve
It's always the same isn't it J.D, browsing this site inevitably comes across your comments as they always have the same theme as the ones you have just left, they're not actually comments but variation on a theme of expletives of various degrees where they could be your ideas, insights opinions but instead they always descend into despair and despondency of a grumpy old man shouting at any one who makes a comment as though everyone is an undesirable passing by your front gate that you have to run out shouting obscenities at them J.D

Is this what your life has come to J.D - A Grumpy Old Man
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2018
zz5555:- You have to see milnik's theories, you cannot take them at face value and mark them down as torbjorn_b_g_larsson has just done, it takes several months of getting to know milnik before you can realize his theories

Milnik doesn't have any theories, only conjectures (not even hypotheses). To be fair, I haven't read any of milnik's conjecture about the entire universe rotating about a single point. I did see his conjecture in a quote, above, and that was enough to know it will never move beyond a conjecture. The claim that the universe all rotates about one point requires gravity to propagate at faster than light speeds. And that doesn't happen. Ergo, the universe does not all rotate about one point.
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2018
Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter is the relative motion of the source and the observer
granville

The emitter in this context IS the source so the speed of the emitter IS the speed of the source. Therefore the light IS affected (via change of frequency) by the speed of the emitter.
"the relative motion of the source and the observer" the Wikipedia statement and "Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter" statement are one and the same.
Wrong. Read the Wikipedia statement that directly contradicts your above assertion;
https://en.wikipe...r_effect
"...Doppler effect shifts the frequency of light as the emitter or observer moves toward or away from the other. .."
This above wiki statement clearly implies what I just said, the emitter IS the source in this context.

So, you see, Wikipedia says the opposite of what you claim it does.
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2018
Ultimately in the begging everything was spinning around a central point!
granville

Look up the word "begging". Here it is;
https://www.thefr.../begging
"...To ask for something, especially money or food from strangers, in an urgent or humble manner...."

Now go back to your above assertion and read it again with this meaning in mind and explain to us what your assertion means.

You keep repeatedly and seemingly endlessly use the word "begging" in many of your posts in this strange manner.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2018
The Doppler shift, the change in frequency
The emitter moving in the direction of the photons
The emitter emits so many photons a second
The emitter by moving with the photons reduces the distance between the photons being emitted
The emitter compress's the photons wave length
The statement
The light is not affected by the speed of the emitter
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2018
...
The emitter compress's the photons wave length
The statement
The light is not affected by the speed of the emitter
granville

You contradict yourself. If you admit the emitter's change in speed changes its wavelength (and thus also its frequency) of the photons (from the observer's perspective) then the light IS effected by the speed of the emitter because the speed of the emitter (relative to the observer) has an effect on the photon's and thus the light's wavelength (and thus also its frequency).
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2018
Humy J.D life seems to have devolved to A Grumpy Old Man
Time to face reality J.D, what are you trying to achieve
It's always the same J.D, browsing this site inevitably comes across your comments they always have the same theme as the ones you have just left, they're not comments but variation on a theme of expletives of various degrees where they could be your ideas, insights opinions but instead they always descend into despair and despondency of a grumpy old man shouting at any one who makes a comment as though everyone is an undesirable passing by your front gate that you have to run out shouting obscenities at them J.D
Is this what your life has come to J.D - A Grumpy Old Man

Humy, J.D seems to have descended into a world of despair and despondency of a grumpy old man,
It is so easy to slip into this world of J.Ds Humy, it creeps on up on you incrementally each day you become accustomed to the increase use of expletives till one day Humy and J.D are one
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2018
Dear Humy
Humy, J.Ds life is creeping up on you as you are all ready using J.D grumpy old man techniques of nitpicking and nitpicking without actually checking the factual content of your nitpicking Humy.
The factual content of your nitpicking is being ignored by J.D because he is using you in his ranting of his grumpy old man techniques, I do not know if you have noticed this Humy

P.S. As he runs out of commentators to grump at he searches out others higher up the intellectual tree to take out his angst

Granville

granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2018
Humy thanks for pointing out "BEGGING" which as you know is Microsoft word duplicating the spelling mistake of "BEGIN" beginning. A point in time or space at which something begins.
As I pointed out J.Ds grumpy old man persona is creeping up on you Humy, there is one thing pointing out spelling mistakes, it is another worrying matter when you start using a spelling mistake to release a torrent of abuse being encouraged by your mentor J.D in his grumpy old man persona!

I do not want to see you in months to come to be another version of J.Ds grumpy old man persona where when browsing this site we come across yourself Humy as a grumpy old man having left expletive type comments complete with deeply held angst's
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2018
Measuring galactic velocities
Extending this property of light that it is not affected by the speed of the emitter has a gyroscopic property, because it does not move when the earth sidereal period and its orbital period are combined, a laser illuminating a target as the earth and the target are moving together, there is a small distance the target has moved in the time it takes the photon cross's the gap i.e. a 1mile gap where the earth is moving sideways at 64,000mph
The target moves sideways by 6inch's 154mm
All because the speed of light is not affected by the speed of the emitter, this rule applies to any energy having frequency and wavelength
Showing conclusively that light is the key to measuring galactic velocities!
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2018
granville

No counterargument then against my showing of the scientific fact that, contrary to your claim (your "Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter!" assertion), the change in speed of the light emitter relative to the observer changes its frequency?

Reminder of what Wikipedia says about this;
"...Doppler effect shifts the frequency of light as the emitter or observer moves toward or away from the other. .."

And Wikipedia says the opposite of what you claim it does.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2018
The morphing of Humy into Jonesdave grumpy old man persona

You're starting to sound like J.D and his grumpy old man syndrome Humy, I can answer your question but you're are using J.Ds techniques of Obfuscation and Gish-gallop; the two techniques your mentor is specialist in!

You picked on one of the progression of points "The emitter compress's the photons wave length" as though this was a contradiction,, if you think using this as a point you can brow beat the statement "Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter" you need to go back and re-examine my progression of points

Humy – what exactly does the emitter compress's the photons wave length actually imply in the context of a photons velocity mean Humy, it means the emitter is moving in the same direction of the photon
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2018
The morphing of Humy into Jonesdave grumpy old man persona

Do I have to explain the statement Humy, "what exactly does the emitter compress's the photons wave length actually imply in the context of a photons velocity mean Humy, it means the emitter is moving in the same direction of the photon"

It means the emitter's velocity does not affect the velocity of the photon Humy!
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2018
The Circle Of Life
granville583762> The morphing of Humy into Jonesdave grumpy old man persona
Do I have to explain the statement Humy, "what exactly does the emitter compress's the photons wave length actually imply in the context of a photons velocity mean Humy, it means the emitter is moving in the same direction of the photon"
It means the emitter's velocity does not affect the velocity of the photon Humy!

After all the obfuscation, Gish-gallop and nitpicking we still have the statement

Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter

milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2018
For more, especially for humy and jonesdave,
Gentlemen, from all your discussions, it is clear and obvious that no one other than Granville has a true idea of ​​the structure of the universe, and that's why you use persistent words and those who tell the truth you call idiots. Now, think carefully about who the idiot is. In the universe, everything revolves around certain centers of mass (pericenter).
I am constantly trying to, on all our planet, publish my evidence of the true paths of the movement of non-flesh bodies. But all today's universities, scientific institutes, academies of science, various magazines, and all others are not interested in new knowledge and discoveries, because they only ask them to pay them to publish this evidence. I am not a greedy tycoon, like all of the above, and I do not want to pay the robbers for what they get and publish something mine, instead of paying me for that novelty in science. But I do not even ask for it.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2018
My basic claim, not the theory, is: The universe is two entities, infinite, without expansion, without BB, and the creative entity of the universe is the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU). Proof: only our existence with all the possibilities we possess as human beings. Whoever does not understand himself and the origin of his existence, is at a very low level of consciousness, and consciousness is the power to understand the true causes of the phenomenon in both the universe and within us. But here it is not necessary to discuss SEU, but about our knowledge of the cause of the phenomenon in the material energy entity of the universe (MEEU). Explanations of how matter, energy, gravity, and magnetism arise, this is a special topic, but here I want those who call my claims idiocy and ignorance, to educate them, to use their consciousness, not the instinct.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2018
Regarding the movement of celestial bodies, I must say that, firstly, it is necessary to correct Kepler's laws and to use the knowledge of the energies of the movement of the two celestial bodies. And for this, there is special evidence.
The basic setting of the movement of celestial bodies is: the sum of the kinetic and potential energy of the bodies moving around one another is a constant. But these energies are transformed to cover the movement: transverse, radial, spin, and the movement of the body around the center of the mass of a particular system. Movements take place along the conic sections (rarely in a circular flow and direction).
Example: Earth and Moon. This system has its center of mass (pericenter) around which they rotate, and this center of mass travels around the ellipse around the sun (a larger system). The Moon has its ellipse around the Earth, its spin around its own axis and rotates around the center of the mass of the month itself,
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2018
but by the sinusoidal curve, in the opposite direction from its own spin, but with the same intensity as the spin. That is why our month always has one same side facing the Earth. This same movement has the Earth around the common center of mass and the Earth makes a sinusoidal movement around the ellipse by which the common center of mass moves. This sinusoid has a variable amplitude.
With this I can prove: the precession of the planet's perihelion (Einstein's formula is fictitious), the cause of the retrograde spin (Venus, Uranus and some months around the planet), the cause of slowing the rotation around its own axis. errors in measuring the magnitude of the motion of the celestial bodies, because the light does not behave in the way that the science sees through the telescope). For now enough.
humy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2018
It means the emitter's velocity does not affect the velocity of the photon Humy!
granville

You contradict yourself yet again.
Does a photon emitter's velocity towards or away from the observer effect the observed wavelength of its photons?
This only demands a very simple yes or no answer.
You clearly implied yes with some of your assertions but imply no with others such as your one above; contradiction!
humy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2018
...(Einstein's formula is fictitious)...
milnik

Don't why you keep asserting such obvious nonsense here that convinces nobody here because we know what you assert is obviously contradicted by the known scientific facts.
Relativity is correct and there is no aether and you are simply totally wrong.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2018
I am just browsing this site Humy
It means the emitter's velocity does not affect the velocity of the photon Humy!

Humy> granville You contradict yourself again.

I do not want to see you in months to come to be another version of J.Ds grumpy old man persona where when browsing this site we come across yourself Humy as a grumpy old man having left expletive type comments complete with deeply held angst's

The statement "Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter" can be corroborated by a considerable sum of graduate's Humy!

I said I did not want to see you in months to come to be another version of J.Ds grumpy old man persona where when browsing this site

You have morphed into J.Ds grumpy old man persona Humy!
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2018
The speed of light is not affected by the emitter in every day scenarios
The basic property of a wave
Waves have the same property - sound waves travels on air molecules and water molecules where light waves travel in the vacuum, just as you walk forward in air our speech sound waves becomes compressed and the speed of sound remains unchanged, walking forward in the vacuum your illuminating torch's light waves are compressed, the speed of light remains unchanged
All waves velocities are not affected by the emitter - the basic property of a wave.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2018
Don't why you keep asserting such obvious nonsense

Zeph follows the 'science by intuition' approach - and he eschews math (because he can't do it)

Basically he's a religious nutjob: As long as he believes something to be true fervently enough it must be true.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2018
@humy,
You looked at the science as a calf in the sarena door. What are the scientific facts in this field. ? If you do not understand what I am telling you about the position of the moon, then Einstein and "modern science" are so hard that you can not save even the most skilled psychiatrist from madness. There with your "science" that is empty as your vacuum, you can only invent insulting expressions, like Einstein invented the nonsense of which science will never be cleared, because all who believe in him remain without consciousness. From this note, it makes no sense with you to conduct discussions of any kind !!!
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2018
Here are the questions for all of you, related to the movement of light:
Imagine two observers (immobile) in the universe. Observer A and Observer B.
If among them (in a common direction), the rocket moves with reflectors mounted both forward and backward missiles. The observer A looks at the back of the missile, and the observer B looks at the front. The rocket is moving at the speed of light. When the reflectors are switched on, will A see the light, and will the light reach B before the rocket?
This is a thought test that will help you to understand the right behavior of light.
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2018
The statement "Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter" can be corroborated by a considerable sum of graduate's Humy!
granville

Really? So perhaps you can show us all just one single credible science link that claims the frequency of light observed from an observer moving towards or away from the light emitter is not affected by the speed of the light emitter....? No? Guess why that is? Hind: its false.
The speed of light is not affected by the emitter in every day scenarios

The SPEED of light in a vacuum (c) is not known to be effected by ANYTHING and that is consistent with relativity that says c (in vacuum) is always constant and inconsistent with the old disproved aether theory which says c (in vacuum) shouldn't be always constant.
However, both the frequency and wavelength of light is effected by relative motion between the observer/detector and the source/emitter and that is how light is effected by speed of emitter.
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2018
Here are the questions for all of you, ....The rocket is moving at the speed of light. ...
milnik

A rocket cannot move at the speed of light else this would actually lead to various physical paradoxes. Also, the proven relativity implies no rocket can move at the speed of light.
Thus your question is unanswerable because it assumes the impossibility that a rocket can travel at the speed of light.
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2018
@humy,
...Einstein and "modern science" are so hard that you can not save even the most skilled psychiatrist from madness.
milnik

Are you saying modern science must be wrong simply because you personally have insufficient intelligence to understand it?
Has it ever occurred to you there may be some subtle truths some people much smarter than you understand even if you don't and cannot?

granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2018
Are you stuck in a time warp Humy?
Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter can be corroborated by a considerable sum of graduate's
Granville Really? can show us one single science link that claims the frequency of light observed from an observer moving towards or away from the light emitter is not affected by the speed of the light emitter.
speed of light is not affected by the emitter in every day scenarios

The SPEED of light in a vacuum (c) is not known to be effected by ANYTHING and that is consistent with relativity that says c (in vacuum) is always constant and inconsistent with the old disproved aether theory which says c (in vacuum) shouldn't be always constant.
the frequency and wavelength of light is effected by relative motion between the observer/detector and the source/emitter and that is how light is effected by speed of emitter.

Is this a feedback loop or are you contesting the crown of the Evil Troll King, Humy
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2018
The frequency in translation

The speed of light is not affected by the emitter as the frequency is proportional to the emitter's velocity, where velocity being vector is the emitter direction - do you need a science link to prove this point Humy?

The observer approaching the light, the frequency is increased and the speed of light is not affected, the frequency is proportional to the observer's velocity, where velocity being vector is the observer's direction - do you need a science link to prove this point Humy?

At what point in the basic property of a wave do you not require a scientific link Humy?
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2018
Concerning the observer example Humy
granville583762> The observer approaching the light, the frequency is increased and the speed of light is not affected, the frequency is proportional to the observer's velocity, where velocity being vector is the observer's direction - do you need a science link to prove this point Humy

In this example it is assumed Humy, that it is the observer that is measuring the frequency of light the observer is observing and no one else!

Because Humy, the emitter is not moving so the frequency remains unchanged!
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2018
The observer approaching the light, the frequency is increased and the speed of light is not affected
Correct; the speed of light isn't effected (BY ANYTHING) but the observed frequency of light is effected.
So here you agree the light is effected by the speed of the emitter relative to the observer (regardless of which one you define as stationary if either) because specifically the frequency of light, not its speed, is effected by the speed of the emitter.
So here you confirm that and yet you earlier denied that.
You seem very confused.

granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2018
Second frequency in translation into ENGLISH

Light is not affected by the speed of emitter means literally that, humy. Light is not effected - is a physical statement Humy - it means literally what it is saying Humy, it is physically not afected by the speed of emitter i.e. the emitter has no physical effects on the photons Humy, so the statement "Light is not affected by the speed of emitter " is a literal statement Humy - it means in ENGLISH exactly what it is saying humy
For plain blunt clear to the point no fuss ENGLISH you cannot get the statement a clearer statement as "Light is not affected by the speed of emitter"

And I thought ENGLISH was the common language of science
Benni
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2018
Okay, okay, okay Gran & Humy..........the two of you seem to be bickering about agreeing with one another.

And by the way, one of the operative words here is "affected" not "effected", neither one of you are consistent in that regard. I understand English is not the mother tongue of either of you as it is mine, so being the hugely magnanimous person that I am with my vastly superior knowledge in the use of my mother tongue, I forgive you both.

Now, can we switch over & use a universal language? Something like E=mc²?
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2018
Thanks Benni, I noticed right at the beginning Humy's technique of discussion is to apparently to find fault with your theory while actually agreeing with you all the time, the down side of all this Obfuscation is it results in spelling mistakes due to unnecessary duplication, there is a name for this condition Benni you probably know what it's called as there are several cases of infection of Obfuscation abounding at the moment as it comes under a universal heading of the mind where each is medically defined, this is why when intermingling to deeply I am backtracking because theories are all in the mind as they come back and bite you when your theories fall flat. We don't all want to end up like pottymouth Benni, as that is our ultimate fate
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2018
Christ, there are some seriously uneducated idiots on here, eh? You have to laugh! Burkes. I bet none of them have ever been near a university. Likely they f****d up at high school too. Correct?
Jeez, eejits, try to do something useful with your lives, yes? How about suicide? Need any hints?
N.B. You guys are shit at science, correct? So why the f*** do you think anybody on here wants to listen to your idiocy? Take it to a woo site. Yes? Dicks. You are a bleeding irrelevance. If you weren't, you wouldn't be posting on here, you sad f***s! Go away, loons.
milnik
3 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2018
jonesdave and humy ,
are somewhat similar to Einstein: space and time. And when they form a network of the curvature of ignorance, the incomprehension of logic and natural laws, then they think that when a massive body (a man of truth) enters into that network, then a new phenomenon will emerge, as in Einstein's gravitation, and that their gravity is their ability to despise, mock, and every bitter estimate of those who educate them at their low level of consciousness.
milnik
3 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2018
@humy,
in your brain there is a black hole and only signals of immaturity can come out of it. What I'm asking is that everything is a thought test, not a claim. You're not aware what I'm looking for. Who said that the rocket can move at the speed of light. Try to imagine this experiment and you will understand the fact that in your brain it creates a black hole of ignorance.
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2018
jonesdave and humy ,
are somewhat similar to Einstein...
milnik

That should be meant as the great complement it is if only you had the intelligence to realize how obviously extremely intelligent Einstein was.
Unfortunately, you just call him "ignorant", along with many other insults, which shows just how ignorant and unintelligent you are.
I am no way as smart as he was but you are no way as smart as me or people like me who accept scientific fact as fact and don't let a stupid religion get in the way of that.
I recommend not letting religion get in the way of truth.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2018
If the description fits
jonesdave> Christ, there are some seriously uneducated idiots on here, eh? You have to laugh! Burkes. I bet none of them have ever been near a university. Likely they f****d up at high school too. Correct?
Jeez, eejits, try to do something useful with your lives, yes? How about suicide? Need any hints?
N.B. You guys are shit at science, correct? So why the f*** do you think anybody on here wants to listen to your idiocy? Take it to a woo site. Yes? Dicks. You are a bleeding irrelevance. If you weren't, you wouldn't be posting on here, you sad f***s! Go away, loons.

You recognise your own symptoms
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2018
I totaly agree Ojorf *1 / 5 (1) - J.Ds outburst deserves a single star, its so unlike him, as thiis is not J.D !
Benni
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2018
Actually it should be 0, unfortunately there Phys Org editor won't allow Commenters such a rate in the averages, of course he'll say the same thing about anyone else who disagrees with him, and especially about the existence of half-a-neutron that he thinks is real.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2018
@humy,
Einstein was so intelligent that he succeeded in gaggling all of his science today with his fatarmograma. And all of you who accepted Einstein to you as a deity in science, you have lost all ties to God, and what I am talking about the existence of the SEU is that it is not any religion but the truth, from which you have been so uncultivarily formed. Einstein learned mathematics from his wife Mileva, who is my countryman. He also cheated and lied to her as he cheated on science.
Only fools who do not know what time and space can believe in a stupid theory that these two names form a curved network, and that is how gravity arises after the formation of matter, and only when a huge mass falls and catches in that network. Clear proof is that whoever does not believe in the existence of the SEU, he arrived only at the beginning of entering the intellectual area of ​​the eye, followed by the instinct (animal world).
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2018
U
need
   h
     e
      l
       l 
        p
        p
        p
        p
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2018
milnik or is it nikola milova
milnik> also cheated and lied to her as he cheated on science

You have certain insights milnik and you are here, I don't like the rambling we see milnic it's not too late, take your comments outside into the cold light of day with a stiff half before coming inside and pressing the submit button, I like some of your comments, I would be dismayed if they were to disappear.
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2018
@humy,
... and what I am talking about the existence of the SEU is that it is not any religion but the truth,..
granville

The only SEU I have ever heard of or known about is the Single Event Upset;

https://en.wikipe...nt_upset
"...A single event upset (SEU) is a change of state caused by one single ionizing particle (ions, electrons, photons...) striking a sensitive node in a micro-electronic device, such as in a microprocessor, semiconductor memory, or power transistors..."

I totally agree with you its not any religion but the TRUTH! It happens!
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2018
granville,
I see you're trying to find out who I am. I do not hide my existence. Nikola Milovic. See my works and comments on: facebook, tvitter, linkedin, Kuora and the like. But to say hum, that the SEU is an abbreviation of the title: The Spiritual Entity of the Universe. Maybe it will bring him back to a civilized society, because it would be nice to see it. And why are you hiding your identity? Perhaps because of this you can offend in the discussions without a shame. Is it humane?
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2018
More science less religion milnic
milnic> I see you're trying to find out who I am. I do not hide my existence Nikola Milovic See my works and comments on facebook, twitter, LinkedIn Kuora But to say hum, that the SEU is an abbreviation of the title The Spiritual Entity of the Universe Maybe it will bring him back to a civilized society because it would be nice to see it And why are you hiding your identity Perhaps because of this you can offend in the discussions without a shame Is it humane

Milnik your actual name comes out in your comments but on the internet it is always best to use nicknames for instance Granville is English, you know Cambridge, Canterbury so there you are milnik
Your comments are of a brooding far eastern nature - England's full of church's is the most heathen place on earth so milnik you have chosen the wrong race to convert to any religion your mind can conjure out of its imagination
All we ask is stem the religious flow! Were heathens!
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2018
granville,
you have confused faith (the truth of existence and creation) and religion that is the doctrine of belief. Every religion has its own God who must behave according to their requirements. That's why there are more than 600 religions on the planet today. I do not deal with it, but I'm looking for the cause of the phenomenon in the univerumum. If I say that there is a SEU, those who do not understand it, you say that it is a religion. No, no, this is true and without the unlimited power of creating a SEU, I would not even have these qualities. Who knows and does not recognize the existence of the SEU, it invents the stupid theories with which it wants to ignore and eliminate the SEU, in order for it to be above and then everyone should trust it. Can you claim that you were born without your mother and father. If that's the case then you also have your BB from which you flew.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2018
Milnic anything remotely resembling religion is not science as the two cannot mix
You have read the news, religion is dangerous to life and limb and it warps the mind
This is why you are shunned so readily, every one see's your theory as religion
This is a fact of life whether you like it or not milnic
How matter and energy are ultimately created in the vacuum is neither here nor there
It is an irrelevance, as it does not change the properties of matter and energy
As we define anything that resembles the spiritual entity of the universe as religion whether or not it is
All we ask is stem the religious flow! Were heathens!
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2018
granville, if one tries to explain the structure of the universe to the boundary it received from its Creator, you all call it a religious behavior. This is the proof you did not understand what religion is and what the truth is about the understanding of the structure of the universe. And science, as a field of researching the causes of the occurrence and behavior of these phenomena, must have a boundary of research, and especially where there is no place to investigate something. The biggest misconception of science is that it wants to know how the universe originated, and there is no idea how a man, animal, plant, and everything else has been created. Man has made all kinds of computers, can there be a computer that will be interested one day who formed it and in what way. You just have to know that the difference between a man and a computer is much smaller than the difference between the man and the one who formed that man. Is this religion or science?
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2018
You cannot find god unless you are god milnic!
milnic there is no possible way of finding out where all the matter in the vacuum materialised because it always implies a spiritual entity of the universe in other words religion which is god
You cannot single headedly find god unless you are god
All we ask is stem the religious flow! Were heathens!
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2018
It's useless to conduct a piscussion with you when you do not believe in the existence of a SEU, and you do not respect God. Then how can you say anything about God. The human race has a chain of processes of improving its understanding of the structure of the universe. Since you are constantly referring to pagans, you are not clear at all about human beings, how they evolve, and why and who enabled them to develop. Since you remain the only speaker, and you have not understood either religion, science, or SEU, it is best to finish this discussion, because the time will come to reach you to the level of understanding the structure of the universe and to see that science is zero, if it ignores the existence of its own Creator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.