It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 27
42
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: uktorah
a reply to: Astyanax
So photons travel at the speed of light. This contradicts known physics and proves my point that all we have to go on is what we currently know.
And, no, the maths is only elegant if it fits in with what we are told.
Einstein also told us clocks work at different speeds if we travel faster, which he seems to prove. So, the speed of light must also be able to run faster or slower. It can be bent, distorted, whatever you want to call it, so is not a constant.
Therefore it can be increased, decreased, altered, therefore energy (in the form of atoms we haven't discovered yet) could travel faster than the speed of light.


How does it contradict known physics?




posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: uktorah


So photons travel at the speed of light. This contradicts known physics and proves my point that all we have to go on is what we currently know.

Contradicts known physics? Photons are particles of light. At what speed do you think they ought to be travelling, if not at the speed of light?

The Special Theory of Relativity has been 'known physics' for over a hundred years. The invariant speed of light was known much earlier, being first calculated, based on Maxwell's equations, in 1857. Countless measurements since then have established and reconfirmed its value.

It may surprise you to learn that there is no physics, not even simple Newtonian mechanics, that rests on stronger foundations of theory and fact than the Theory of Relativity.

What it does contradict, though, are our intuitions about how the material world is supposed to behave. I think that's what you mean when you say it 'contradicts known physics'. But if science contradicts our intuitions, well, so much the worse for our intuitions; reality doesn't care what we think.

You do realize, I am sure, that every single physicist on Earth today accepts Relativity as true. Even those who speculate otherwise, such as your handsome young Belgian professor and the formulators of MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) accept that Relativity fits the data. That's an awful lot of clever people believing in what you say contradicts known physics. Do you honestly think that they can all be deluded?

By the way, I hope you understand that I am not merely airing my own opinions, or offering you my personal interpretation of physics. 'Known physics', right out of the textbooks, is the only stock I deal in on threads like this. And while everybody (except John333) makes mistakes, I'm pretty sure I haven't misled readers here concerning Relativity.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Just had another thought (I know they are sometimes dumb lol).

We have this thing where we can't travel faster than light (another thread) because the closer you get the more mass is and the more power is needed to propel said mass to the point of infinite.

Well, I remember a theory of how to "travel faster than light" by not actually going that fast at all. It was basically bending space time.

Imagine a piece of paper. You want to go from one corner to another. Fastest way is a straight line. With bending space time you fold space so both corners are within a relative short distance from each other (is that a temporal wormhole?).

So what if, when the Big Bang happened, there were infinite bendings and foldings of space time so everything could expand everywhere while still keeping speed to below the speed of light?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




So what if, when the Big Bang happened, there were infinite bendings and foldings of space time so everything could expand everywhere while still keeping speed to below the speed of light?

That's pretty much what's being talked about. But from the other direction. Space is getting larger at faster than the speed of light but nothing is moving at faster than the speed of light.
edit on 1/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79




So what if, when the Big Bang happened, there were infinite bendings and foldings of space time so everything could expand everywhere while still keeping speed to below the speed of light?

That's pretty much what's being talked about. But from the other direction. Space is getting larger at faster than the speed of light but nothing is moving at faster than the speed of light.


That's fine then lol.

Another theory I have about this is (still the same thing but in more detail), imagine a small puddle, that's our universe 13bn years ago. With the folding and bending the matter would appear OUTSIDE of the puddle. Then a few more "drops" and expansion and what was outside the puddle is now part of it again, ad infinitum.

That could certainly explain age to size difference in my views.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79




So what if, when the Big Bang happened, there were infinite bendings and foldings of space time so everything could expand everywhere while still keeping speed to below the speed of light?

That's pretty much what's being talked about. But from the other direction. Space is getting larger at faster than the speed of light but nothing is moving at faster than the speed of light.


That's fine then lol.

Another theory I have about this is (still the same thing but in more detail), imagine a small puddle, that's our universe 13bn years ago. With the folding and bending the matter would appear OUTSIDE of the puddle. Then a few more "drops" and expansion and what was outside the puddle is now part of it again, ad infinitum.

That could certainly explain age to size difference in my views.


Sort of an extension of your idea - listen to what Leonard Susskind says (jump to 47:00 if you don't listen to the entire lecture) about information. He's talking about black holes, but why not the universe?




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79




So what if, when the Big Bang happened, there were infinite bendings and foldings of space time so everything could expand everywhere while still keeping speed to below the speed of light?

That's pretty much what's being talked about. But from the other direction. Space is getting larger at faster than the speed of light but nothing is moving at faster than the speed of light.


That's fine then lol.

Another theory I have about this is (still the same thing but in more detail), imagine a small puddle, that's our universe 13bn years ago. With the folding and bending the matter would appear OUTSIDE of the puddle. Then a few more "drops" and expansion and what was outside the puddle is now part of it again, ad infinitum.

That could certainly explain age to size difference in my views.


Sort of an extension of your idea - listen to what Leonard Susskind says (jump to 47:00 if you don't listen to the entire lecture) about information. He's talking about black holes, but why not the universe?



I listened from the 47min mark.

The room analogy I don't like. If a closed room is full of pixels it can't expand yet we know our universe is expanding. That said, I believe the balloon model of our universe makes sense, as long as the balloon is closed and fills itself with matter inside it recreating itself on the smallest level.

The idea of the pond and the fish and water I have problems with. His analogy would imply we are getting new "stuff" from outside our universe. That's how it sounded to me anyway.

I'm not a physicist or scientist or anything like that. I'm just some guy who has some ideas sometimes (albeit some daft ones). So my understanding would, of course, be less than his anyway. My views are purely my opinion based with what facts I know (thought I should put that out there before I get myself into trouble lol)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage





Space is getting larger at faster than the speed of light but nothing is moving at faster than the speed of light.


I dont think Astyanax agrees With you. This is what she say:



That is exactly what happens to light when space expands. It doesn’t get older. It gets faster.


She is basically saying that the speed of light exapands whit the expansion of Space, Meaning that the light does accelerate proportional to the expansion of Space. Light Waves are being streched as Space expands.

The way i see it.... the light could only be streched within the volume of Space that the light has already passed throgh. Light would not strech in the volume of Space it has not reached yet.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Wait what???????? Light always travels at C. Thefee is no it moves faster as space expands if anything logic would say it allows down. However we know that not to be the case through observation. Any theory that changes the speed of light is in direct contradiction with observations



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: spy66

Wait what???????? Light always travels at C. Thefee is no it moves faster as space expands if anything logic would say it allows down. However we know that not to be the case through observation. Any theory that changes the speed of light is in direct contradiction with observations


Hey i am just stating what the expert on this site is saying.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
It is like the fly in a train. The train moves through the world with 180 km/h, but the fly within also with 1m/s in the train.
Just in this case the train moves with c and the fly through the train also.
edit on 3-1-2016 by Peeple because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
It is like the fly in a train. The train moves through the world with 180 km/h, but the fly within also with 1m/s in the train.
Just in this case the train moves with c and the fly through the train also.


It doesnt really work that way when it comes to a expanding Space. Because as the light trawels towards the Earth the distance the light must travel also increases. It is not just the light that gets streched, the volum of space Ahead of the speeding light is also being streched and increasing the distance which the light must travel.


The light is only streched by the expanding Space where the light is at as it travels through space. Space is also being streched in front of the light as well.
This Space does not strech the light until the light reaches that volum of Space... And strech the light when the volum of space expands again.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Interesting article on the matter I found whilst looking for something else....(what is beyond the known universe)



Well, according to special relativity, objects that are close together cannot move faster than the speed of light with respect to one another; however, there is no such law for objects that are extremely distant from one another when the space between them is, itself, expanding. In short, it is not that objects are traveling faster than the speed of light, but that the space between objects is expanding, causing them to fly away from each other at amazing speeds.


futurism.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

Yeah.
That's the idea and it's been pointed out a number of times in this thread.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
cool theories board.


anyways, my take on this age stuff would be ..

Speed of light is c alright. No doubt to that fact. If space expands over c generally, why then space in our own solar system did not toss away planets out where the Sun cannot assert gravitational affect on them? Is space expanding just beyond Pluto and not between planets? At the rate of faster then light expansion all planets would be at the distance of nearest star by now, imo. Or is there a specific areas that get expanded faster than light? Where is demarcation point?

I think that space-time expands arbitrary. While expanding it will create instead of the spherical pattern, a 'sleeve' pattern. The stars we see are really 'around the corner'. Light will travel twice the distance to a telescope, when other data and cosmological evolution theories suggest universe age is 13.5 byo, something like CMBR state and what not. (elements quantity, particles decay rate, number of galaxies and distribution of matter).

cheers) Happy new year!




edit on 3-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections




If space expands over c generally, why then space in our own solar system did not toss away planets out where the Sun cannot assert gravitational affect on them?
Because gravity keeps that from happening. The force of gravity between widely separated galaxies is not strong enough to do so.

edit on 1/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   
With said above, speed of light and expansion rate of universe have nothing to do in relations with each other.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
With said above, speed of light and expansion rate of universe have nothing to do in relations with each other.





That is correct.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
With said above, speed of light and expansion rate of universe have nothing to do in relations with each other.




It actually does have something to do With the expansion rate of Space. How do you think the Cosmic Microwave Background can be explained?

Fortunately, General Relativity passes this test with flying colors, and frequency/wavelength does change as the Universe expands, something we’ve directly measured in a variety of ways, including by measuring the temperature at different epochs in the Universe’s history.

And that’s why — in a Universe governed by General Relativity, which appears to be our Universe — light must redshift or blueshift as the Universe expands or contracts, or as the gravitational properties of space evolve in general.

Light acts just like sound Waves in a atmospheric void that are either moving from you or towards you. If the Source of sound is comming towards you the distance bewteen the wavelengths decrease and the noice become louder and clearer. If the Source of sound moves away from you the opposite happeneds.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66
And that is more correct.
It's been a long weekend.




top topics



 
42
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join