Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nelisa
|
Posted - 2004.12.20 23:39:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Plim The universe is supposedly 156 billion light-years wide, giving it a radius of 78 billion light years. If the universe is 13 billion years old, how can the Universe have expanded 78billion light years in 13billion years?
/emote is confused
Its not possible if the current theory of general relativity is correct. So one of three things are wrong:
1. The age 2. The size 3. The assumption C is the speed limit of the universe. |
Nelisa
|
Posted - 2004.12.20 23:39:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Plim The universe is supposedly 156 billion light-years wide, giving it a radius of 78 billion light years. If the universe is 13 billion years old, how can the Universe have expanded 78billion light years in 13billion years?
/emote is confused
Its not possible if the current theory of general relativity is correct. So one of three things are wrong:
1. The age 2. The size 3. The assumption C is the speed limit of the universe. |
Plim
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 00:06:00 -
[63]
The following link supposedly explains it, but i'm having a lot of trouble getting my head around it --->
Linkage -----------------
|
Plim
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 00:06:00 -
[64]
The following link supposedly explains it, but i'm having a lot of trouble getting my head around it --->
Linkage -----------------
|
Nelisa
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 00:25:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Plim The following link supposedly explains it, but i'm having a lot of trouble getting my head around it --->
Linkage
There they go again creating an overly complex scenario to keep the status quo.
Yeah the fabric of the universe is stretching like spandex.. sure I believe you. |
Nelisa
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 00:25:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Plim The following link supposedly explains it, but i'm having a lot of trouble getting my head around it --->
Linkage
There they go again creating an overly complex scenario to keep the status quo.
Yeah the fabric of the universe is stretching like spandex.. sure I believe you. |
Plim
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 00:59:00 -
[67]
Actually it does make sense.
If the starting point from where where the light originated from is moving away from its where it is now, it hasnt travelled any further, there is just a larger space in between its origin, and its current location.
Say light travels 1mill light years, and in the mean time the space it has travelled through has expanded by another 500,000 light years, that light only travelled 1mill light years, and not 1,500,000 light years.
Took me a whole 2 hours or so to understand that lol.
-----------------
|
Plim
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 00:59:00 -
[68]
Actually it does make sense.
If the starting point from where where the light originated from is moving away from its where it is now, it hasnt travelled any further, there is just a larger space in between its origin, and its current location.
Say light travels 1mill light years, and in the mean time the space it has travelled through has expanded by another 500,000 light years, that light only travelled 1mill light years, and not 1,500,000 light years.
Took me a whole 2 hours or so to understand that lol.
-----------------
|
Nelisa
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 01:05:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Nelisa on 21/12/2004 02:00:18
Originally by: Plim Actually it does make sense.
If the starting point from where where the light originated from is moving away from its where it is now, it hasnt travelled any further, there is just a larger space in between its origin, and its current location.
Say light travels 1mill light years, and in the mean time the space it has travelled through has expanded by another 500,000 light years, that light only travelled 1mill light years, and not 1,500,000 light years.
Took me a whole 2 hours or so to understand that lol.
I understood it as well but that seems rather convenient that when their results dont conclude what they want it to they suddenly realize that space itself is moving and thats whats giving the farthest away stars their speed boost.
But in order for that to happen space itself would need to be expanding at approximately 6 times the speed of light.
So how are the stars in those galaxies holding their orbits?
~edit~ Fixed where I divided into the diameter instead of the radius. |
Nelisa
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 01:05:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Nelisa on 21/12/2004 02:00:18
Originally by: Plim Actually it does make sense.
If the starting point from where where the light originated from is moving away from its where it is now, it hasnt travelled any further, there is just a larger space in between its origin, and its current location.
Say light travels 1mill light years, and in the mean time the space it has travelled through has expanded by another 500,000 light years, that light only travelled 1mill light years, and not 1,500,000 light years.
Took me a whole 2 hours or so to understand that lol.
I understood it as well but that seems rather convenient that when their results dont conclude what they want it to they suddenly realize that space itself is moving and thats whats giving the farthest away stars their speed boost.
But in order for that to happen space itself would need to be expanding at approximately 6 times the speed of light.
So how are the stars in those galaxies holding their orbits?
~edit~ Fixed where I divided into the diameter instead of the radius. |
|
KIAPieman
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 01:23:00 -
[71]
Edited by: KIAPieman on 21/12/2004 01:23:18 look guys face it, light isnt the quickest speed measured.
the quicked speed measured was right here on the eve forums.
the insults just fly at unbelieveable speed --------------------------------------------------------
|
KIAPieman
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 01:23:00 -
[72]
Edited by: KIAPieman on 21/12/2004 01:23:18 look guys face it, light isnt the quickest speed measured.
the quicked speed measured was right here on the eve forums.
the insults just fly at unbelieveable speed --------------------------------------------------------
|
Nelisa
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 02:13:00 -
[73]
Heres another one to scratch your head about.
They say the speed of light is a constant and no matter which direction you face a laser beam it will travel at the same speed, right?
Wrong. The earth isnt stationary.
So depending on which direction we're going the beam is either a universal constant from a stationary point (speed of light minus earths velocity) or relative to its origin (speed of light plus earths velocity).
Either way its not really a constant and someone should be taken out back and shot.
Note: Considering there is no such thing as a stationary point in the universe Im of one to think they just kind of forgot the earth is moving when they thought up their little relativistic speed limit. |
Nelisa
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 02:13:00 -
[74]
Heres another one to scratch your head about.
They say the speed of light is a constant and no matter which direction you face a laser beam it will travel at the same speed, right?
Wrong. The earth isnt stationary.
So depending on which direction we're going the beam is either a universal constant from a stationary point (speed of light minus earths velocity) or relative to its origin (speed of light plus earths velocity).
Either way its not really a constant and someone should be taken out back and shot.
Note: Considering there is no such thing as a stationary point in the universe Im of one to think they just kind of forgot the earth is moving when they thought up their little relativistic speed limit. |
Lazarus Longinus
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 03:37:00 -
[75]
Nelisa, my fiance would be very interested in reading your alternate theorem on gravity. Could you email it to me at [email protected]. Thanks : D --------------------------------------------- I'm the root of all thats evil yeah, but you can call me Cooki3
Some people couldn't get a clue, if they were in the middle of a clue field, in the middle of clue mating season, doused in clue pheromones, in a clue suit, shouting "Clooo! Clooo!" whilst beating themselves with a clue stick |
Lazarus Longinus
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 03:37:00 -
[76]
Nelisa, my fiance would be very interested in reading your alternate theorem on gravity. Could you email it to me at [email protected]. Thanks : D --------------------------------------------- I'm the root of all thats evil yeah, but you can call me Cooki3
Some people couldn't get a clue, if they were in the middle of a clue field, in the middle of clue mating season, doused in clue pheromones, in a clue suit, shouting "Clooo! Clooo!" whilst beating themselves with a clue stick |
TauTut
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 06:54:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Plim The universe is supposedly 156 billion light-years wide, giving it a radius of 78 billion light years. If the universe is 13 billion years old, how can the Universe have expanded 78billion light years in 13billion years?
/emote is confused
If C turned out not to be a constant - would that explain it? -TT
Background
|
TauTut
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 06:54:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Plim The universe is supposedly 156 billion light-years wide, giving it a radius of 78 billion light years. If the universe is 13 billion years old, how can the Universe have expanded 78billion light years in 13billion years?
/emote is confused
If C turned out not to be a constant - would that explain it? -TT
Background
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 09:35:00 -
[79]
Here is the problem with discussions like these - most people don't understand becasue they try and relate the speed of light to something like a car driving down a road.
That is ok, but it isn't that simple. You see, the situation we have is a car driving down a road, but the road can change length (and the length of the road does not have to directly effect the distance between the start and the end ... but it can).
Space-time is an odd cookie.
The C speed limit doesn't mean light is the fastest thing, just the fastest thing which obeys the same ruleset (assuming you are measuring speed as distance/time) There are plenty of ways of getting from a->b faster than light, but without going faster than light. The key is velocity, not speed.
Oh, and as a quirky little point of interest, someone define 'mass'. Not a dictionary entry, what you really think it means. ______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 09:35:00 -
[80]
Here is the problem with discussions like these - most people don't understand becasue they try and relate the speed of light to something like a car driving down a road.
That is ok, but it isn't that simple. You see, the situation we have is a car driving down a road, but the road can change length (and the length of the road does not have to directly effect the distance between the start and the end ... but it can).
Space-time is an odd cookie.
The C speed limit doesn't mean light is the fastest thing, just the fastest thing which obeys the same ruleset (assuming you are measuring speed as distance/time) There are plenty of ways of getting from a->b faster than light, but without going faster than light. The key is velocity, not speed.
Oh, and as a quirky little point of interest, someone define 'mass'. Not a dictionary entry, what you really think it means. ______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 09:45:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 10:23:52
Originally by: Nelisa Exactly why I dont publish my alternate theorum of gravity "Gravity as a macroscopic manifestation of cumulative Van De Whals Forces".. I dont want to get lynched for thinking outside the box.
What's Van de Whals forces? And if you don't mind sharing it with someone who will definitely not lynch you for disagreeing with some well established theories, send me an evemail and I'll give you a e-mail address to send it to (I won't promise to be able to understand it though).
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 09:45:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 10:23:52
Originally by: Nelisa Exactly why I dont publish my alternate theorum of gravity "Gravity as a macroscopic manifestation of cumulative Van De Whals Forces".. I dont want to get lynched for thinking outside the box.
What's Van de Whals forces? And if you don't mind sharing it with someone who will definitely not lynch you for disagreeing with some well established theories, send me an evemail and I'll give you a e-mail address to send it to (I won't promise to be able to understand it though).
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 09:50:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 10:06:23
Originally by: Nelisa Heres another one to scratch your head about.
They say the speed of light is a constant and no matter which direction you face a laser beam it will travel at the same speed, right?
Wrong. The earth isnt stationary.
So depending on which direction we're going the beam is either a universal constant from a stationary point (speed of light minus earths velocity) or relative to its origin (speed of light plus earths velocity).
If I didn't misunderstand the theories of relativity completely, it's exactly that weird phenomenon those theories are based on.
The speed of light doesn't change, but the caracteristics of the light does. Something approaching you will have a blueshift, something travelling away from you will have a redshift, but the speed of light is the same no matter if the object emitting the light is travelling away from you or towards you.
I'll try to explain... (even though you probably understand what I mean, I don't think the rest of the ppl do, and even if they don't this explanation probably sucks enough to not make them understand anyway but I'll give it a try)
laser -> - - - - - - - [object]
1. The laser and the object standing still 2. The laser moving from the object 3. The laser moving towards the object
1. The laserbeam hits the object, the speed of light is c relative to both objects 2. The laserbeam hits the object, but something has changed. It's gone through a redshift, but the speed is the same - both to the laser and to the object 3. Same as in 2, but blueshift instead of redshift
In other words, the speed of light is to be the same both to a stationary object and to a 3rd party observer watching the scene from a different angle and maybe travelling at another speed. The fact that the speed of light is the same to a 3rd party observer that it is to the laser and the object is what the theories of relativity is based on, so you'll have to prove that to be wrong.
The thing is that the light has several different speeds at the same time, since it's observed to have the same relative speed no matter if you're moving towards, from or maybe at the same speed as the light source.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 09:50:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 10:06:23
Originally by: Nelisa Heres another one to scratch your head about.
They say the speed of light is a constant and no matter which direction you face a laser beam it will travel at the same speed, right?
Wrong. The earth isnt stationary.
So depending on which direction we're going the beam is either a universal constant from a stationary point (speed of light minus earths velocity) or relative to its origin (speed of light plus earths velocity).
If I didn't misunderstand the theories of relativity completely, it's exactly that weird phenomenon those theories are based on.
The speed of light doesn't change, but the caracteristics of the light does. Something approaching you will have a blueshift, something travelling away from you will have a redshift, but the speed of light is the same no matter if the object emitting the light is travelling away from you or towards you.
I'll try to explain... (even though you probably understand what I mean, I don't think the rest of the ppl do, and even if they don't this explanation probably sucks enough to not make them understand anyway but I'll give it a try)
laser -> - - - - - - - [object]
1. The laser and the object standing still 2. The laser moving from the object 3. The laser moving towards the object
1. The laserbeam hits the object, the speed of light is c relative to both objects 2. The laserbeam hits the object, but something has changed. It's gone through a redshift, but the speed is the same - both to the laser and to the object 3. Same as in 2, but blueshift instead of redshift
In other words, the speed of light is to be the same both to a stationary object and to a 3rd party observer watching the scene from a different angle and maybe travelling at another speed. The fact that the speed of light is the same to a 3rd party observer that it is to the laser and the object is what the theories of relativity is based on, so you'll have to prove that to be wrong.
The thing is that the light has several different speeds at the same time, since it's observed to have the same relative speed no matter if you're moving towards, from or maybe at the same speed as the light source.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 10:19:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 10:19:52
Originally by: Nelisa Which is all well and good except it still doesnt solve the age old problem that photons must have mass because they can transfer their kinetic energy by colliding with matter.
Maybe, maybe not... it could also be because the energy photons are made of (if they are pure energy) is capable of interacting with matter somehow, maybe entering the kernel of an atom just a little, expanding it just a little bit, and as the atom closes itself and pushes the photon away it gets kinetic energy and travels in the other direction? Isn't atoms made out of matter interacting with the help of energy?
(I know too little about this stuff to be able to tell whether that's possible though, but hopefully you get my point...)
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 10:19:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 10:19:52
Originally by: Nelisa Which is all well and good except it still doesnt solve the age old problem that photons must have mass because they can transfer their kinetic energy by colliding with matter.
Maybe, maybe not... it could also be because the energy photons are made of (if they are pure energy) is capable of interacting with matter somehow, maybe entering the kernel of an atom just a little, expanding it just a little bit, and as the atom closes itself and pushes the photon away it gets kinetic energy and travels in the other direction? Isn't atoms made out of matter interacting with the help of energy?
(I know too little about this stuff to be able to tell whether that's possible though, but hopefully you get my point...)
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 10:20:00 -
[87]
I don't know a damn thing about this topic, really, but I refuse to believe its impossible to travel faster than light. There simply has to be a way of moving from point A to point B faster. Otherwise its going to be next to impossible to actually explore the galaxy, let alone the entire universe. Since that would be a huge disapointment, I think one day a way will be found to exceed the speed of light
Just wish it would be in my lifetime
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 10:20:00 -
[88]
I don't know a damn thing about this topic, really, but I refuse to believe its impossible to travel faster than light. There simply has to be a way of moving from point A to point B faster. Otherwise its going to be next to impossible to actually explore the galaxy, let alone the entire universe. Since that would be a huge disapointment, I think one day a way will be found to exceed the speed of light
Just wish it would be in my lifetime
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 10:27:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 10:51:47
Originally by: mahhy ...I refuse to believe its impossible to travel faster than light...
With current theories, you can travel very far very fast, but when you return you will have aged a LOT less than the ppl still left on earth (ie it will take a long time to an outside observer, but to you it will seem like the trip is over almost instantly if you travel almost at the speed of light). FTL travel would probably solve that problem, but it might also create new ones.
Light is like when there is a risk for a buffer overflow and you just cut a number to a certain value to stop everything from going crazy.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 10:27:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 10:51:47
Originally by: mahhy ...I refuse to believe its impossible to travel faster than light...
With current theories, you can travel very far very fast, but when you return you will have aged a LOT less than the ppl still left on earth (ie it will take a long time to an outside observer, but to you it will seem like the trip is over almost instantly if you travel almost at the speed of light). FTL travel would probably solve that problem, but it might also create new ones.
Light is like when there is a risk for a buffer overflow and you just cut a number to a certain value to stop everything from going crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |