We all know the earth & sun are moving. Is there anything in the universe that is considered to be NOT moving?

Question

What I'm trying to find out - if there IS a universally recognized "stationary" object in the universe, then how fast is the earth travelling, compared to that object? If this stationary object does NOT exist, then how fast are we travelling? Consider the distance the earth travels around the sun in one year and divide by the number of hours per year? and then consider how fast the sun moves??.... and how fast the milky way moves???

Answer 1

it might be possible in principle to find the centre of mass of the universe, which point could then be regarded as unmoving in time on account of conservation of momentum, but such a construction is to say the least a bit iffy.

Answer 2

No and we don't know how fast we are moving if we are moving. There is movement in the universe but we don't know in relation to what.

Calculations from measurements of background radiation are only valid if the Big Bang theory is correct. The Big Bang theory says that, in the beginning, there was a mass a few centimeters across and the mass exploded creating the universe. What about the vacuum? What created this mass in the vacuum that exploded and created the universe? They say there musta been something to create all of this matter that exists so they eventually arrive at the smallest thing that they can imagine and say that that quantum of light or gluon or whatever musta been there thinking that you surely will not question something that seems to be so infinitely small. Musta been? Well, whatever you can think of is not infinitley small enough that it can have existed in a (the) vacuum so it musta been something else. The Big Bang theory convieniently ignors the vacuum so the theory is invalid.

As of now, the universe consists of an undefinable quantity of non-sequential events related only in movement and gravity.

Answer 3

The main thing to note is that motion is relative not absolute. This was the whole philosophical motivation behind the theory of relativity. People used to think that the luminiferous aether served as the stationary "object". Think about a universe in which there is only two objects-you and me. Suppose we are moving at 5 mph relative to each other. You might say that you are at rest and that I'm moving at 5 mph. I might say that I'm at rest and you are moving at 5 mph. Or we both might say that we are both moving at 2.5 mph. There is no stationary object that we can use to tell which of us is "really" moving.

Answer 4

The thing is you are trying to get the absolute reference frame, but there is no such thing, because all motion is relative to something. You can't establish that an object is universally stationary: if it could be done, then I could say I'm that object, and that everything is moving around me. In fact, from our own reference frame's point of view, we are stationary: all the other things are moving relatively to us. Everytime we talk about motion, e always need at least two objects: one of them to be the reference frame and the other to be analyzed relatively to the first one. And you could change their roles.
The point is everytime you analyze an object's motion, you need a reference frame, and there will be some ones relatively to which it is moving and other ones relativily to which it is motionless. There is no absolute and universal state of motion. If there was only one thing in the Universe, it wouldn't even make sense to talk about motion, for there would be no reference frame.

Answer 5

It's already been said, but I am here, so:

Motion is relative. Meaning if there is only one thing...then everything would appear stationary.

If there were two things, and you were sitting on one of them, then there are two possibilities:

1. The distance between the two things remains constant now and forever. Then the other thing will appear stationary, but you cannot say that if there is a 3rd thing, and the distance between thing 1 and 2 is changing in relation to the 3rd thing.

2. Thing 1 and 2 do not maintain a constant distance from each other. Then according to your position, thing 1 is moving and you are not. But your twin on thing 2 maintains that you are moving and he is stationary.

Do you get the picture?

Answer 6

There's no center of the universe and no edges, so there's no place of reference. Furthermore, Einstein's theory of general relativity says that no frame of reference is more valid than any other - so nothing can be considered not moving.
On the other hand, we can tell from the WMAP survey of cosmic microwave background radiation that the Milky Way is moving about 600,000 km/s. (I think I have that number right.) We can tell from the wavelength of the microwave radiation and how it Doppler shift affects it. Compared to that, motion of the sun around the center of the galaxy and the Earth around the sun don't make much difference.

Answer 7

there's a misstatement there. "that's been claimed that dark count money owed for the increasing velocity of the galaxies" it particularly is dark capability. "yet while dark count won't manage to be measured, detected, or examined, why are we even pondering it to be a potential rationalization?" dark count is inferred because of fact it is measured and detected. each and all of the evidence factors to mass that's no longer radiating detectable electromagnetic radiation. We see its gravitational effects. We do exactly no longer see it. As for dark capability, i do no longer think of giving it a acceptance is a "potential rationalization". i've got under no circumstances seen an particularly hypothesis for why the increasing velocity (if it particularly is genuine) would be happening. that's only a acceptance for the commentary that the cost of growth for the main distant gadgets we see interior the universe is below that for close by gadgets. I say "if it particularly is genuine" because of fact there may well be yet another rationalization, such because of fact the way we calculate that cost for the main distant gadgets. you're suitable approximately action wanting a reference factor. i've got under no circumstances heard the assertion that the cosmos is shifting. despite if, I certainly have heard the assertion that we've a tremendously super velocity relative to the cosmos, i.e. the microwave historic past. by using this what's meant is that there is a purple shift in one course and a blue shift interior the alternative course. i think of the type became on the order of one hundred km/sec, yet i won't manage to song it down only on the 2d.

Answer 8

Good question. I don't think there is any such thing present in the universe. About what you are trying to undertake, I think what you are referring to is a standard from which you could base them. However, such standards are always relative. That is,to be able to determine the rate of movement of any object, you have to observe how it changes in position with regards to a certain location. And, even then, your observations could be altered by several factors.
The answer's a bit messed up, I know. But, hope it helps.

Answer 9

I don't believe there is any truly stationary object in the universe as the universe is continually expanding outward in every direction.

Answer 10

Not moving? Depends on where you going with your questions. If you relate to the side of Quantum Physics and String theory, everything has energy, and since energy cannot be created or destroyed. Everything is moving...

Answer 11

Considering the size & distances we are talking about, it
is impossible to give a factual answer to your question..
My guess is that there are indeed objects that are not moving..