Solar system --Temperature fluctuations
My universe does not support yearly temperature fluctuations on earth
that would range from 700 degrees Fahrenheit to -250 degrees
Fahrenheit.
If our solar system is moving linearly near speed of light, that would
effect the time the light travels in between the sun and earth. The
time effect varies depending of the angle our solar system is oriented
to the axes of linear motion.
Note to editor, see full story: www.jkcamera.com Click on "My
universe"

No light travells at c in all directions regardless of how fast we are
going. Also the cosmological says that everyone appears to be at the
center of the Universe. A point receding from us at c/2 has a velocity
relative to 2.7K of round about 600km/s (our velocity, there are
fluctuations that mean it is never zero).

Also PLEASE use SI where units are inportant. You can put c, epsilon
and mu equal to 1 where you are discussing relativity and Maxwells
Equations. Melting ice is either 0C or 273K.

My full story: www.jkcamera.com (my universe) gives a better view of
haw the fluctuating temperature applies. My point is: if the Big Bang
environment is real then the universe and our solar system would be
different.

One question escape velocity at 1AU. 43km/s or 13km/s additional. This
is 17 km/s just above the Earth's atmosphere. Cassini in fact reached
Saturn by a series of slingshots and was only launched with enough
energy to reach Venus.

The whole point of relativity is that we cannot tell by looking at the
solar system how fast it is moving. Our absolute speed is detected only
by an asymmetry in 2.7K which is about 600km/s. If we were movinf at
0.9c we would notice an anisotropy in 2.7 K. Nothing else as everything
else in in our frame of reference.

Our solar system can be viewed as an independent perpetual motion
mechanism.
The sun and all planets are individual objects in space, bound
together by the gravity of sun.
Think of this gravity as a string having limited strength, sufficient
to hold the planet in orbit.
An extra linear motion of the expansion, which is foreign force to
this self supporting mechanism, adds to the KE of each orbiting planet,
as the result, the balanced string will brake and eject planets off
the orbit.
This explanation does not fit to the current system but it explains
what would be the case in the BB environment. Better yet, organized
and balanced celestial systems can not form if the matter is moving at
C. As usual, there is an exemption to every rule: The spiral
galaxies could form, if the orbiting disk plane is facing to the
direction of linear motion. In this orientation it seems, the linear
motion does not interfere with inner workings of the system. The
HUBBLE DEEP FIELD image suggest that the universe is not expanding at
C. See the full story

Ian Parker wrote:
The whole point of relativity is that we cannot tell by looking at the
solar system how fast it is moving. Our absolute speed is detected only

No, the point is that it is meaningless to say "how fast"
unless you also say "relative to ...". The phrase "absolute
speed" is usually taken to refer to Newton's concept of
absolute space and absolute time which do not exist.

by an asymmetry in 2.7K which is about 600km/s. If we were movinf at
0.9c we would notice an anisotropy in 2.7 K. Nothing else as everything
else in in our frame of reference.

That isn't "absolute speed", it is the speed relative to a
local frame co-moving with the material which emitted the
CMBR, or more accurately relative to the distant material
but neglecting the mean speed due to expansion.

Notice that even that material is in turbulent motion as
shown by the polarisation measured by WMAP.

George

That is correct. However the Cosmological Principle states that all
velocities relative to the 2.7K local frame are small.

In article . com, "George Dishman" writes:
Ian Parker wrote:
The whole point of relativity is that we cannot tell by looking at the
solar system how fast it is moving. Our absolute speed is detected only

No, the point is that it is meaningless to say "how fast"
unless you also say "relative to ...". The phrase "absolute
speed" is usually taken to refer to Newton's concept of
absolute space and absolute time which do not exist.

NAh, there is no absolute speed in Newtonian physics either. All
inertial frames are equivalent.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote:
In article . com, "George Dishman" writes:
Ian Parker wrote:
The whole point of relativity is that we cannot tell by looking at the
solar system how fast it is moving. Our absolute speed is detected only

No, the point is that it is meaningless to say "how fast"
unless you also say "relative to ...". The phrase "absolute
speed" is usually taken to refer to Newton's concept of
absolute space and absolute time which do not exist.

NAh, there is no absolute speed in Newtonian physics either. All
inertial frames are equivalent.

I know, but the people who talk about "absolute speed" don't
seem to appreciate that.

George

In article .com, writes:

wrote:
In article . com, "George Dishman" writes:
Ian Parker wrote:
The whole point of relativity is that we cannot tell by looking at the
solar system how fast it is moving. Our absolute speed is detected only

No, the point is that it is meaningless to say "how fast"
unless you also say "relative to ...". The phrase "absolute
speed" is usually taken to refer to Newton's concept of
absolute space and absolute time which do not exist.

NAh, there is no absolute speed in Newtonian physics either. All
inertial frames are equivalent.

I know, but the people who talk about "absolute speed" don't
seem to appreciate that.

They're still stuck in Aristotelean physics. Talking about being
"behind the times":-)

Seriously, now, people don't realize that relativity was introduced
into physics by Newton (and Galileo). What Einstein did, in this
respect, is not introduce but *reintroduce* relativity, following a
brief regression into aether models in the second half of the 19th
century.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"