Galaxies going faster than light ? [v.2]

river said:
the thing that is missing in all of this discussion ; is that NASA its self has discovered that either galaxies or something else is , is in fact travelling faster than the speed of light .

and the fact that NASA is admitting this ; since this institution tends to be more mainstream in its thinking than , outside the box thinking , should be taken more seriously than most posters have been.

NASA people are telling us something .
Click to expand...
You are almost a century behind the times, river. The theory of general relativity, which predicts this kind of motion by galaxies, was developed in 1915. The specific model that is used to model these galaxies was developed in the 1920s. This is novel to you, but not to astronomers.
 
Even if galaxies are expanding faster than light, we don't know what is causing this expansion or do we?

In my opinion general relativity is wrong because it's not compatible with quantum theory but I can wrong though.

This is what happens when abstract mathematics is equated with doing physics. Math isn't physics and therefore the conclusions arrived at using abstract math is wrong when it is applied to physics.
 
river said:
the thing that is missing in all of this discussion ; is that NASA its self has discovered that either galaxies or something else is , is in fact travelling faster than the speed of light .

and the fact that NASA is admitting this ; since this institution tends to be more mainstream in its thinking than , outside the box thinking , should be taken more seriously than most posters have been.

NASA people are telling us something .
Click to expand...
Riv, this is a non-issue. Always has been. Just Google super-luminal recession. It is a mundane part of Cosmological Expansion.

[ EDIT ] PhysBang said it better:

You are almost a century behind the times, river. The theory of general relativity, which predicts this kind of motion by galaxies, was developed in 1915. The specific model that is used to model these galaxies was developed in the 1920s. This is novel to you, but not to astronomers.
Click to expand...
Einstien's GR predicted superluminal expansion.
 
If you google for observable universe, you will discover that there are galaxies receding from us faster than light speed.

The light speed limit does not apply to apparent motion due to the expansion of the universe.
 
Mod Hat ― Welcome and warning

If you're looking for a thread with a similar title↗, this is its replacement.

Welcome, enjoy, and all that.

I would only note that we probably shouldn't repeat the prior episode. And, yes, I'm aware that note is halfway futile.

But, look, just file the reports and leave the potsherds be. It only took us a day and a half from our decision to act to bureaucratize our response, decide we weren't going to see any more advice from our colleagues, and move forward, and, well, yeah, thinks only kept tumbling downhill.

Spare yourselves.

Look, it's just the one time I skip out on the recordkeeping is the one time I will end up needing it. So, really, the less recordkeeping, the better.

Pulling eighty posts can make us grumpy.

In sparing yourselves, you'll also be sparing us just a bit.

Oh, right: Pseudoscience and crackpottery should consider itself warned. Putting the thread in Free Thoughts does not excuse anyone from any relevant necessity of being able to support an argument. Nor should you need such warning. Then again, here we are, so here you go, and now you know.

Thank ye.
 
If light was following a curved path, instead of a linear path, the distance traveled will increase. If we assume light was traveling in a line, but it was actually following an arc, it can look like C is being exceeded.

For example; 1 nautical mile = 1.1508 statute miles. When we travel on the ocean, distances in nautical miles takes into account the curvature of the earth. When we travel on land, we ignore the curvature. If we saw light traveling 1.1 times the speed of light, over one statute mile; on land, but it was really following the arc path of a nautical mile; on ocean, the speed will remain below the speed of light, even if the land traditions says more than the speed of light.

If you look at the horizon during sun sets, often the sun will get much larger because the light is bending and following a longer path. Is it possible that space gas and debris is causing diffraction? It seems unlikely the light can move millions of light years and avoid gas pockets adding nautical miles.

Maybe observation more than C, can be used to recalculate the concentration of sparse matter in space; assume refraction with the implied nautical miles.
 
Last edited:
wellwisher said:
If we assume light was traveling in a line, but it was actually following an arc, it can look like C is being exceeded.
Click to expand...
And if you erect a strawman you can knock it down easily - that probably makes you feel better.

For example; 1 nautical mile = 1.1508 statute miles. When we travel on the ocean, distances in nautical miles takes into account the curvature of the earth. When we travel on land, we ignore the curvature.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense.
What makes you think we "ignore the curvature"?
Why does being at sea mean we have account for curvature and have a new measurement?
What makes you think that a statute mile isn't good enough for use at sea? (I.e. WHY is the nm required to "account for curvature? Which is NOT why it's used).
We can use either unit on land or at sea: kilometres seem to get along fine whether wet or dry, is the metric system less sensitive to humidity?.
 
Dinosaur said:
If you google for observable universe, you will discover that there are galaxies receding from us faster than light speed.

The light speed limit does not apply to apparent motion due to the expansion of the universe.
Click to expand...

Really , never knew this .
 
river said:
so EINSTEIN is wrong .
Click to expand...

1) How do you figure (and about what?)
2) For the tools he had to work with... I don't think it's fair to say he was "wrong" at all. He got a helluva lot right without being able to observe it in any meaningful way.
 
Kittamaru said:
1) How do you figure (and about what?)
2) For the tools he had to work with... I don't think it's fair to say he was "wrong" at all. He got a helluva lot right without being able to observe it in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

but in the end he was wrong .

we have realised that further knowledge changes perspective .

and so it goes .
 
river: I'm sorry, but so what? This is an old argument.

Einstein built on works by his predecessors, and so have all the other physicists and mathematicians. Why do people have a problem with this?

If you have some conceptual issue with visualizing space expanding faster than c, stop watching videos and grasp the maths behind it.
 
Dr_Toad said:
river: I'm sorry, but so what? This is an old argument.

Einstein built on works by his predecessors, and so have all the other physicists and mathematicians. Why do people have a problem with this?

If you have some conceptual issue with visualizing space expanding faster than c, stop watching videos and grasp the maths behind it.
Click to expand...

So faster than the speed of light is old hat .
 
Good lord, man. Take a free online course from MIT or Oxford. Catch up some, then come back...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top