How about building a craft that travels backwards in time. You could push it along at minimal speed, and still get anywhere before you even left
Originally posted by: Rob9874
If we see a star burn out, but realize that since its 1 billion light years away, it actually happened 1 billion years ago, is that like going back in time? Could we then (use your sci-fi brains here) make a spacecraft that travels faster than the speed of light, and go 2000 light years away in a few minutes, then use a highly powerful telescope to see Jesus on Earth?
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
Well, we don't know that just yet. I mean, 100 yrs ago, we couldn't fly. When I say object, I meant matters be it physical or otherwise. As with the mere physics of an explosion, matters are expelled the fastest at detonation; with a force large enough to create the Big Bang, who's to say there weren't enough energy to move objects and matters FASTER than the speed of light?Originally posted by: clamum
The objects themselves don't move faster than light, cause nothing can, but the actual space between them is what is expanding.Originally posted by: cr4zymofo EDIT: here's what I think happens, could it be that when the Big Bang happens, objects were moving FASTER than light? And their momentum has slow down since then?
Because to move an object faster than light requires MORE THAN INFINITE power.
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Rob9874
If we see a star burn out, but realize that since its 1 billion light years away, it actually happened 1 billion years ago, is that like going back in time? Could we then (use your sci-fi brains here) make a spacecraft that travels faster than the speed of light, and go 2000 light years away in a few minutes, then use a highly powerful telescope to see Jesus on Earth?
How about building a craft that travels backwards in time. You could push it along at minimal speed, and still get anywhere before you even left
Originally posted by: fredtam
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
Well, we don't know that just yet. I mean, 100 yrs ago, we couldn't fly. When I say object, I meant matters be it physical or otherwise. As with the mere physics of an explosion, matters are expelled the fastest at detonation; with a force large enough to create the Big Bang, who's to say there weren't enough energy to move objects and matters FASTER than the speed of light?Originally posted by: clamum
The objects themselves don't move faster than light, cause nothing can, but the actual space between them is what is expanding.Originally posted by: cr4zymofo EDIT: here's what I think happens, could it be that when the Big Bang happens, objects were moving FASTER than light? And their momentum has slow down since then?
Because to move an object faster than light requires MORE THAN INFINITE power.
Seems you haven't been keeping up with things. There have been many experiments in which the speed of light is exceeded. The only problem is sending information or matter. The result of the big bang was niether. It was pure energy and as such may not abide by the same physics (or our current understanding of physics). Einstiens theories begin to break down when you approach the big bang, black wholes, and quite a few other things.
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: fredtam
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
Well, we don't know that just yet. I mean, 100 yrs ago, we couldn't fly. When I say object, I meant matters be it physical or otherwise. As with the mere physics of an explosion, matters are expelled the fastest at detonation; with a force large enough to create the Big Bang, who's to say there weren't enough energy to move objects and matters FASTER than the speed of light?Originally posted by: clamum
The objects themselves don't move faster than light, cause nothing can, but the actual space between them is what is expanding.Originally posted by: cr4zymofo EDIT: here's what I think happens, could it be that when the Big Bang happens, objects were moving FASTER than light? And their momentum has slow down since then?
Because to move an object faster than light requires MORE THAN INFINITE power.
Seems you haven't been keeping up with things. There have been many experiments in which the speed of light is exceeded. The only problem is sending information or matter. The result of the big bang was niether. It was pure energy and as such may not abide by the same physics (or our current understanding of physics). Einstiens theories begin to break down when you approach the big bang, black wholes, and quite a few other things.
Umm, what OBJECT was moved? An object is a thing made of matter. Move a flea faster than the speed of light, and you will have to use more than infinite energy. Where does this article contradict this?
Edit: Something to look at-
"Rel`a`tiv`ist´ic mass e`qua´tion
n. 1. (physics) an equation expressing the mass of an object as a function of its velocity: as the velocity v of an object increases, its mass m increases from its rest mass m0 according to the equation: m = m0/1 - v2/c2where c is the speed of light in a vacuum. If the speed of an object were to become equal to that of light, it can be seen that the mass would be infinite, from which it follows that nothing can accelerate up to or beyond the speed of light. "
Mass increases with velocity. To get precisely to the speed of light requires providing enough energy to create an infinite mass, which would require infinite energy. Imagine how much energy would be required to accelerate an infinite mass to a point where it would become greater than infinite.
Originally posted by: Triumph
"More than infinite"?
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Triumph
"More than infinite"?
Indeed. Which is so totally off the wall that it is an impossible concept.
BTW, the early universe was loaded with energy, which is subject to the same speed limit as light, which is energy anyway.
There is no speed limit regarding the expansion of the universe, at least that we know of. That is what happened with Inflation. The contents of the universe expanded with space early on, resulting in areas so far removed from each other that there has not been enough time elapsed for light to travel from one place to another. They are not causally connected.
Now WITHIN the universe objects cannot move relative to one another faster than light. If they did, then they would dissapear from sight, and the observable radius of the universe shrink. This is what is expected to happen with dark energy fueling an ever increasing rate of expansion.
Originally posted by: Daxxax
Originally posted by: fredtam
Let me try:
The light seen is in fact 13.5 billion years old. Galaxies/stars began to develop within the first 300 million years of the current universe. In less than a second the universe took shape and continued expanding from there. Objects near the edge will move at a faster rate than ones closer in. The light you are now seeing is from the very beginning of the "matter" universe. It would seem that if we were seeing light that was 13.5 billion years old that the galaxy would have aged another 13.5 billion years since but this light is from the very beginning of the galaxy itself. If i turn a flashlight on (lets say that was the beginning of the flashlight itself.) and allowed the light to travel to you 13.5 billion light years away when you finally see the light the flashlight is still only 13.5 billion years old.
As to the galaxy being that far away in such a little time the universe took shape in less than a second and was immediately filled with energy. Due to an imbalance between antimatter and matter the matter began to form within the first 300,000 years in the frorm of basic elements. Now that you gave matter you also have gravity. The matter particles began to clump forming big clouds of matter or early galaxies. Once there is enough hydrogen lumped together you start to get stars which in turn make other elements within the galaxy. This is happening in a region of space that is already a long way from our current region and continues to move farther away during the process.
That helps, I think I should pick up a book. Anyone know of any good ones that describe things like this in layman's terms?
Originally posted by: RevolutionNeo
Originally posted by: Daxxax
Originally posted by: fredtam
Let me try:
The light seen is in fact 13.5 billion years old. Galaxies/stars began to develop within the first 300 million years of the current universe. In less than a second the universe took shape and continued expanding from there. Objects near the edge will move at a faster rate than ones closer in. The light you are now seeing is from the very beginning of the "matter" universe. It would seem that if we were seeing light that was 13.5 billion years old that the galaxy would have aged another 13.5 billion years since but this light is from the very beginning of the galaxy itself. If i turn a flashlight on (lets say that was the beginning of the flashlight itself.) and allowed the light to travel to you 13.5 billion light years away when you finally see the light the flashlight is still only 13.5 billion years old.
As to the galaxy being that far away in such a little time the universe took shape in less than a second and was immediately filled with energy. Due to an imbalance between antimatter and matter the matter began to form within the first 300,000 years in the frorm of basic elements. Now that you gave matter you also have gravity. The matter particles began to clump forming big clouds of matter or early galaxies. Once there is enough hydrogen lumped together you start to get stars which in turn make other elements within the galaxy. This is happening in a region of space that is already a long way from our current region and continues to move farther away during the process.
That helps, I think I should pick up a book. Anyone know of any good ones that describe things like this in layman's terms?
A good book to read about Big Bang would be
A Brief History of Time by Steven Hawkings, it is kind of laymens but it does require time and thought (but you wont get a book that doesnt require thought on this subject matter). That's the best book that I have read about this subject, there are a lot of other authors on this subject but they become too technical too quick, or just too incoherent to follow.
Originally posted by: Daxxax
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Triumph
"More than infinite"?
Indeed. Which is so totally off the wall that it is an impossible concept.
BTW, the early universe was loaded with energy, which is subject to the same speed limit as light, which is energy anyway.
There is no speed limit regarding the expansion of the universe, at least that we know of. That is what happened with Inflation. The contents of the universe expanded with space early on, resulting in areas so far removed from each other that there has not been enough time elapsed for light to travel from one place to another. They are not causally connected.
Now WITHIN the universe objects cannot move relative to one another faster than light. If they did, then they would dissapear from sight, and the observable radius of the universe shrink. This is what is expected to happen with dark energy fueling an ever increasing rate of expansion.
I always thought that when the big bang occurred the universe expanded like a balloon with the outer edges stretching away from each other at different speeds. I haven't studied this stuff since high school. Need to pick up a book written recently regarding this kind of science.
Thanks for the info everyone.