It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# 92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

page: 20
42
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 03:01 PM
Just been for a bath and had a bath brain moment (sounds funny I know lol).

Is speed relative to the nearest object (atom, particle, planet etc)?

Let's say we walk 4mph. We say we're walking 4mph. But in fact we have the spin of the earth and the orbit around the sun and the speed we are travelling through the universe to add to it as well.

So let's say we are on a planet travelling near the speed of light. To us it would mean, if we are sitting we are, to ourselves, motionless. Does that mean a person can travel near the speed of light on or near that planet as speed would be relative to the nearest object?

If that could be possible then that could explain the time/age difference for our universe.
edit on 280328/12/1515 by TerryDon79 because: Spelling

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:56 PM

Speed is relative to the observer in your scenario the person would have no clue they were moving because he can only base his observation on the planet. To him it would look no different then any other planet. Also in relativity you don't add velocity its a bit counter intuitive. For example if I'm on a ship traveling near the speed of light ( nothing with mass can travel at eh speed of light only get close.) and I shine a flashlight out the window I will see that light leave me at the speed of light but something strange happens when another observer is watching me he will see the light slowly moving in front of my ship as the beam would travel at the speed of light and my ship follows closely behind. This is part id the time dialaition for me on the ship my clock is running alot slower.which means from my perspective light is traveling 299 792 458 m / s.

This is why people have difficulties graspong relativity but its in the name wvwryrhing is relative to the observer.
edit on 12/28/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 05:03 PM

originally posted by: dragonridr

Speed is relative to the observer in your scenario the person would have no clue they were moving because he can only base his observation on the planet. To him it would look no different then any other planet.

That's kind of what I was saying. So with that it should be possible for matter to travel faster than the speed of light.

Edit: If you're on a mass going 2mph slower than the speed of light and you walk in the direction it is travelling at 4mph you are, technically, going faster than the speed of light.
edit on 280628/12/1515 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 06:04 PM

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: dragonridr

Speed is relative to the observer in your scenario the person would have no clue they were moving because he can only base his observation on the planet. To him it would look no different then any other planet.

That's kind of what I was saying. So with that it should be possible for matter to travel faster than the speed of light.

Edit: If you're on a mass going 2mph slower than the speed of light and you walk in the direction it is travelling at 4mph you are, technically, going faster than the speed of light.

That's just it you can't there is no technically your clock would be slower meaning to even an outside observer you would be under the speed of light. Nothing in the universe under any scenario will move faster then light.

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 06:18 PM

Well it sounded good in my head lol

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 06:21 PM

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Well it sounded good in my head lol

I know problem is time dilation becomes involved time will never allow you to exceed the speed of light . Time will continue to slow the faster you get it has to in order for light to maintain its speed from your perspective.
edit on 12/28/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:53 PM

Nothing in the universe under any scenario will move faster then light.

..and you are saying it because you have measured EVERYTHING that is moving in the Universe... OR... because some theory told you that ???

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:00 PM

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Well it sounded good in my head lol

I know problem is time dilation becomes involved time will never allow you to exceed the speed of light . Time will continue to slow the faster you get it has to in order for light to maintain its speed from your perspective.

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:16 PM

Same here
I have smoke coming out of my ears

I think they are just making these things up.

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:20 PM

originally posted by: piney

Same here
I have smoke coming out of my ears

I think they are just making these things up.

Hahahaha

I don't think any of us are "making these things up".

It's called science. Maybe you've heard of it? Google will tell you what it is.

/sarcasm

posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:09 AM

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Well it sounded good in my head lol

I know problem is time dilation becomes involved time will never allow you to exceed the speed of light . Time will continue to slow the faster you get it has to in order for light to maintain its speed from your perspective.

However to you the traveller, yourself and everything on the journey would be moving at an apparent normal rate of time. A time frame of a few years to yourself could be decades for those outside of your dilation. The rest of the universe would appear to become faster and stretched relatively speaking.

posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:28 AM
I have read most of the posts in this thread (perhaps I missed a couple), and there are a number of insightful ones. However, there seem to be several concepts which seem to have either been overlooked or not taken properly into consideration...

1. We don't know what the "edge" of the universe truly looks like. - Historically mankind's scientific quest to understand the universe has been an effort wherein he finds an answer and then goes in search of the proverbial question. That is to say, we theorize what constitutes the boundary of the universe and then go in search of it. This is a paradoxical scientific trap. To define the 'size / diameter' of the universe one must be able to discretely quantify what constitutes an 'edge' first. In order to discretely define an edge one must be able to describe the environments on both sides of this edge. Someday mankind may be able to describe and quantify one side of this edge, but not the other. Therefore it is not truly an edge to the universe, but a virtual limit to our understanding, a boundary which represents nothing more than our mental capacity beyond which there is something else.

2. Mankind has no capability to understand the laws which governed the primordial soup which existed prior to the Big Bang. - The true boundary of the universe is likely not a hard boundary, a line in the sand or a light switch from dark to light, but rather a much larger 'zone' where the laws as we understand them gradually change. We will never see the proverbial 'edge' to the bubble we call the universe, but rather we will begin to see an ever increasing region where the laws we use to describe things apply less and less, until they no longer apply at all. Consequently, the expansion of the universe could very well defy things like the speed of light (C), mass having meaning and energy being finite.

3. Universal expansion, conceptually, has two (2) relative perspectives. - All scientific observations of the universe can only be gained from one of these perspectives (ours), from inside the universe itself, as we understand it to be. However, there is another perspective, and this is from an extra-universe perspective. All of the laws mankind has discovered describing the universe likely do not apply, or apply in a far different manner, from this extra-universe perspective. Therefore, even if we could observe things from this perspective we would have no way to describe or quantify them.

Ergo, concepts such as time and relative motion likely have little or no meaning outside our observable universe.

edit on 12/29/2015 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:47 AM

Then there's that whole nagging mass and energy component thingie...

On the scales being discussed in this thread, time dilation (in that context) is pretty much irrelevant. Concepts such as twin paradox and the like are eclipsed by concepts such as curvature and red/blue shift.

posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:49 AM

You are the expert, tell us

There are plenty of better qualified experts on this site, but I’ll do my best.

The oldest star in Our milky way is 13,7 billion years old. So how many billion years differ really?

As I said, several billion. The Wikipedia article you quote gives a figure of between about 7bn and 9.5bn years for the age of the ‘thin disc’ that, together with the mass of the Galactic centre, makes up the spiral formation we know as the Milky Way.

Yes, there are some old stars in the Galactic halo — that is, the portion of space within which the Galaxy is found — that appear to be almost as old as the Universe itself. But they are far away from the Galactic disc, out in the great emptiness above and beyond the spiral arms. They are Population II stars, which means they must have emerged from the first great era of star formation, a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

At the time they formed, the Milky Way was mostly dust, gradually getting lumpier. The grand spiral Galaxy we live in appeared much later, during the second era of stellar formation. It is full of Population I stars, metal-rich and bright-burning, and they are still young. They comprise the bulk of the Milky Way in terms of stellar mass, and the youngest stars are near the Galactic centre.

How old is the Milky Way? I say we start counting at the point it became the Milky Way. That’s when the accretion disk grew spiral arms and lit up. About eight and a half billion years ago.

From the same article (my emphasis):

The Milky Way began as one or several small overdensities in the mass distribution in the Universe shortly after the Big Bang. Some of these overdensities were the seeds of globular clusters in which the oldest remaining stars in what is now the Milky Way formed. These stars and clusters now comprise the stellar halo of the Milky Way. Within a few billion years of the birth of the first stars, the mass of the Milky Way was large enough so that it was spinning relatively quickly. Due to conservation of angular momentum, this led the gaseous interstellar medium to collapse from a roughly spheroidal shape to a disk. Therefore, later generations of stars formed in this spiral disk. Most younger stars, including the Sun, are observed to be in the disk.

Yes, I hope so too. It’s a bit technical.

edit on 29/12/15 by Astyanax because: of shucks.

posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 01:50 PM

John333, Your opinion is only correct if you believe that faster than light travel isn't possible. As that is also just an opinion you may have to recalculate

As you rightly stated, all we have is a 'best guess' based on our current knowledge.
Previous mis-conceptions included 'man cannot travel faster than a horse' and 'man cannot travel faster than the speed of sound'.
We only know what we know at the time.
In 10, 20 or 50 years time people could be laughing at our belief that faster than light travel is impossible.
Even magnetism can't be explained fully. Surely the tiny magnet gripping onto the fridge must fall off after a few years of using up it's energy! No. That sucker will stay there for hundreds / thousands of years. Just because we can't explain something yet, doesn't mean what we think is true is true, and conversely, just because we believe something to be true doesn't mean it is.
edit on 29-12-2015 by uktorah because: Extra stuff

www.techtimes.com...

What I'm trying to convey is the fact that the fastest 'thing' we know about is light, or more generally light waves. It used to be horses and sound. When the next discovery is made, that will be the next fastest thing. Is that so hard to comprehend?
edit on 29-12-2015 by uktorah because: Additional info

edit on 29-12-2015 by uktorah because: Oh, even more stuff

edit on 29-12-2015 by uktorah because: Found an online link

posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:53 PM
What they are trying to identify as our universe's size is more like our local universal cell. The thing they call the big bang, is when our universal cell began to cavitate.

posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 04:28 AM

Is it possible that, since we can see 13.8 billion years into the past, that we can glance 79 billion years into the future?

That may explain the illogical diameter of the universe in comparison to is theorized life span.

posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 05:07 AM
ps my last sentence was aimed at everyone who believes light speed is the fastest speed in the universe, not at John333 personally. Apologies if it read that way.
edit on 30-12-2015 by uktorah because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:35 AM

originally posted by: ObjectiveJohn

Is it possible that, since we can see 13.8 billion years into the past, that we can glance 79 billion years into the future?

That may explain the illogical diameter of the universe in comparison to is theorized life span.

amazing theory!

posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 01:21 PM

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: dragonridr

Speed is relative to the observer in your scenario the person would have no clue they were moving because he can only base his observation on the planet. To him it would look no different then any other planet.

That's kind of what I was saying. So with that it should be possible for matter to travel faster than the speed of light.

Edit: If you're on a mass going 2mph slower than the speed of light and you walk in the direction it is travelling at 4mph you are, technically, going faster than the speed of light.

That's just it you can't there is no technically your clock would be slower meaning to even an outside observer you would be under the speed of light. Nothing in the universe under any scenario will move faster then light.

There is no proof that nothing in the universe will move faster than light. As humans, we have our knowledge based on our own observations. The universe is much more diverse than that, but we base our calculations on what we call light waves. There are / will be other things we haven't discovered that can travel faster than light.
They are just light waves. Once we find something faster we'll base calculations on that.
Jeez, so closed-minded!
edit on 31-12-2015 by uktorah because: (no reason given)

top topics

42