How does the Earth move in space in 3 seperate trajectories?

All movement is relative to 'the observer'....i.e. 'your mind's eye'. There is no observation point in which multiple 'pictures' of trajectories are likely to make 'sense' simultaneously, unless you invent one like 'a static centre of the galaxy', or to complicate it more 'a static centre of the universe'.

Fresco is correct, it’s a matter of perspective, and there are many of those.

The earth rotates and orbits the sun. But the sun also orbits the galaxy and slides through space, while the galaxy also moves relativel to even larger structures.

To understand this in a scientific way, you have to understand frames of reference.. This is counter-intuitive for most non-scientists, because we are trained to think in only on frame of reference (where the Earth isn't moving).

This might help...

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/one-dimensional-motion/displacement-velocity-time/v/introduction-to-reference-frames

Hello there Fresco and thanks for your response........am I to understand from your post that you are stating that the different speeds and seperate paths/trajectories the Earth currently finds participating in 'are not relevant?' and if so, how so?

Maxdancona: Thanks for the 'frame of reference' link, it was helpful, but I would still like to see a working CGI model from 'Earths Frame of Reference' as I firmly believe it would help to shed some light on the phenomena of long exposure images re night-sky star-trails, which reveal perfect 360* circles........this to me is simply just not pheasible/possible given the afore mentioned data i.e. varying speeds, paths, trajectories, mode of spin and so forth.......maybe there is someone out there who works with CGI tech and could poss provide a mock-up so as to verify (or not).

I don't get what you are asking for. You have seen actual long exposure shots of the nightly motion of stars as observed from the earth. The cgi version would be the same. How would that help you?

In science we work with mathematical models. The motion you are describing are just very distant points of light as seen from the surface of a rotating sphere. It isn't difficult to see how this leads to apparently circular paths.

I want to ask the question ....

Is this an understand science thread, or a disprove science thread?

I am happy to help with the first...

Lets take the solar system for example, Earth is moving around the sun, and the sun along with the rest of the solar system is moving through space as well, so it looks like the earth is moving in two directions at once... both around the sun and along with the solar system as a whole through space.

Look at it another way, lets say you tied a golf ball to a bowling ball with a string then catapulted the bowling ball through the air. The golf ball will probably spin around the bowling ball a couple of times while hurtling along in one direction with the bowling ball.... while orbiting around the sun, while traveling through space with the solar system, while traveling through space with the galaxy!

But space is a location, so no matter how complicated the movement may be, you only move in one direction relative to space.... i think?

And then i think i heard that space itself is also moving, by way of expanding!! that is the reason behind why some solar systems appear to be moving away from each other faster than the speed of light!

This sounds like a flat earther.

But in case you’re not.

https://youtu.be/0jHsq36_NTU

You should remember that most or all of what you know came from some reporter trying to sound like he knew something exciting. Maybe it's not true, and maybe you didn't understand the report correctly.

If you look at something from two positions it appears to shift by some angle depending on how far away it is and the length of your baseline. If you look from opposite sides of the Earth's orbit, that is the longest baseline we have, and accurate measurements can be made out to about 3200 light years. Beyond that we are guessing. Highly scientific guessing, but guessing all the same.

Then it gets just plain wacko: people get the idea that they can tell how fast a galaxy is moving by the color of its light. To do that they have to assume that color depends on the Doppler Effect, and ignore all other possible causes of color change. That is guessing. Highly scientific guessing, but guessing all the same.

A big part of science is conjecture, which means making up "What if" scenarios. Often those scenarios get discussed a lot for a long time, and people begin to assume they are true just because they keep hearing them. You just have to hang loose and wait for good sense to overcome "gee-whiz" science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsT2b-dR9uI

I especially agree with this line:

"A big part of science is conjecture, which means making up "What if" scenarios. Often those scenarios get discussed a lot for a long time, and people begin to assume they are true just because they keep hearing them. You just have to hang loose and wait for good sense to overcome "gee-whiz" science."

How does the Earth move in space in 3 seperate trajectories?

Orbitally.



What do you think is happening?

Hint: "seperate (sic) curving (while corkscrewing) isn't happening.

To All

There seems to be a lot of twaddle developing in this thread by posters (and clip makers) who assume a lay concept of 'scientific realism'.

Scientific models tend to have limits of applicability, such that say, at the quantum level even everyday like 'motion' can become questionable and need to be redefined. Ignorance of these limits of applicability tends to set up pseudo problems, say, about 'light' for example, when we forget that the origins of our concept of the thinghood of 'light' (its 'nature') lie entirely in the domain of human experience and speculation.

To take the Pragmatist's view, reality is about what works, not what is.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/30/our-motion-through-space-isnt-a-vortex-but-something-far-more-interesting/amp/

Afternoon Maxdancona: In answer to your question 'I just want to know for 'sure' that what I'm being taught/told is the truth'...................and that's all.

There are whole seminars lasting days on the concept of 'truth' !
That's why many scientists and philosophers tend to avoid using the word at all. A good alternative might be 'a consensus regarding confidence about what works in terms of contextual prediction and control. '
Note that the famous physicist Richard Feynman was one who avoided such nebulous questions with the phrase...'just shut up and calculate !'

Afternoon Maporshche: Great video presentation and was in 'the ball-park' with regards what I was seeking re 'confirmation' but not quite there as it would have been more difinative if the model concentrated more on the Earths singular multi path,trajectory, with spin and moving in the fashion as stated by NASA i.e. curving (elliptical linear path) while in a corkscrewing (vortex motion) and to give some form of relevance/scope then to possibly include other celestial bodies i.e. Planets and Sun etc; but otherwise this presentation was interesting in the sense that it helps confirmed (for me) my theory that at least the 360* perfect circles would not be feasible given what I observed on the mock-up of the Helical Video and if one were to include the rest of the 'given stats/facts then I feel pretty confident (as of now) that it can be shown that there is something very erroneous about these said stats/facts.............Shalom.

We watch the same video and reach far different conclusions.

So be it.