Stop the universe, it's leaving us behind (faster-than-light expansion)

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | 3/21/02 | Richard Macey

[MarkWar]

>Wave goodbye to the universe. The expansion of the universe, which began about 15 billon years ago with the Big Bang, is mysteriously getting faster, Australian and British astronomers say.

Well, if scientists can get a clue to this mysterious "dark energy" which is causing the elements of an initial explosion to increase their speeds, it will sure revolutionize the tennis service game. If Anna can learn to harness this "dark energy," then her serve will actually increase in speed as the ball flys away from her racket...

Mark W.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Isaiah 40:22"

Every time I get on the Subject of Religion and Creation I Flashback to Mel Brook's History fo the World and the scene where Mel is Portraying Moses bringing the Commandments down from the Mountain...

---- "I Bring to you the Children of Isreal these 15 (Crash) I mean Ten... Yes TEN COMMANDMENTS!! ----

heheh It still Kills me everytime I see it!

[Mad Dawgg]

"If Anna can learn to harness this "dark energy,"

Mad Dawgg in ihis best Homer Simpson voice --- "mmmmmm Annnn naaaah Yummmm"

[Paradox]

Accepting the 5th dimension shouldn't be difficult for those who have accepted dimensions 1, 2, and 3, not to mention accepting time as the 4th dimension.

I've been a big believer of the Fifth Dimension since the late sixties!

[RightWhale]

Which one is Time?

[mlo]

If by galactic cluster you mean the Milky Way and several other galaxies not too far away, such as M31, Andromeda Galaxy, visible near the Great Square of Pegasus for those regions of earth not yet terminally light-polluted, then that is probably true.

Yes, that is what I meant. It is precisely because of these objects that I specified "our galactic cluster" instead of "our galaxy".

The point being, the visible sky will not be affected by the expansion.

[HeadOn]

That was/is a funny movie. I like the ending with the Star of David spaceship.

[Musketeer]

I posted earlier that I thought the speed of light is only exeeded by the speed of "bad news".

NOT!!

Try "Trekkie" imagination.

[Octar]

A clever young fellow named Dwight,
Could travel much faster than light.
He departed one day,
In a relative way,
And arrived on the previous night.

[OldFriend]

LOLOL I'll ask my daughter. She's has a BS in Physics.......let me get back to you!!

[PatrickHenry]

I'm awake, I've found the thread, thanks for the pings.

[oldcats]

IMO...the photons created by the headlights would travel at the speed of light relative to the car.
I do realize this was posted with a certain amout of frivolity too. :) Oldcats

[tim politicus]

"Astrophysics is mind-blowing stuff". And thought blowing. And reason blowing. And logic blowing. Until recently we used to call that "wrong". Clearly logic reason and meaning no longer have any value among the dominant majority of astrophysicists.

Just why isn't a case emerging neo-ptolemyic scholaticism? Is the dominant view TODAY always right? With the intellectual life at the universities being what it is, why do we fail to question the "latest findings" in this increasingly byzantine and contentious field (that's right, this article is ignoring all the consensus that ISN'T).

Sure these folks have numbers to back up what they say. So does everyone else. Only a reasoned analysis can reveal whose numbers most accurately reflect actual conditions.

But to return to science as discovery rather then science as metaphysically revealed religion we would have to turn from science a the knowledge of the TRUTH to science as the awareness of the problem.

Given the state of public and university education these days, I fear the heyday of true scientific QUESTIONING may be over for a while.

Still, while we've truly gained what we've gained, clearly scientific progress stalls during intellectual and cultural declines.

For those who would argue the above, dealing with the inarguable fact of our overall intellectual and cultural decline is their largest nemesis.

[RightWhale]

If the universe is expanding so that objects outside the Local Cluster are eventually going to be beyond the limit of visibility due to exceeding the speed of light or at least being red-shifted to invisibility, there will be roughly 1000 galaxies that will remain in our neighborhood. This is billions of years down the road, probably 100s of billions of years. In the meantime, our sun will be essentially burned out, almost all the stars in the Milky Way will be burned out, and the galaxies will be dark. It will be a cold, dark, and slow universe. Is there a way out of this, or is this just how it is going to be?

[mlo]

In the meantime, our sun will be essentially burned out, almost all the stars in the Milky Way will be burned out, and the galaxies will be dark. It will be a cold, dark, and slow universe. Is there a way out of this, or is this just how it is going to be?

In the long run, we're all dead.

[Lokibob]

Are you saying the speed of light times 2? Doesn't that violate relativety?

IMHO, the photons would build up in the lights. As somebody said, the plastic bracket would melt.

Truthfully, I have no idea, just something that I wonder about, and yes, I need a life.

[PatrickHenry]

Is there a way out of this, or is this just how it is going to be?

I'm working on it.

[mlo]

"Astrophysics is mind-blowing stuff". And thought blowing. And reason blowing. And logic blowing. Until recently we used to call that "wrong". Clearly logic reason and meaning no longer have any value among the dominant majority of astrophysicists.

No, that's not clear at all. In fact, it is wrong. Just because our modern understanding of the universe contradicts your notions of what it should be doesn't mean scientists have lost logic and reason. That attitude itself is illogical and unreasonable.

Just why isn't a case emerging neo-ptolemyic scholaticism? Is the dominant view TODAY always right? With the intellectual life at the universities being what it is, why do we fail to question the "latest findings" in this increasingly byzantine and contentious field (that's right, this article is ignoring all the consensus that ISN'T).

Of course the view TODAY is not alway right, but the direction of progess is clear. We are learning more and understanding more about the universe. It is not just a randomly changing set of views over time.

Who doesn't question the latest findings? These things aren't treated as revealed truth. They are constantly questioned. This article itself discusses two seperate studies that revealed the same answer. Had the first one been wrong the second would have contradicted it. The first wasn't just accepted as fact. That's how science works.

Sure these folks have numbers to back up what they say. So does everyone else. Only a reasoned analysis can reveal whose numbers most accurately reflect actual conditions.

Who is "everyone else" and what are their numbers? Reasoned analysis is what this is all about. The observations can't support two opposed views. There is only one truth.

But to return to science as discovery rather then science as metaphysically revealed religion we would have to turn from science a the knowledge of the TRUTH to science as the awareness of the problem.

Since when is science a "metaphysically revealed religion"? Since it started getting answers you didn't like?

Given the state of public and university education these days, I fear the heyday of true scientific QUESTIONING may be over for a while.

Still, while we've truly gained what we've gained, clearly scientific progress stalls during intellectual and cultural declines.

For those who would argue the above, dealing with the inarguable fact of our overall intellectual and cultural decline is their largest nemesis.

I argue the above on its merits, regardless of any cultural decline. That is more reasonable and logical.

[Mad Dawgg]

"I argue the above on its merits, regardless of any cultural decline."

Yea but you left Cow Flatulence out of your Argument so your whole Theory falls apart...

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...

[mlo]

First, you can't have a space ship going at the speed of light, but let's say it is 99% the speed of light.

From each frame of reference the light from the headlights would be seen leaving the ship at the speed of light. Someone on the ship would see the beams projected out at lightspeed, and an outside observer would see the beams moving at lightspeed, or 1% faster than the ship.

The discrepencies this creates are resolved by the other relativistic effects of going that fast. While the observer sees the light beams moving barely faster than the ship, the people on the ship see them leaving the ship at lightspeed because time has also slowed on board the ship relative to the observer.