Skip to comments.
Stop the universe, it's leaving us behind (faster-than-light expansion)
Sydney Morning Herald ^
| 3/21/02
| Richard Macey
Posted on 03/20/2002 6:47:11 AM PST by dead
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-147 next last
To: skateman
"Damn it Scottie, I said expound on the universe, not expand it."Clearly a case of bad Cellular.
21
posted on
03/20/2002 7:10:45 AM PST
by
HeadOn
To: dead
BIG BANG? YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING.
GOD
22
posted on
03/20/2002 7:10:47 AM PST
by
Delbert
To: Henchster
I need not expand into anything. It is just expanding.
To: Lokibob
If you are in a space ship traveling at the speed of light and you turn on the headlights, what happens? 1) The photons, unable to escape, overheat the headlights and melt the cheap plastic mountings.
2) I get another @#$%^&! ticket.
3) I'd already have my lights on. If I get c out of my 6-cylinder Impala, I want people to notice.
To: Aric2000
Ever wondered what happens if you disturb a black hole? Or when two black holes collide? Strange.
To: RadioAstronomer
So, if we're going to "boldly go where no man has gone before," we'd better go pretty fast?
To: dead
so - if we have some method of knowing that the universe is expanding then I would guess that we have some notion as to the general shape of the universe and it's center? can someone show me a pic of what it looks like? Does it look like a moose with cheeze in the center?
27
posted on
03/20/2002 7:16:15 AM PST
by
Frapster
To: Henchster
Actually, it can. The mathematics, formally known as "calculus of infinities", allows it. But in a more practical sense, the Universe as we know it is but a bubble in a sea of "quantum foam". While infinite in span, the bubble STILL grows, stretching the underlying space-time fabric, and increasing the distance between two given point, even if those two points are stationary, relative to each other. Astrophysics is literally mind-blowing stuff. . .
28
posted on
03/20/2002 7:16:39 AM PST
by
Salgak
To: dead
"admitted they did not have a clue...We don't understand...were debating...universe was to blame...It was a huge surprise...was "shaking his head"...you have to rearrange the mental furniture" Tell me again about global warming... is the sky really falling?
29
posted on
03/20/2002 7:17:02 AM PST
by
laotzu
To: RadioAstronomer
Honest question: How does this relate to the apparent ages of stars, then? If light from 10 billion light years away has the added component of this "faster than light expansion", doesn't that skew the age to younger than 10 billion years?
30
posted on
03/20/2002 7:17:22 AM PST
by
HeadOn
To: RogueIsland
C would be the max speed you could travel over the surface of the balloon, but it does not have anything to do with the rate of expansion of the balloon, which is what actually causes the galaxies on its surface to move apart. You've got it.
The reason for this is that the speed of light limit applies to the movement of matter and transmittal of information; it does NOT apply to spacetime itself (as spacetime, the "fabric" of the Universe, has no mass and isn't "information.")
To: RadioAstronomer
Thanks for the ping.
I'm reminded of the fellow who at the beginning of the last century claimed that all of the fundamental discoveries of science had been made and that the rest would be technical improvements and cataloguing the results.
32
posted on
03/20/2002 7:19:43 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: RadioAstronomer
"Start" is defined by time, therefore there is no "Start" to time.
To: linear
The problem is you cannot reach the speed of light (much less surpass it). As you approach the speed of light "C" time slows down and mass increases. All of the energy in the universe could not get one single proton to obtain the speed of light. The link will provide a graph of this phenomenon:
http://www.rsgc.on.ca/math/lorenz1.html
To: linear
That assumes:
- That faster-than-light (FTL) implies time travel. The equations, in one interpretation, give a result of negative time. Whatever that means. It may mean time travel, it may not. We need experimental data, and since the rules prohibit going AT the speed of light, it makes it rather difficult to go FTL. . .
- That the galaxies themselves are moving FTL. They aren't. The underlying space-time is moving at speeds which may be FTL. The relativity equations, and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, talk about motion IN space-time, not motion OF space-time itself. . .
I know, clear as mud. . . . (g)
35
posted on
03/20/2002 7:22:46 AM PST
by
Salgak
To: dead
No doubt Albore can explain this perfectly, since he invented the universe.
To: VadeRetro
So, if we're going to "boldly go where no man has gone before," we'd better go pretty fast?ROFL!!!
To: dead
Upon reading this article I had a sudden sense that we are just an element of God's fireworks display. Just after the initial detonating big bang (oooooohhh!) there is that beautiful spread of bright sparkling color (aaaaaaahhhhh!) which then expands, twinkles, and finally winks out.
Enjoy the view. :)
To: Salgak
While infinite in span, the bubble STILL grows, stretching the underlying space-time fabric, and increasing the distance between two given point, Until it implodes?
To: all
It's really gonna suck, billions of years from now, when our descendents look up in the night sky and all the stars have moved away.
On the bright side, they'll all be long dead by that time, after the Sun's death throes, so they won't notice.
40
posted on
03/20/2002 7:27:36 AM PST
by
dead
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-147 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson