Im watching a t.v. show called "The Universe" and it said that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. What i'm asking is, is this true?? (note: don't pull Einstien out of your ass, think about it, lol. ):)

:puke::shake: <---------dont puke while having sex

Ok you can use Einstien, but you can understand why I said that, hopefully (sorry about spelling)

Im watching a t.v. show called "The Universe" and it said that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. What i'm asking is, is this true?? (note: don't pull Einstien out of your ass, think about it, lol. ):)

:puke::shake: <---------dont puke while having sex

Yes, it appears to be true. But be careful, it's easy to misunderstand. It's the SPACE between solid bodies that's expaning and there's no limitation on that. We're not talking about the stars and planets and gas clouds actually moving away from each other at that speed and their speed IS limited - just the empty space between them is "swelling" that fast.

Ok, well if space can go faster than the speen of light, and the enevitable end of the universe is going to be mtter ripped apart by the speed, then the matter would have to exeed the speed of light being the boundrie that keeps matter in existance. Right??? (sory about spelling) (and grammer)

Ok, well if space can go faster than the speen of light, and the enevitable end of the universe is going to be mtter ripped apart by the speed, then the matter would have to exeed the speed of light being the boundrie that keeps matter in existance. Right??? (sory about spelling) (and grammer)

No, the speed of matter isn't affected by the expansion of space. it just appears that way to us. Space could expand at 10 times the speed of light (we really don't know why or how it's expanding - just that it is) and matter could still move at plain, ordinary speeds. In other words, the speeds of each are completely independent.

No again. The best current guess for the end of the universe is what's called "heat death." It just means that once the stars have used up all the avaible fuel, the energy they radiate will eventually be distributed equally across the entire universe. In other words, everything will be at the same temperature so there is no energy left to perform any work.

Ok thx, im just a stupid person going way over my head. But i like to think. Also, I just like to think that things can go faser than light.

1) Can light exselerate faster that what we know as its fastest possble speed

Ok thx, im just a stupid person going way over my head. But i like to think. Also, I just like to think that things can go faser than light.

1) Can light exselerate faster that what we know as its fastest possble speed

You're welcome, and no need to apologize - we're all learning all the time. :)

No the speed of light, commonly just called "c" always travels at the same speed in a vacuum and cannot be made to go any faster. It one of those "that's just how it is" things. ;)

Thx for reassuing me.

Ok scence you are so smart I have a couple of questions for you (you dont have to answer)

1) Just because light is the fastest thing we know of, that dosnt men there are other things faster dose it

2)Is dark matter tangeable, or is it an energy

3)What are zercon(spelling??) crystles

Thx for reassuing me.

Ok scence you are so smart I have a couple of questions for you (you dont have to answer)

1) Just because light is the fastest thing we know of, that dosnt men there are other things faster dose it

Light and other forms of electromagnetic energy (UV, microwaves, radio/TV waves, X-rays, etc.) appear to be the only things that can move that fast. Einstein really has to come into play for moment because he was the first to show - and many others have confirmed it - that nothing made of mass could travel faster because it would take all the energy in the universe just to move a speck of dust at that speed.

2)Is dark matter tangeable, or is it an energy It's much too early in the gane to say exactly what dark matter is and it really hasn't yet been proven to even exist. BUT it's assumed to be tangible matter (real "stuff") in order to explain what we see happening.

3)What are zercon(spelling??) crystles

I'm guessing you mean zircon - the clear ones are sold as substitutes for diamonds. They are mineral crystals that are made of zirconium silicate. The chemical formula for that is ZrSi04. It's actually a fairly common chemical and is found practically all around the world - more in some places with large deposits, of course. It's also very hard and is used in industry as a grinding agent.

Wow thank you very much!!

O and the reason that I asked about the Zircon is that my chem. class is tring (not being sucessfull) to derterman the h2o "footprint" contained inside.

Also, I have one more question about dark matter, well 2,

1) How is it created (if you dont know dont bother, Ill try to reraserch it myself but im bad at that)

2) Is it true that someone is making it?


Just a note; if you can affect somthing with a magnate, but you cant physically move it, would that object still be conciderd tangable???

Wow thank you very much!! You are very welcome. :)

O and the reason that I asked about the Zircon is that my chem. class is tring (not being sucessfull) to derterman the h2o "footprint" contained inside.

Also, I have one more question about dark matter, well 2,

1) How is it created (if you dont know dont bother, Ill try to reraserch it myself but im bad at that)

You can try, but you won't find anything. That's because no one knows how it was created OR if it even exists. As I said before. it's just something that was invented to try and explain what we see happening in space. The motions of the stars and galaxies seem to be affected by something that we can't see. So they called it "dark (invisible) matter."

2) Is it true that someone is making it? Well, someone made up the idea, but that's all. We don't even know for sure if it's really there - it just seems to be.


Just a note; if you can affect somthing with a magnate, but you cant physically move it, would that object still be conciderd tangable???

Not completely sure I follow this question. Something has to tangible (real) in order to be affected by a magnet. Saying something is "intangible" means it doesn't physically exist. What did you have in mind - some specific idea?

Is a radio wave tangible or intangible?

Is a radio wave tangible or intangible?

Does it physically exist? Can it be physically detected, measured, directed, reflected and refracted?

An even better question would be, is heat tangible or intangible. (Of course it's tangible.)

Heat is tangable??? Huh i thought tangable ment you can touch it

http://www.answers.com/intangible&r=67

in·tan·gi·ble (ĭn-tăn'jə-bəl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Incapable of being perceived by the senses.
2. Incapable of being realized or defined.
3. Incorporeal.

Pick a definition and stick with it, genius. And I do mean you, Read-Only.

http://www.answers.com/intangible&r=67



Pick a definition and stick with it, genius. And I do mean you, Read-Only.

Why, thank you. While I wouldn't claim to be a genius by a long shot, at least you've publicly acknowledged that I must be somewhat smarter than you (never saw anyone come even close to calling you a genius).

I pick all three - and at least one of them agrees with what I said. So, what's your problem anyway??

You guys have about a day and a half before [Q] and Walter Wagner discover this thread. This is a hot topic over in Cosmology.

I have the same problem with this explanation that I had with theirs, which was much more complicated.

I measure velocity in a simple way. I learned it at Caltech so it's probably the right way. I measure the distance between two objects at two different times and divide the change in distance by the elapsed time. You can talk all you want about space expanding. But at the end of this experiment, which for ease of computation we'll say lasted for one year, I find that object B is two light-years farther away from object A than it was at the start. I do the division and discover that it has been moving at twice the speed of light. I don't really care what you say about the space between them, the bloody object has moved at the speed of 2c.

You guys have about a day and a half before [Q] and Walter Wagner discover this thread. This is a hot topic over in Cosmology.

I have the same problem with this explanation that I had with theirs, which was much more complicated.

I measure velocity in a simple way. I learned it at Caltech so it's probably the right way. I measure the distance between two objects at two different times and divide the change in distance by the elapsed time. You can talk all you want about space expanding. But at the end of this experiment, which for ease of computation we'll say lasted for one year, I find that object B is two light-years farther away from object A than it was at the start. I do the division and discover that it has been moving at twice the speed of light. I don't really care what you say about the space between them, the bloody object has moved at the speed of 2c.

Nope, sorry, Fraggle - it hasn't. You are thinking in pure Euclidean terms and that doesn't apply at all in this case.

I'll patiently wait until they show up here and see what they have to say.

When we think of matter moving, we think of it moving through spacetime. The key figure of acceleration, and for a better understanding, is that spacetime is now moving through matter... or to be more precise, dragging matter along with it. In this sense, matter hasn't accelerated, but rather the environment around it.

When we think of matter moving, we think of it moving through spacetime. The key figure of acceleration, and for a better understanding, is that spacetime is now moving through matter... or to be more precise, dragging matter along with it. In this sense, matter hasn't accelerated, but rather the environment around it.

Correct. That's exactly the way I understand it. All "normal" situations do not apply in this instance - in just the same way that all our "common physical laws" break down inside the event horizon of a black hole.

Correct. Theoretically, when you pass the event horizon, spacetime becomes so warped and twisted, they actually shift roles. Time will become ''spacelike,'' and space will become ''timelike'', meaning that we would begin to move through space without recourse, and through time backwards and forwards, like we would have done in space... But things become accelerated, and space (being timelike), accelerates, and drags the observer to the speed of light.

That's because light is traveling through space. Think of a photon has a dust particle and the space is the wind. The dust particles move slower then the wind that carries it. The photon moves slower than the space that carries it.

That's because light is traveling through space. Think of a photon has a dust particle and the space is the wind. The dust particles move slower then the wind that carries it. The photon moves slower than the space that carries it.

Sorry, Klippy, but we can't make that comparison. There's no relationship in those situations - sort of like comparing oranges and hurricanes.:)

Indeed, wind has an effect on dust particles but space doesn't effect the velocity of light - it will remain always unchanged in a vacuum. The path it takes can be curved by a gravitational field and thereby causing it to take longer to reach a destination - but even that is just because it's path became longer - not that it's speed changed.

Sorry, Klippy, but we can't make that comparison. There's no relationship in those situations - sort of like comparing oranges and hurricanes.:)

Indeed, wind has an effect on dust particles but space doesn't effect the velocity of light - it will remain always unchanged in a vacuum. The path it takes can be curved by a gravitational field and thereby causing it to take longer to reach a destination - but even that is just because it's path became longer - not that it's speed changed.

Still doesn't mean I'm wrong.
What I meant with the comparison was dust is being moved without expending energy. The energy moving the dust particle is coming from the space around it and moving the dust.

I believe photons are very small particles that are emitted in a wave pattern. So the photon or photons are both a wave and a mass. By doing this the photon can transfer energy without energy lost.

Yes, it appears to be true. But be careful, it's easy to misunderstand. It's the SPACE between solid bodies that's expaning and there's no limitation on that. We're not talking about the stars and planets and gas clouds actually moving away from each other at that speed and their speed IS limited - just the empty space between them is "swelling" that fast.

Having you mentioned this, isn't it theoretically possible to manipulate this action. This is some what off topic, but couldn't you manipulate this to travel between bodies at pretty much any speed you want or at least could manage.

Though thinking about it more, unless you could reverse what you caused to expand or decrease, it would set things out of its natural order and be potentially disastrous, at least so it seems.

Having you mentioned this, isn't it theoretically possible to manipulate this action. This is some what off topic, but couldn't you manipulate this to travel between bodies at pretty much any speed you want or at least could manage.

No, not at all. How could you possibly accomplish such a thing with two galaxies, for example? And you certainly cannot vary the speed of light. That's THE one thing that is constant in the normal universe. ("Normal universe" is taken to exclude the interior of anomolies like black holes where all physical laws break down.)

Though thinking about it more, unless you could reverse what you caused to expand or decrease, it would set things out of its natural order and be potentially disastrous, at least so it seems.

Sorry, don't quite follow since it's physically impossible cause any expansion or contraction in the first place.

No, not at all. How could you possibly accomplish such a thing with two galaxies, for example? And you certainly cannot vary the speed of light. That's THE one thing that is constant in the normal universe. ("Normal universe" is taken to exclude the interior of anomolies like black holes where all physical laws break down.)

The speed of light can change but it's variable to the observer/s.

You know the thought experiment Einstein did. He said two spaceships one stands still and the other going close to the speed of light. One would think the person in the spaceship would see the light pass him as if it was in slow motion but what really happens is that the light still passes him at the speed of light. That is because the space carrying the photon has now adjusted it values to the same values has the space craft thus enabling such a reaction to occur.

The time it took the beam of light to reach the ship would not be the same. It would take longer for the light to reach the ship.

The speed of light can change but it's variable to the observer/s.

You know the thought experiment Einstein did. He said two spaceships one stands still and the other going close to the speed of light. One would think the person in the spaceship would see the light pass him as if it was in slow motion but what really happens is that the light still passes him at the speed of light. That is because the space carrying the photon has now adjusted it values to the same values has the space craft thus enabling such a reaction to occur.

The time it took the beam of light to reach the ship would not be the same. It would take longer for the light to reach the ship.

No, that's not how the thought experiment went. In fact, it's rather the opposite. The fast ship experiences what is known as time dialation and lenght contraction - and it's precisely those physical changes that cause the speed of light to be measured the same as it is for the stationary ship.

Is it not theory that the laws of Physics might not be able to explain the order of the universe as we understand it to be?

Is it not theory that the laws of Physics might not be able to explain the order of the universe as we understand it to be?

Our current level of understanding the order of the the universe is explained quite well by the established laws of physics.

There are many unanswered questions, of course, and there quite likely always will be. However, there's no indication or reason to believe that any of the laws of physics will ever change.

No, that's not how the thought experiment went. In fact, it's rather the opposite. The fast ship experiences what is known as time dialation and lenght contraction - and it's precisely those physical changes that cause the speed of light to be measured the same as it is for the stationary ship.

I am aware of time dilation and length contraction but that has nothing to do with what I was saying so I just left it out.

What I meant was the spaceships cover space. The spaceship is moving at close to the speed of light is covering a lot of space thanks to the speed of the ship and time dilation occurs between the two observers. The stationary ship and the moving ship.

But I do not beleive this has any effects on the speed of light itself because time dilation is caused by interaction of space. The speed of light would still be going the speed of light to both observers but the time it takes the light to reach the ship would not be the same because the ship too is moving.

And because the ship is moving at an incredible speed the light does not reach him like it would if he were not moving. There would be a lag time for the speed of light which is going the speed of light to the stationary observer to reach the moving observer. But once the light enters the space of the moving observer the light would take up the quality of the space of the ship and move at the speed of light and pass the ship almost instantaneously as if the ship was not moving at all.

Sorry, don't quite follow since it's physically impossible cause any expansion or contraction in the first place.

As of right now, but it was once thought that to travel to the moon was impossible as well. I'm just saying, that if space is expanding like the way we think, than maybe we could some how manipulate that process.

I am aware of time dilation and length contraction but that has nothing to do with what I was saying so I just left it out.

What I meant was the spaceships cover space. The spaceship is moving at close to the speed of light is covering a lot of space thanks to the speed of the ship and time dilation occurs between the two observers. The stationary ship and the moving ship.

But I do not beleive this has any effects on the speed of light itself because time dilation is caused by interaction of space. The speed of light would still be going the speed of light to both observers but the time it takes the light to reach the ship would not be the same because the ship too is moving.

And because the ship is moving at an incredible speed the light does not reach him like it would if he were not moving. There would be a lag time for the speed of light which is going the speed of light to the stationary observer to reach the moving observer. But once the light enters the space of the moving observer the light would take up the quality of the space of the ship and move at the speed of light and pass the ship almost instantaneously as if the ship was not moving at all.

Yes, that's correct, Klippy. That "taking up the quality of space" you mentioned is what's known as "frame of reference." Keep in mind that when talking about frames of reference and relaticistic speeds, the speed of light never varies to any observers.

Regardles of their position or speed, they all always see and mesure light traveling at the same velocity. That trips many people up because they want to use added or subtractive speed. For example, if they were in a ship traveling at 0.9 c directly toward an approaching beam of light, they think they should measure that beam closing the distance between them at 1.9 c, as would be the case between two vehicles on a highway.

As of right now, but it was once thought that to travel to the moon was impossible as well. I'm just saying, that if space is expanding like the way we think, than maybe we could some how manipulate that process.

Yes, I do understand what you're saying but you're talking about something that we don't even have a clue about. No one has any idea why space is expanding - much less how. By comparison, we know what keeps the planets in motion but we're in no position to use that to alter their course.

Yea, I wasn't saying that we could do right now, or even estimating a date. I was just putting that out there; I thought it sounded interesting.

Yes, that's correct, Klippy. That "taking up the quality of space" you mentioned is what's known as "frame of reference." Keep in mind that when talking about frames of reference and relaticistic speeds, the speed of light never varies to any observers.

Regardles of their position or speed, they all always see and mesure light traveling at the same velocity. That trips many people up because they want to use added or subtractive speed. For example, if they were in a ship traveling at 0.9 c directly toward an approaching beam of light, they think they should measure that beam closing the distance between them at 1.9 c, as would be the case between two vehicles on a highway.

Yeah i know that.

I'm saying that a moving object or a person has their own space because their mass takes up space. Space is an equilibrium with time so the two interact to equalization.

With your car example the car takes up more mass than you do so the car becomes the alpha space/time especially when the car is moving.

Now you said the the car with an incoming car both projecting light through it's beams then the speed of light would still be the same. Yes that's correct I don't see how the two spaces can interact with one another. In a manner that the speed of light is increased.

But with the spaceship example there is a gray zone. It's the space that extends the one ship that is at standstill and the ship that is moving close to the speed of light. And the gray zone is the area between the two and the beam of light shot out from the standstill ship. The speed of the light is the speed of light to the standstill observer but does not become the speed of light to the moving ship until the light reaches the ships space zone.

V = (-)-840 = Neutron
> x 12^7 :m:

V = (-)-840 = Neutron
> x 12^7 :m:

I agree, except I think :m: is a constant.

But with the spaceship example there is a gray zone. It's the space that extends the one ship that is at standstill and the ship that is moving close to the speed of light. And the gray zone is the area between the two and the beam of light shot out from the standstill ship. The speed of the light is the speed of light to the standstill observer but does not become the speed of light to the moving ship until the light reaches the ships space zone.

Last edited by Klippymitch : 09-23-07 at 09:59 PM.

Klippymitch
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Klippymitch
Find More Posts by Klippymitch
Add Klippymitch to Your Buddy List


Whatever...

''I agree, except I think is a constant.''
Reletivity v.s commom sense

a^2+b^2= c^2
This is a vector spactime.