Relative to what? That makes no sense.
Relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background. Seems to be the closest thing to an absolute reference frame.
The cosmic microwave background has no center, any claims that it even has a direction is controversial.
Is it controversial? I thought it was pretty established. In Wikipedia it says:
From the CMB data, it is seen that the Sun appears to be moving at 369.82±0.11 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB (also called the CMB rest frame, or the frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB). The Local Group — the galaxy group that includes our own Milky Way galaxy — appears to be moving at 620±15 km/s in the direction of galactic longitude ℓ = 271.9°±2°, b = 30°±3°.[88] The dipole is now used to calibrate mapping studies.
Don’t cite Wikipedia. Look at the tiny numbers in blue, click the one next to the statement you want to verify, it will show you the source of the information at the bottom of the page next to the matching number.
Well, following the main reference in the Wikipedia page leads to this:
The implied velocity for the Solar System barycenter is v = 369.82 ± 0.11 km s−1, assuming a value T0 = Tγ , towards (l, b) = (264.021◦ ± 0.011◦, 48.253◦ ± 0.005◦) [13]. Such a Solar System motion implies a velocity for the Galaxy and the Local Group of galaxies relative to the CMB. The derived value is vLG = 620 ± 15 km s−1 towards (l, b) = (271.9◦ ± 2.0◦, 29.6◦ ± 1.4◦) [13], where most of the error comes from uncertainty in the velocity of the Solar System relative to the Local Group. The dipole is a frame-dependent quantity, and one can thus determine the ‘CMB frame’ (in some sense this is a special frame) as that in which the CMB dipole would be zero. Any velocity of the receiver relative to the Earth and the Earth around the Sun is removed for the purposes of CMB anisotropy studies, while our velocity relative to the Local Group of galaxies and the Local Group’s motion relative to the CMB frame are normally removed for cosmological studies. The dipole is now routinely used as a primary calibrator for mapping experiments, either via the time- varying orbital motion of the Earth, or through the cosmological dipole measured by satellite experiments.
Do any references suggest this dipole is under debate?
Ok, I guess the idea that the CMB suggests movement relative to a quasi-absolute reference frame really has become disputed lately… I also found this newer paper by the same authors. It’s a pity, I liked the idea.
The only things that aren’t bound by gravity are massless. Massless things always have to be moving at the speed of light. So really the question is, what direction would the ghost shoot off to? Momentum would have to be preserved, so it’d be the opposite direction of where the corpse drops. Or maybe the corpse just move a teensy bit to the opposite direction of the ghost?
Note: this assumes Newtonian or at least semi classical physics. In general relativity, there is no such thing as being unbound by gravity.
We move (with the Sun) around the Milky Way at about 792.000 km/h. At that speed, you wouldn’t even see the earth getting away from you.
Even the galaxy fucks of very quickly from you.
But now we know who inhabits all those spoopy voids.
First picture looks like a Borg cube.
Sounds like Scientology 💩
SpaceGhost(s)! Coast to (galactic) coast!
Zorak is the hammer! Me!!! ZORAK IS THE HAMMER!!!
This actually explains a lot.
Einstein would like to have a word with you
several physicists are typing…
Now we know what dark matter is
The butthole is what really makes this comic
It’s ok because they break the rules of thermo dynamics
But in which frame of reference? Our solar system is also moving, so is our galaxy, our universe is “expanding”, and let’s not even talk about the multiverse, that’s overdone as it is.
That’s the cool part about it! All we have to do is find a way to measure ghosts and we’ll know what the correct universal frame of reference is!
By this line of thinking, dying in a mass tragedy might be the best thing that could happen to you. At least you wouldn’t be in solitary confinement for eternity.
I mean, I’m sure there’s a statistic that someone can look up but as many people as are on the planet, I feel like there would always be someone within shouting distance if not closer. I guess it really depends on how fast the earth is moving and what the frame of reference is.
The earth moves at 18 miles per second in orbital velocity alone, there aren’t people within shouting distance of me now, and the opposite site of the planet from me is 80 miles off the coast of Madagascar. If I die at home I’m alone forever unless my wife goes at the same instant.
You’re underestimating the distances and speeds involved. The earth is traveling at 67,000 mph around the sun and the sun is traveling 514,000 mph around the galactic core and takes 225 million years to do one orbit. Even if two people died within a second of each other, they’d be 100+ miles away from each other.
Here is a sad face…
Earth orbits the sun. The sun orbits the super cluster in the middle of the galaxy. The galaxy is flying off into space being pulled on by other galaxies. The earth will never occupy the same expect space if you factor in all the movements. If you were holding the hand of your loved one and the two of you died withing a thenth of a second apart you would not be able to see them by the time difference at those speeds.
Though its all relative how you want to measure and what you want to measure.
Yeah, but…imagine if I were in that mass tragedy with you. You’re telling me you wouldn’t rather be alone for eternity, than with me for eternity?
I love you and appreciate you.
I always thought that this would be a similar issue with time machines. Go back even 1 second and you’re floating in the void.
Depends where you place the coordinate origin, no?
I guess it depends on the sort of time machine. I’m thinking the H.G. Wells variety- a machine you get in or on and it takes you back in time, but to the same location.
That’s also how it works in Back to the Future.
That’s not what the same location means.
Also, now lets talk about relative speed differences!
What does it mean?
Well if you time trivel to “the same location” then that would be in space somewhere because the planet had moved on.
In films you travel to another location, which is where the earth is now/then.
Also, we rocketeer forwards on this spinning globe, so if you time travel 6 months, the planet will be going in the opposite direction (and also be on the other side of the sun ofc.) so iven if you move yourself there, you’d get smashed against the planet at high speed or ejected away from it at high speeds probably be killed by the atmosphere if by nothing else.
That’s actually kinda my head cannon as to why the doctor in doctor who is so hands on when piloting the TARDIS a time machine that only travels through time is useless because you can’t affect history while floating out in space and it’s also dangerous if you happen to pop into existence inside a block of dirt the more I think about it doctor who is a pretty realistic depiction of what time travel will be like even with the TARDIS moving air out the way before landing instead of creating a shockwave from TARDIS molecules materializeing inside of atmosphere molecules
Well, but general relativity teaches us that all coordinate systems (also constantly moving, but not accelerating ones) are equally relevant. This means that the one with earth as it’s origin is as correct as one where with the center of the galaxy (or the sun ) as is every other. So the one where earth moves somehow through space is just as random as any other.
Eehh objects in motion stay in motion? Does that apply to ghosts? So would the ghosts fly off in straight lines since no longer subjected to suns gravity ??
Does newton’s laws apply to massless objects?
What’s stopping them?
(Pun very much intended)
I don’t see how. The law of motion for massless things seems to be “must stay in motion at c in a vacuum until smashing into something, slowly turning into something weird as it loses energy due to the expansion of the universe.”
Massless objects always move at the speed of light (photos are massless). More important here is, that easy is not on a uniform motion, but rotating around sun, which is rotating around… So even if they remain in their last motion, their path would cover from earth… But motion relative to what? The only special frame of inertia is the cosmic background, and that statement is still under debate
Maybe ghosts are what dark matter is made out of.
Cats know this.
This is incorrect. Ghosts do have mass, they just don’t interact with the EM force and only through the gravity, the strong and the weak interaction (and a fifth interaction that we don’t know about). That’s right, all that dark matter and dark energy is actually ghosts.
This is the best explanation I’ve heard for dark matter that doesn’t involve the assumption that our cosmological models are completely correct.
Can we define ghosts simply as the extinguished consciences of sentient life? So, dark matter and dark energy are the thoughts and memories of our universe.
With no mass they will continue in a straight line at the velocity they were at when they transcended.
Ghosts everywhere!
