Which direction is Earth Travelling Through Space

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Bedlam

Olber's Paradox

The skies aren't 'dark' , they are filled with energy and light.

See the black places between the stars at night? You wouldn't have that. It would be solid, blinding light. It's not.

Wait a sec. We see light sources and reflections, but not the beam in between. The universe is filled with light.

"You, NewtonCrosby, PHD and not know that?"

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Bedlam

Olber's Paradox

The skies aren't 'dark' , they are filled with energy and light.

See the black places between the stars at night? You wouldn't have that. It would be solid, blinding light. It's not.

No it wouldn't. That is one failing of the Olbers Paradox people fail to consider. The further stars are, the fainter they look. The infinite number of stars, which would supposedly create that blinding light, would actually be infinitely dim.

Also consider that stars are gathered into galaxies, thus you're working with the idea of galaxies and galactic clusters rather than stars.

Have you seen the Andromeda Galaxy through binoculars? It only appears as a faint smudge of light, but you're looking at billions upon billions of stars, all occupying a very small patch of the sky. You can even see it with the naked eye from a dark sky location, but you can't see the billions of galaxies that are located much further away from it and are thus too dim to be seen.

... and you can come from somewhere, from another thread or ten, making an extraordinary claim without bothering to read previous posters or elaborating when you are asked and talk with two or three guys from off topic theories based on Newtonian math in hypotetical universe to infinity limits.
You guys are priceless auditorium.
Don't you actually have ADHD?
ADHD combined with narcistic autism?

originally posted by: wildespacelook. The infinite number of stars, which would supposedly create that blinding light, would actually be infinitely dim.

An infinite number of stars anywhere you look would contribute an infinite number of photons, even if each only contributed one.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: wildespacelook. The infinite number of stars, which would supposedly create that blinding light, would actually be infinitely dim.

An infinite number of stars anywhere you look would contribute an infinite number of photons, even if each only contributed one.

Human eyes aren't like CCD sensors unders a long exposure. We can't accumulate those isolated photons.

Basically, we have trouble seeing stars that are millions of light years away with the naked eye. We wouldn't see any stars that are an infinite distance away, even if there are an infinite number of them.

originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527
East ,West South or North

I really do not have a lot to put to this post because i do not know where to start.I just would like to know which direction this planet is moving in our beloved solar system.

You should go study vector calculus to understand this question.

originally posted by: wildespace
Human eyes aren't like CCD sensors unders a long exposure. We can't accumulate those isolated photons.

You wouldn't need to. Infinite covers a lot of bases. With an infinite number of stars in any direction you look, there are always an infinite number of stars that emitted a photon at a time so that they all just arrived at your eye simultaneously.

Imagine the sphere as a point travelling through space, constantly
gently changing it's pitch, yaw and roll as it swings in a force field
of gravitational attraction to the Sun - it's slave - rotating, circling
and ebbing and flowing from it's center, the Earth is attached to
the Sun which itself plummets through vast space with rotation and
attitude ever changing. The Sun's path could not be determined
because a frame of reference external to the solar system is
necessary.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: Drawsoho

This is why you need vector calculus. You can create vectors that point in any direction.

If you could empty the entire Universe of all matter and place two atoms one at each end, motionless relative to each other, their gravity would slowly draw them together across all that distance.

No

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Bedlam

Olber's Paradox

The skies aren't 'dark' , they are filled with energy and light.

See the black places between the stars at night? You wouldn't have that. It would be solid, blinding light. It's not.

Wait a sec. We see light sources and reflections, but not the beam in between. The universe is filled with light.

"You, NewtonCrosby, PHD and not know that?"

"Obler's Paradox", or "The Dark Sky Paradox".

Obler's Paradox

Obler's Paradox states "If the universe is infinite in size and age, then there would be light from stars completely covering the sky, everywhere we looked in the entirety of the night sky."

A rebuttal to Obler might be "Well, stars have a finite age, so there would be parts of the sky where stars have not yet began to burn, or where the star has died and the light from it has ceased"

However, as Bedlam pointed out, "infinite time" means that even if a star ceased burning in a particular direction, there would be infinitely many other stars in the same direction to fill in that part of the sky with light.


Edit to Add:
Whoops! I see Bedalm already mentioned Obler.

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ

If you could empty the entire Universe of all matter and place two atoms one at each end, motionless relative to each other, their gravity would slowly draw them together across all that distance.

No

Okay, "NO" with an edit. Got it.

a reply to: Box of Rain

Yah, he did mention it. My response to him is the asme to you, We see sources of light and reflection but not the beam in-between. I must be missing something real simple here. My anology is the flashlight. You turn it on and point it at something, you can't 'see' the beam just the light source and what it strikes.

When I look at the night sky I see all those stars because their light has traveled to my eye across all that distance. I see the source, but not the beam between. The Universe is filled with light streaming everywhere from all the sources.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: wildespace
Human eyes aren't like CCD sensors unders a long exposure. We can't accumulate those isolated photons.

You wouldn't need to. Infinite covers a lot of bases. With an infinite number of stars in any direction you look, there are always an infinite number of stars that emitted a photon at a time so that they all just arrived at your eye simultaneously.

Thats a matter of magnitude of brightness and the sensitivity in the human eye. If you could accelerate to the speed of light and look out your porthole the whole Universe would be filled with white light.

Edit:The longer the exposure with instruments the more stars become visible in the night sky as well.

dense star field

a reply to: St Udio

Is that clockwise looking down on the clock or looking up at the clock? It makes a bit of difference as to perspective.

a reply to: Drawsoho

Uhhh. I need some Dramamine. That made me nauseous, yaw, roll, swing, force.
Warn me next time, will ya?

a reply to: ImmortalLegend527

forward........through Time.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Box of Rain

Yah, he did mention it. My response to him is the asme to you, We see sources of light and reflection but not the beam in-between. I must be missing something real simple here. My anology is the flashlight. You turn it on and point it at something, you can't 'see' the beam just the light source and what it strikes.

When I look at the night sky I see all those stars because their light has traveled to my eye across all that distance. I see the source, but not the beam between. The Universe is filled with light streaming everywhere from all the sources.

An infinite universe that has existed for an infinite amount of time would have had an infinite number of stars beaming photons of light into our eyes. And the light from even the most distant stars would be beaming into our eyes, because that light had enough time to get to our eyes.

You may say "what if it's a relatively new star whose light hasn't had enough time to reach us", and you would have a point, but that point would only be true for a specific given star. However, during that infinite amount of time, an infinite number of stars would have existed somewhere in that linear direction of space (every linear direction of space) that the light from at least one them would be beaming into our eyes.

And that would be true from every possible direction, no matter which direction we looked. From every line of sight there would have once existed (or currently exists) at least one star whose light was right now beaming into our eyes.

"Infinite time" is a long time.

a reply to: Box of Rain

I'm sorry, color me stupid, I don't see it.

I know you're trying to explain to me, and you've said the same thing twice. Say it a different way?

An infinite universe that has existed for an infinite amount of time would have had an infinite number of stars beaming photons of light into our eyes. And the light from even the most distant stars would be beaming into our eyes, because that light had enough time to get to our eyes.

How about the distances are so vast that the light from the farthest stars 'is reabsorbed' by something in space over that distance and doesn't cant reach us?

The lights blocked.

Heres another thought. The newest Hubble deep field is a computer generated image of the furthest we can resolve wth our instruments. That image as we see it is altered because it would be just a jumble of noise (light) without the filtering out of all the scattered light in the time exposure. So we see the black sky between the objects in the image because they produced it that way. The raw image is a fuzzy white out of light.

a reply to: intrptr

If I told you I'd be the same as you... OFF TOPIC guy. I wouldn't be able to yell at you that you are intentionally OFF TOPIC for the last page and a half. Damn it people can we focus on
"Which direction is Earth Travelling Through Space"? or you have ADHD?

btw you can't measure the gravitational force between two single atoms. You don't know how far it goes and how. In a real world you should feed the math with observations. Your hypothetical universe doesn't exist, would't exist. On a micro-scale with billions and trillions of atoms there is almost nothing/nothing observed. The math tells you there is an infinity limit and an inverse-square law. The force is reaching 0 very soon on a micro scale and your space is reaching infinity on a macro scale. These two will never touch each other. With a set distance you don't know. Most likely the space-time is not curved at all at some point. It is a useless talk and off topic wasting of time IMO. What does it tells us about our movement in space? Nothing. Just stop it and do not reply.
You guys killed a thread that got my attention after 4 pages with a brainstorming which looks like an intro of the "Big Bang Theory" series. How do you feel now, smart?