Comments by "Max Strelets" (@maxstrelets263) on "We Are Being Pulled by the Great Attractor!" video.

  1.  @mgabriel2636  p.s. Imagine being on a boat floating down a river. Your speed can be measured relative to the riverbank (a stationary reference), or to another boat (a moving reference). Similarly, the Milky Way's speed is measured relative to stationary or moving reference points in the universe, not the Earth's surface.
    2
  2. ​ @mgabriel2636  No, you don't. It is actually moving around hes feet from that point of view, that you determined. Lets call it "Chuck's feet coordinate system" so the 0,0,0 point starts from it big toe. In this case earth will moves beneath it. However, it's important to note that in physical reality, both Chuck Norris and the Earth are subject to the laws of gravity and motion. Chuck cannot physically remain stationary while the Earth moves beneath him. But initially I missunderstood you'r comment, you are partially right. In space and physics, motion is always relative. This means that an object is considered stationary only in relation to a specific frame of reference. When measuring the speed of the Milky Way, astronomers use the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) as a reference. The CMB serves as a nearly universal frame of reference, allowing scientists to approximate the notion of being "stationary" on a cosmic scale.
    1
  3. @mgabriel2636 Yes, the CMB does exhibit a Doppler shift due to the motion of our galaxy. Despite its overall uniformity, the CMB's slight variations allow us to detect this shift. This provides valuable information about the direction and speed of our galaxy's movement in space.
    1
  4. Ah, the allure of neat numerical coincidences — always a crowd-pleaser but not exactly the backbone of scientific discovery. Remember, correlation is not causation, no matter how tempting it is to connect those dots. These numbers need more than a wink and a nudge to transform into a solid theory. We're talking robust framework and hard empirical evidence here, not just a fancy magic trick with statistics.
    1
  5.  @ronaldkemp3952  While the 10,000 to 1 ratio you've observed is intriguing, it's important to understand that scientific theories are built on more than just patterns or correlations, no matter how consistent they may seem. A key aspect of scientific inquiry is the ability to explain phenomena through testable mechanisms and predictions, not just through observed ratios. In the case of your theory, for it to gain scientific credibility, it would need to be rigorously tested and validated through a range of observations and experiments, ideally by independent researchers. This would involve not only checking other stars and galaxies for the same ratio but also understanding and explaining the underlying mechanism that would cause such propulsion, and how it aligns with established laws of physics. Furthermore, consistency in a pattern doesn't automatically imply a causative relationship. In astrophysics, especially, where we're dealing with immensely complex systems, numerous factors could lead to similar observational outcomes. A comprehensive theory would need to account for these variables and offer explanations that are consistent with what we already understand about physics, particularly gravity and motion. I am genuinely curious about your work and would be glad to get acquainted with your research. Can I find it on arXiv or researchgate? I encourage continuing this kind of curious inquiry, but also suggest considering the broader scientific context and the rigorous processes required to establish new theories in the field of cosmology.
    1
  6. Alan Dressler looks like an alien :D p.s. CGI is amaizing <3
    1