Some questions about the universe

1. Is there a center of our universe. If there was a big bang were is the origin point? and shouldnt we be able to find it by watching the galaxies move away from a central point?

2. Are we (Galaxy) circling something. Seems like everthing cirlces something else in space (orbits) so is our and other galaxies circling something else?

3. Are we one universe (buble of galaxies) among many others in a even vaster multiverse?

4. Why does everthing form a sphere in space or try to? Planets, suns etc..

5. Why do suns not explode into a sphere and instead explode from two sides in only two directions?

6. If a space ship could project a powerfull gravity hole in front of itself would it follow it and how fast would the continually projected gravity hole and ship move though space.

These are questions that always pop up in my mind when I ponder outer space =). I d truely like answers if anyone has any. And forgive me if any or all of them seem like stupid questions.

Thanks
Xeven

Seeing as energy will follow a path of least resistance, explosions probably do go out as spherelike. Hollywood just hasn't been able to recreate that.

I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my ability, however it is upto you to figure out the truth, if you're indeed interested in such - as always!

Originally posted by Xeven
1. Is there a center of our universe. If there was a big bang were is the origin point? and shouldnt we be able to find it by watching the galaxies move away from a central point?

Scientists observed the fact that stars and galaxies seem to be spreading out, and the assumption is that they must've started out of one area initially. This can be observed by the color of the stars, and can be understood with the analogy of Sound. When a car drives by you, you first hear a higher-pitched sound as the sound waves have a higher frequency since the source is moving towards you, and when it passes you the sound is lower-pitched as the source moves away from you, and the sound waves reach you less frequently. In theory, light also comes in waves (in part at least) and the COLOR changes depending on whether the source is moving towards you or away from you. The color of stars is also an indicator of its temperature so it is not the ONLY way that is used to detect expansion or contraction of the universe.

The problem with finding the "center of the universe" is that nobody seems to be sure just how big the universe is. For example, if you're on the edge of a balloon and somebody is inflating it as you watch the material of the balloon expand, you may not see the center, but only the immediate surrounding material. However, do not assume that the universe is in any way similar to a balloon, or that it is 3-dimentional. There are theories that if you keep going straight in one direction in the universe, you will eventually end up back where you started... examplifying a 4-dimentional nature. There is much that humans simply do not yet know about the universe.

2. Are we (Galaxy) circling something. Seems like everthing cirlces something else in space (orbits) so is our and other galaxies circling something else?

Perhaps. You can take the time to research that if you'd like, as I don't know. Things seem to cycle around something with more gravity, like Earth around the Sun, and the Sun around the giant black hole in the center of our galaxy. Therefore, as a logical deduction, there would have to be something with gravity far greater than that of our galaxy, that is keeping our galaxy in a cycle around itself. I can be wrong, it's just a guess.

3. Are we one universe (buble of galaxies) among many others in a even vaster multiverse?

You're thinking in 3rd density (and 3rd dimentional) terms here. There can be infinity of universes that are not "located" in different places, but one within another. Also, you're implying that the universe is a bubble, that has an EDGE of some sort. If so, would whatever is outside the bubble NOT be part of any universe? Once again, try not to limit your thought process to 3rd dimention. How do we add dimentions to one another? We add a line that is perpendicular to ALL the pervious lines in the previous dimentions. A line, then add a perpendicular and get a square. Add a perpendicular and get a cube. Add a perpendicular and get a .... what? Notice that each new perpendicular line includes INFINITY of previous dimentions inside it. For example: A cube includes an INFINITE number of squares, as a square has no thickness.. as thickness is an extra dimention and doesn't exist on a flat plane. Therefore, a 4th dimention includes INFINITY of universes all TOGETHER in one "place" from the point of view of 3rd dimention. We are 3rd density, and our awareness is kinda limited for now.

Now, this was a mathematical definition of dimentions. There is another definition, namely a possibility. In other words, any and all possibilities that exist are just another word for dimentions. As there are infinite possibilities, there are infinite dimentions. This also plays together with TIME, as TIME doesn't exist except as a 3rd density illusion, just like a "one universe" concept. Any and ALL possibilities exist at the same "time", but we focus on only ONE of them at a time, like ONE FRAME AT A TIME on a vide cassette that has ALL THE FRAMES simultaneously. When you focus on one reality/dimention/possibility and go in a linear fashion, it creates the illusion of TIME, an illusion that things happen in a linear, sequential order. Just like a slide projector already has all the slides together, but focuses on ONE AT A TIME, so does reality from our perspective - it appears to be linear... when ALL possibilities are manifested and exist simultaneously... if you knew how to expand your limited AWARENESS past 3rd density. It's like being able to look at a videocasette and seeing ALL the frames at the same time, without having to spin them and watch them one at a time. Our awareness doesn't yet allow us this.

As you can see, any and all futures exist, and this same thing goes for all our pasts. This is related to your question about universes... as ALL possible universes EXIST, except they don't exist in different locations, not exactly. For example, if you lived on a square and were a 2-dimentional person, how could someone explain to you the concept of a CUBE? You'd say... are there more squares side by side outside my square? And they'd say... no they're all in one place... if you add another dimention (height) to it..

Same goes for your 3rd density awareness... it is not yet possible for you to fully comprehend the hyper-dimentional nature of reality to its full potential. You can logically understand it, and you can KNOW it to be so if you think really carefully, but you simply don't have the awareness at this level to EXPERIENCE it. This, however, does not prevent you from knowing it for FACT. Assumptions, beliefs, expectations, and anticipation leads you away from truth into land of fantasy. This you can understand, as all of those things are only "potential" in your mind, and you do not KNOW them to be true... so you replace it with "desire" or "belief" etc to fill up the void of "not knowing". That is always a personal choice, to seek truth, or to pretend you already know it.

4. Why does everthing form a sphere in space or try to? Planets, suns etc..

Atoms too. Good question! Maybe because a sphere is just a natural result of the "laws" that exist like gravity? This is just a guess, feel free to research this.

5. Why do suns not explode into a sphere and instead explode from two sides in only two directions?

Once again, good question (if they indeed do explode the way you said they do).

6. If a space ship could project a powerfull gravity hole in front of itself would it follow it and how fast would the continually projected gravity hole and ship move though space.

Well, that's a rather creative way to think of a propultion method! They need people like you at nasa

I'd say it would be limited by lightspeed using THAT method. However, what if a ship could bend space-time to literally bring the destination to its current location? It's not so hard to bend reality when you understand the nature of same, the nature of time, space, multi-dimentionality etc. In fact, "flying" may be absolete when one understands certain concepts... maybe "jumping" from location to location would be a more accurate understanding? Speed = Distance/Time. If you make Time=0 then Speed=Infinity (instantly anywhere). How would one make Time=0? Well time already doesn't exist... so if one is not bound by the limited-awareness like we are, one will then not be bound by TIME in any way, shape or form. This in turn means that one is not bound anymore by SPACE either! Great, so time and space are both illusions! If time can be manipulated, space follows. It's not hard to manipulate that which does not exist. The issue our scientists are having is, they think time EXISTS, and that assumption alone is what's blocking them from fast-forwarding or rewinding the infinite tape on which we exist. The entire tape already exists... in its infinite possibilities etc. So a time machine doesn't exist... it's more of a reality machine. It's a machine that manifests and transfers you to another reality, which is the reality that exists in our memories as what we term to be "the past". It can also carry you into the possible future, as it's only a different REALITY.. since there IS no time! This concept is simple if you just give it some really serious thought. It's very confusing and absurd if you do NOT give it some serious thought.

These are questions that always pop up in my mind when I ponder outer space =). I d truely like answers if anyone has any. And forgive me if any or all of them seem like stupid questions.

Thanks
Xeven

Stupid is subjective. You're welcome!

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by lilblam]

I am only able to answer 4).

The official view is that "matter tends to get spherical form because it is the most economic form in terms of energy concervation".

My view is that "gravity is the result of the void pushing matter together", and since pressure is uniform from all sides, matter makes spheres (the same principle as in water bubbles).

1. Is there a center of our universe. If there was a big bang were is the origin point? and shouldnt we be able to find it by watching the galaxies move away from a central point? There may be a geographically central point. The only way we could find it and watch the galaxies move away is if we launched a probe to that very center. Since the milky way is not in the center, our perspective is tainted from here and cannot be used objectively.

2. Are we (Galaxy) circling something. Seems like everthing cirlces something else in space (orbits) so is our and other galaxies circling something else? No. Galaxies seem to have some kind of perpetual motion that is based on attraction to nearby gravity distortions. As the galaxies spin around, their own kinetic energy moves them about as well.

3. Are we one universe (buble of galaxies) among many others in a even vaster multiverse? That one I have no idea as to how to answer. I wonder if the other galaxies represent other dimensions, as well.

4. Why does everthing form a sphere in space or try to? Planets, suns etc..The influence of gravity is usually a cone-like depression. do a search for "black hole in layman's terms" here on ATS and youll see a neat picture I put up that emphasizes this. Ergo, since the cone-shaped depression is basically circular at the top, everything caught in that gravitational influence mimics the 'event horizon' of the gravitic distortion.
wait woops, wrong answer to the wrong question. They form spheres partially because of the style of gravity, but also because planet formation involves a great deal of spinning. As they spin around at a rapid rate, "planetstuff" collides into the spinning ball of rock, and the very movement of spinning combined with the gravitational influence that it is creating is responsible for creating sphere-like objects. Because it is spinning around so quickly, there is not a very high chance of having a triangular sun or even a rhombus of a planet. The spinning motion 'smoothes out' those angles.


5. Why do suns not explode into a sphere and instead explode from two sides in only two directions? We haven't seen a star explode at close range so we can't make this judgment accurately. You are thinking of Eta Carinae (I think) where you have that pinkish dumbell-looking object. Not all stars supernova in that manner.

6. If a space ship could project a powerfull gravity hole in front of itself would it follow it and how fast would the continually projected gravity hole and ship move though space. Yes it would be sucked it. How fast is anyone's best guess, but since I don't believe in light-speed relativity, I think it is possible to propel oneself faster than light. Einstein was wrong about cosmic radiation and cosmological constants, so I think he is wrong again about that light speed stuff. The problem with entering a subspace distortion is keeping the ship intact and unaffected by the gravity, distortion's effects, etc.


good questions!

[Edited on 3/25/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

[Edited on 3/25/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

Originally posted by Xeven
1. Is there a center of our universe. If there was a big bang were is the origin point? and shouldnt we be able to find it by watching the galaxies move away from a central point?

No, there is no center of the universe. One of the principles of cosmology is that the universe is homogeneous. The galaxies move away from eachother like dots on a inflating balloon. No dot is the center, but all other dots seem to move away from it. Where is the center of the Big Bang?

Originally posted by Xeven
2. Are we (Galaxy) circling something. Seems like everthing cirlces something else in space (orbits) so is our and other galaxies circling something else?

All galaxies are influenced by eachothers gravity. The movement that is caused by their gravity is much more complex than the movement of the earth around the sun, because the matter is spread evenly or in one point. I don't think the milky way or our local cluster orbit something, but they do move. The milky way is actually on a collision with another galaxy in our local galaxy, although it will billions of years before that finally happens.

Originally posted by Xeven
3. Are we one universe (bubble of galaxies) among many others in a even vaster multiverse?

There are theories that suggest this, like Linde's theory. These theories can't really be tested at the moment. It might be true, but the general opinion in astronomy is to stick with the simple one universe model.

Originally posted by Xeven
4. Why does everthing form a sphere in space or try to? Planets, suns etc..

This was explained well by AlnilamOmega. I have question of AlnilamOmega though: You talk about spacetime curvature to explain this, but in your answer to question 6 you say you don't believe in a maximum speed in the universe? Spacetime curvature is general relativity's explanation of gravity and guess what, one of the axioma's of general relativity is that the speed of light is constant. This mathematically causes the mass increase for moving objects, which means you can't go faster than the speed of light.

Originally posted by Xeven
5. Why do suns not explode into a sphere and instead explode from two sides in only two directions?

In a perfect model of a star they do explode into a perfect sphere, but in reality stars are not perfect. There are all kind of imperfections. The density may a be little bit lower on one side or there are imperfections in the magnetic field. All these little things can have a lot of influence which can cause stars to collapse into strange forms.

Originally posted by Xeven
6. If a space ship could project a powerfull gravity hole in front of itself would it follow it and how fast would the continually projected gravity hole and ship move though space.

I don't really know the answer to this, but I think it can't be faster than the speed of light. The problem with this question is that one can not project a gravity hole. There is no known way to do this expect by moving a lot of mass to that location. It would cost you more energy to move the mass than that the mass pulls you forward.
AlnilamOmega, your argument is wrong. The mass increase is caused mathematically in both special and general relativity. Both theories have been tested and verified. That Einstein was sometimes wrong doesn't change the validity of the theories.

okay, well here goes my best efforts!

Originally posted by Xeven
1. Is there a center of our universe. If there was a big bang were is the origin point? and shouldnt we be able to find it by watching the galaxies move away from a central point?

the best way to say this is that the center of the universe is where the observer is. because light can only be seen from about 14 light years in any direction, no matter where you are. and no, we can't find it by galaxies moving away from each other. this is because not all galaxies are moving apart. we have seen several have collide, and it's even theorized that currently a smaller sattelite galaxy is colliding with the milky way right now. also, in a few billion years the andromeda galaxy will be A LOT closer... because it, too, will collide with the milky way

2. Are we (Galaxy) circling something. Seems like everthing cirlces something else in space (orbits) so is our and other galaxies circling something else?

no, not to my knowledge. we are part of a group of galxies called the local group though. then that group is made up of other groups, which makes up one large group. the names all escape me now, sorry!

3. Are we one universe (buble of galaxies) among many others in a even vaster multiverse?

no one knows for sure, and i doubt that we ever will.

4. Why does everthing form a sphere in space or try to? Planets, suns etc..

i can sum that up in one word... mass

5. Why do suns not explode into a sphere and instead explode from two sides in only two directions?

not all stars do that. the ring nebula and others like it expoded in spherical form.

6. If a space ship could project a powerfull gravity hole in front of itself would it follow it and how fast would the continually projected gravity hole and ship move though space.

yes, it would follow it. and i dunno how fast it would move through. i would think it would depend on the mass of this "gravity hole."

and there's no such thing as a stupid question.

EDIT: here's another link similar to this topic... www.abovetopsecret.com...

[Edited on 3/25/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]

Originally posted by Xeven
1. Is there a center of our universe. If there was a big bang were is the origin point? and shouldn't we be able to find it by watching the galaxies move away from a central point?

Does the Universe have boundaries?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is there an end to space?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where is the Center of the Universe?
math.ucr.edu...

2. Are we (Galaxy) circling something. Seems like everything circles something else in space (orbits) so is our and other galaxies circling something else?

Yep, basically. Our Moon around Earth. Planets around Sun. Our Solar System in the Galaxy. So on and so forth. All of it moving, Cycles within Cycles. Or I guess I should say Spirals within Spirals, but you get the idea. It's sorta like a fractal or DNA or the Patterns found in PHI and the Golden Ratio.

Certain Words of Wisdom come to mind:
"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, there is nothing new under the sun"

As above, so below - The Emerald Tablets
The significance of this phrase is that it is believed to hold the key to all mysteries. All systems of magic are claimed to function by this formula. "'That which is above is the same as that which is below'...Macrocosmos is the same as microcosmos. The universe is the same as God, God is the same as man, man is the same as the cell, the cell is the same as the atom, the atom is the same as...and so on, ad infinitum.

3. Are we one universe (bubble of galaxies) among many others in a even vaster multiverse?

Ummm....I'm not sure if I understand the question. I will say that when juggling the 'Universe vs. Multiverse' thing, it's really more of a 'Literal' Debate most of the time. It all depends on how you want to think of it really. A 'Universe' by definition could be used as both the label of the One and Only Universe, or the Sum of all the Individual Multiverses. Now, if the Multiverses are Infinite in Number it still works the same as having a finite number of them, in principle anyway, just without the closure of an actual number value that can be grasped. This is also similar to something known as 'The Set of Sets'. For Example:
1=Universe.
A set of Universes=Multiverse.
A Set of Sets=A Multiverse of Universes.
The SET of ALL SETS=Universe of ALL Multiverse Sets of Universes.

Some concepts lead to a 'Literal Paradox' because of the Problems that arise within the core of certain Languages.

4. Why does everything form a sphere in space or try to? Planets, suns etc..

Symmetry and Balance. Like the Fractal Spiral of Cycles within Cycles, in a 3 Dimensional frame of reference there is no shape more perfectly balanced in ratio from Micro to Macro than a sphere. 3 Dimensionally a sphere is always equally proportionate to Itself, Everything and Nothing at any given time. You can start with a super tiny Quantum Sphere and enlarge it equally until it measures the known universe and at any given moment it will always measure in perfect ratio to any point before and any point in the future. Zero has been used both as having a value of Nothing and Infinite within the Known History of Numbers.

That may be less technical and more philosophical in terms of answering your question. I'm not sure if that was helpful to you or not, but AlnilamOmega's answer handled the technical side already.

5. Why do suns not explode into a sphere and instead explode from two sides in only two directions?

I'm not sure I understand this question exactly so I'll leave it for now and may get back to you on this later. Maybe someone else will answer this for the both of us!

6. If a space ship could project a powerfull gravity hole in front of itself would it follow it and how fast would the continually projected gravity hole and ship move though space.

I highly recommend you read the following thread talking about just such an idea. Here's a little teaser for ya:

"...As early as 1952, an Air Force major general witnessed a demonstration in which Brown flew a pair of 18 inch disc airfoils suspended from opposite ends of a rotating arm. When electrified with 50,000 volts they circuited at a speed of 12 MPH.

A year later, he flew a set of 3 foot saucers for some Air Force officials and representatives from a number of major aircraft manufacturers. When energized to 150,000 volts the discs sped around the 50 foot course so fast that the subject was immediately classified.

Interavia magazine reported that the discs could attain speeds of hundreds of miles an hour when charged with hundreds of thousands of volts. Browns discs were charged with a high positive voltage on a wire running along the leading edge and a high negative voltage on a wire along the trailing edge.

As the wires ionized the air around them, a dense cloud of positive ions would form ahead of the craft and corresponding cloud of negative ions would form behind the craft. Browns research indicated that, like the charged plates of his capacitors, these ion clouds induced a gravitational force directed in the minus to plus direction.

As the disc moved forward in the response to its self generated gravity field, it would carry with it its positive and negative ion clouds and their associated electrogravity gradient. Consequently, the discs would ride their advancing gravity wave much like surfers ride an ocean wave....

Read much more about this here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

These are questions that always pop up in my mind when I ponder outer space =). I d truly like answers if anyone has any. And forgive me if any or all of them seem like stupid questions.

Thanks
Xeven

Those are some very good questions my friend!! Keep it up!!

And remember....Think Spirals within Spirals, Zero equals Infinity, Universal Symmetry is Universal Harmony and Infinite Beauty...


P.S. That fractal sure would make a damn good Avatar!! I wish I had come up with it!

Thank you all for giving me credit for my post in this thread, despite my typos (nobody's perfect!). I very much appreciate that and will never forget your generosity.

Now, amantine, my answer to that question of yours in relation to space-time curvatures is this: I meant to retract that statement (refer to my "woops" statment after the first paragraph, please), but I kept it in there because the gravitational influences that cause those curvatures may play a role in keeping a star anchored once it has already formed, and maybe even before. Those space-time curvatures only form (I believe) when you have a very powerful source of gravity, like a star or a pulsar. You won't find those curves everywhere in space, which is why I argue that it is possible to attain faster than light-speed.

Think of it as a ship at sea. The frigate, metaphorically speaking, is a starship in space and the ocean is space itself. Now, this ship is very, very fast, travelling at... say... 180 knots. Let's also postulate that it will encounter a space-time curvature or two, metaphorically speaking, in the form of a massive iceberg or a volcanic island. Now, who in their right mind is going to head straight for that iceberg at that speed? The captain would get the ship to AVOID that curvature/iceberg, right? That is why, in normal space, I believe it is very possible to travel faster than 186,000 miles a second. Simply because you can plot course corrections to avoid those very curvatures that may prohibit faster-than-light travel. I hope to prove that to all of you someday, or at least hope that someone else will before I have the chance.

I cannot agree with people who say this has been proven. Not in the slightest. I don't care how well the experiment was done, or if it was done in appropriate proportions mainly because such experiments are flawed due to the fact that they were carried out on Earth or in NEO (Near Earth Orbit). Of course it's going to fail in both instances because we all live inside of a curvature of space-time in itself. Small planet or not, Earth provides the same gravitational curvature you are speaking of, albeit much smaller than a star. Until someone builds a vessel that is designed to go... say... 7,000,000 miles per second and then fails to go above light speed... THEN I will surrender to such arguments.

AND despite my little argument in that last paragraph about having a hindrance in light speed because we are within a curvature itself, I will include this little tidbit from an experiment I just found accidentally (I was making sure that I was accurately writing the actual speed of light).

From:
science.howstuffworks.com...
"Scientists have found ways to break that speed limit. In one experiment performed by researchers at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, N.J., a pulse of light was sent through a transparent chamber filled with specially prepared cesium gas and was pushed to travel at speeds of 300 times the normal speed of light. The light travels so fast that the main part of the light pulse exits the chamber even before it enters. "

so you may be saying "so what? photons are not as bulky as a starship and its not like cesium gas is all over space." My response to that is that this experiment expains how it may be possible to create a distortion in space and to use that tunnel to propel oneself to faster-than-light speeds.

[Edited on 3/28/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

If we were to assume that the secrets of gravity have been discovered to the point that we could project a gravity well, then we could most likely be able to negate the efects of gravity as well. This being the case would it not change the relationship of that ship to the energies and limitations of our universe? With this level of control over gravity this would in effect create a bubble of space that was independent of the normal universes point of view. The only energy needed would be that of the gravity control systems. With the gravity being manipulated the ship would be able to accelerate constantly and infinitely being drawn by the gravity. Just some thoughts on this type of 'propulsion'. Even if it were able to reach these fantastic speeds, how would one avoid the smallest of particles that would surely destroy a craft moving at these speeds.

The universe is a philosophical question, no real answer, just more questions.

I don't agree with you, AlnilamOmega. You seem to accept one of piece of general relativity: the possiblities of spacetime curvature, but you don't accept the lightspeed as a limit. The light speed limit is one of the foundations of relativity. The entire theory is based on this.

A variable speed of light depending on the amount of spacetime curvature would mess things up. I think it would violate the rule that the laws of nature are the same for every inertial observer. The energy of the photons will be different for observers with the speed of light limit than observers without the speed of light limit.

E = hf (E is energy, h is planck constant, f is frequency)
c = fλ (c is speed of limit, f is frequency, λ is wavelength)
E = hc/λ

An infinite speed of light would even give infinite energy! Now that would be one deadly photon.

Even if you postulate that's the light speed limit only exists in places with more than a certain amount of spacetime curvature, there is still proof of the speed of light limit. The problem is that your theory removes a lot of the proof, because we can only measure from things we can detect. Usually those things have a lot of mass, like stars or galaxies. Observations on binary star systems require gravity to travel at lightspeed, but since this happens in a place with some spacetime curvature, you will probably not accept this.

The only way for your theory to work is if the light travels instantly, because otherwise we would see Cherenkov radiation all the time from particles going faster than light in space.

We see galaxies, stars and even the light of our sun with a certain delay, ranging from a few minutes to billion of years. This can be seen because the spectrum of further away stars have less heavy elements than stars closer to us. This we see stars for a period when there were less heavy elements. This can only be if there is a maximum speed of light in 'uncurved spacetime'.

My opinion is that the speed of light is the limit on speed everywhere in the universe. The experiment your news article writes about is very controversial and has been retracted from official publications if I'm correct. I think in that experiment the phase velocity is higher than the speed of light. That doesn't mean any particle goes after than the speed light. The pulse is send through interference. The particles have to be there already. No signal is transmitted faster than light.

Originally posted by amantine

My opinion is that the speed of light is the limit on speed everywhere in the universe. The experiment your news article writes about is very controversial and has been retracted from official publications if I'm correct. I think in that experiment the phase velocity is higher than the speed of light. That doesn't mean any particle goes after than the speed light. The pulse is send through interference. The particles have to be there already. No signal is transmitted faster than light.

The fact that it has been retracted by newspapers comes from one of two reasons. One, and this I believe is the most likely reason, is that it IS controversial and it is not something that the business owners of those media outlets want the public to know. They want to keep people like you in the dark, because they know the world would change instantaneously if people as intelligent as you are would start working towards developing faster-than-light methods of travel. The other reason, I believe is a longshot honestly, is that it was a falsified experiment. I think it's a longshot not only for advantageous reasons, but also because this was an experiment conducted by a technologically advanced company's institute in Princeton.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, in regards to this relativity limitation and everything else, obviously. However, just as I cannot probably change your mind on this, I have to say that there is nothing short of building a warp ship that will cause me to refuse the ability to travel faster than light. One day, I hope that you and all like you will see something like this happen in our lifetimes.

To expand on the idea that this is knowledge that is intended to be suppressed, take a look at the score of this thread. This is, without a doubt, a great thread full of valid information and scientifically-backed theories and figures. Yet, despite 20+ votes, the trolls of this board have given this low ratings over and over again. This and the fact that the experiment was withdrawn from newspapers are not coincidences. You see this sort of passive cover-up strategy all of the time.

[Edited on 3/29/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

Well, let's keep this a real debate. You attack my weakest point and only my weakest point. You did not respond to my other arguments.

The only real arguments you gave were:

1. I don't believe that the speed of light is the speed limit everywhere in the universe.
   
2. A retracted experiments says that they have send a signal faster than the speed of light.
   
3. There is more evidence, but a giant conspiracy of certain companies keeps that evidence secret.
   

My replies to those arguments:

1. You are entitled to your own opinion, but the evidence does not point in that direction.
   
2. Apart from the retraction and my alternate explanation, this article even contradicts your own theory that the speed of light is the limit in areas with more than a certain amount of spacetime curvature. You said yourself that the Earth is such an area. Furthermore, those experiments are highly controversial and difficult to explain. I think the fact that the results were retracted are pointing in the direction that there was probably something wrong in the experiments. Even the best institutes make mistakes.
   
3. I also don't believe the 'giant conspiracy' argument. I think companies would try to patent those technologies as fast as possible instead of trying to keep them silent. Think about the money that they can earn with instant communication.
   

Don't get me wrong, I would be very excited about faster-than-light travel, but I don't think the evidence points in that direction. I will be considering your theory if you can refute these arguments, and I will be convinced if you can make a mathematically correct theory that can be tested.

1. The spectra of stars that are further away show spectra of stars in a earlier period of the universe.
   
2. No speed of light limit violates the first postulate of relativity: the laws of nature are the same for every inertial observer.
   
3. How can one derive spacetime curvature without the use of the second postulate of relativity: the speed of light is the same for every inertial observer?
   

[Edited on 29-3-2004 by amantine]

As you wish, Sir Amantine. I will respond to your request, but please, I hope you are not getting upset or taking this personally. I would much rather remain an ally and collaborate with you as opposed to getting into a fight. I don't think you're getting upset, but I just want to say this to make my position clear (im not getting upset, either). My position is that I am only stating things from my point of view and that I am not trying to offend you. What I am stating here is nothing more than friendly debate, with the key word being "friendly".

I included that experiment, despite my own support towards Earth's space-time curvature and the possible limitations theoretically hitherto, because I want to provide as much of an objective view as possible (despite my bias towards the possibility of light-speed travel); even if it contradicts a portion of my statement. Flawed or not, that is my way of guaranteeing credibility.

And you caught me at a lazy part of the day. That's why I responded only to that specific portion of your statement. I had no intention of getting at what you thought was a weak-point, but instead, I responded to what I felt I could instantly refute without much forethought. I will try to respond to other parts as of now.

To tell you the truth, I don't completely believe that all curvatures of space-time have that kind of effect. I was saying that out of respect for your interpretation of that portion of general relativity. That doesn't mean I'm denying what I said, nor does it mean that I don't take any stock at all in that issue, but in fact, it only states that I am trying to keep as many perspectives on this issue as possible. I always want to consider all possibilities before saying "NO that's impossible", and that's with virtually every topic I have posted to or started.

I also would have to say right now that I am not in a position to create a mathematical theory that would prove this (mostly because I am too lazy and undermotivated at this point). Someday, hopefully, I, along with my team of R+D geniuses will, that much I can promise to both you and myself. It may be a while until then, however, and, you can bet that I'll slap a patent on that gold mine.

The foundation of my argument against the limitation of speeds is that I strongly believe that it is possible to have an object travel faster than light. Maybe it's not possible to have photons traveling above 186,000 mi/s, that much I agree with you, particularly because of the many well-founded theories that have been established. Also, the idea that the photon is not the only particle (i.e. Neutrinos) we know about that is capable of going this fast seems to point to the idea that it is possible to not only travel at this speed, but also go beyond it. And just because we haven't seen public evidence of something that can go beyond 186,000 mi/s doesnt mean that it doesn't exist. For a long time, we didn't pick up on dark matter, but it's there and we know that now despite the naysayers of the past (i.e. Einstein).

Furthermore, I also believe in the controversial and generally denied 5-dimensional fundamentals of quantum physics. This is the only way you can have a working unified field theory, and that's not a coincidence either. Perhaps if you were to consider those laws as opposed to the generally-accepted conventional forms of physics, you may be able to "see the light", so to speak. Again, I'm not trying to offend you; on the contrary: I'm trying to give you a giggle with a little pun.

Now to directly reply to your latest post and it's most specific counterarguments:

1. I don't understand what evidence you are speaking of that suggests that I am automatically wrong. Have you information of a vehicle that has tried to do this, by chance? As I said before, this is the only evidence I will accept at this point. I don't think this is a shortcoming, but instead, I think this an important part of my fortified position. Theories and experiments based on calculations are a long way from the real thing. You know this as well as I do.

2. It may have been quite possible that the experiment was indeed flawed. Again, I included that snippet to support the idea that I try to keep as many perspectives as possible on any given issue. Even if it were to go against my position, I included it because my stance on space-time curvatures is not something I can confirm or deny because I have no tangible proof nor do I have a reasonable amount of experience dealing with the issue (as far as I know).

3. Well, it seems I have become a politician since I am seeing conspiracies all over the place. Seriously, though, the research I have done in the past has led me to believe that there is a major amount of dedication towards information suppression, particularly with the mysteries far beyond Earth's Van-Allen Belt. Even if it were to be extremely profitable for many companies, the more powerful conglomerates would never want to allow or even exploit the issue because of the impact it would have on society's control mechanisms: religion, certain aspects of science, belief-systems, politics, etc. It is those conglomerate empires which control most of the global wealth and therefore have a vast amount of manipulative influence over what is pursued as well as deciding upon who gets to play with what toys (i.e. how NATO maintains military superiority against the majority of other similar transnational alliances and how the military usually gets to test out fresh-out-of-the-oven advanced technologies before the public. yes, yes, I understand that there are sometimes safety issues that the military would be better at handling, but still...).

Now to address your secondary arguments which seem to be far more difficult (good luck to me!):

1. I am familiar with this idea. I have no qualm with that, primarily because of all of the observational proof that exists. This is apparently a limitation of the speed of photons, along with chemical compositions as you have mentioned.

2. The thing I have never quite understood about relativity is the idea of the observer. Particularly with the idea that if someone were to travel faster than light, whereas the observer on earth would stay grounded, that it would somehow affect time. I think the theory states that the guy in space going faster than light-speed is in essence experiencing a slower rate of time intervals than the observer on Earth. This I do not believe, despite the experiments that have been conducted in support of this idea. Primarily because I don't see how atoms or even the dimension of time (4th) would be affected by speed. Furthermore, how do we know for sure that the conditions that the observer is in are always going to apply forever and ever? How do we know for sure that the conditions affecting the observer will always be the same as earth while on a different planet... in say... the Alnilam star system (yes, I am a fan of the trinity of Alnitak, Alnilam, and Mintaka, hence my chosen screenname) ? How do we know for sure that time will be affected if one were to be subjected to a massive curvature of space time such as black hole?

3. The speed of light seems to be a constant. Though I don't fully agree that it is such a Universal constant like Pi, I don't have anything concrete (at the moment) that tells me that there are photons that can go beyond 186,000 mi/s. In short, I have no opposition with you on this one.

sorry for making this so long, but I am highly passionate about this issue. I also admit that since I am corporeally young and mostly inexperienced, I have much to learn, but I understand if you don't have the time or motivation to read through this entire newspaper editorial article I have written here. I also want to thank you for the oppurtunity you have given me to use and further develop my brain.

I didn't mean to sound upset, but I'm also quite passionate about people attacking General Relativity. It's my favourite physical theory, because of it's amazing mathematical elegance. Once you've had tensors, you can't go back .

First I would like to point to this list of observational and experimental evidence for General Relativity. General Relativity is one of the well tested theories around. Although most of these experiments and observations are done near gravitational fields, I think they at least show that there is some validity to General Relativity. They have been building particle colliders according the predictions of relativity for decades and it has always worked out.

My replies to your replies to my replies :

1. You have to admit that at the moment we can't get a vehicle to even approach the speed of light. But what do you think of the fact that all the supercolliders in the world have never made a particle go faster than the speed of light? If a spaceship can go faster than light, particles must certainly be able to do it. You will probably reply to this by saying that those experiments happened on Earth, a place with more than a certain amount of spacetime curvature. I don't understand though, where you want to draw the limit. There is always a little bit of spacetime curvature.
   
2. I appreciate that you try to keep objective. I try to do same thing by saying that I'm not completely sure what to think about those experiments.
   
3. The general population wouldn't even care if they found that the speed of light isn't the speed limit. The more advanced technology would even make technology a better control mechanism.
   

I will try to refute your replies to my arguments:

1. You agree that the speed of light is the speed photons travel at. You also say that this speed is not the limit for other particles. All the observational evidence indicates that there are at least no interacting particles travelling faster than the speed of light. We don't see any Cherenkov Radation coming from deep space. This radiation is produced when a charged particle travels faster than the phase velocity of light in a medium.
   
2. You are referring to the Twin Paradox here. This solvable paradox states that if one of a twin goes to a distant stars near the speed of light, returns younger than the twin left on Earth. It is a result of time dilation and the change in reference frames of the moving twin. The link I gave above explains it pretty well.
   Time dilation is a direct mathematical result of the assumption that the speed of light is constant for every inertial observer. The time is affected because it follows from the Lorentz transformation, which we need to keep the speed of light constant for every observer. This time dilation can be easily measured from the muons that are created by cosmic radiation. They shouldn't even be able to get to the surface of the earth, if they decayed with their normal decay time. This has also been observed in large particle colliders. Faster particles live longer.
   
3. Well, you have make a decision here. Sacrifice the second postulate of relativity or say that certain laws of certain, relativity in this case, don't apply everywhere in the universe. That's the only way your theory can hold.
   

Give an example of something that goes faster than c.

Also, how or why is it that a photon's speed is instantaneously c?(in a vaccume)

Also, if c is the speed limit how can photons be going at that speed if it theoretically takes infinite energy to reach it, or does that only apply to somthing with mass?
Then if thats so why mass? Can't be gravity because no mass is affected by gravity too.

So photons are pure energy because they have no mass? So when they get slowed down ie. less kenetic energy, does that energy get transformed into another type of energy energy or mass? Or doesn't light actually slow down when passing through a different medium, does it just zig zag around or something?

ie. im lost so nite. :O

Originally posted by quiksilver
Give an example of something that goes faster than c.

Nothing has ever been found to go faster than the speed of light. This is one of the problems AlnilamOmega has to deal with as well. Why haven't we ever seen anything go faster than the speed of light, if that is not the speed limit?

Also, how or why is it that a photon's speed is instantaneously c?(in a vaccume)

Because they have no mass. There are two ways to explain this, one from the particle view and one from the wave view. You can see light both as a wave and a particle and in reality it's both at the same time: particle-wave duality.

Light is a wave of electromagnetic radiation. A wave is a periodic change of a certain physical property, eg. density (sound) or location (waves in ropes). If the physical property would not change, there wouldn't be a wave (standing waves are two waves combined, but that's not really important now). If the light stayed still, it wouldn't be a wave. Because it is a wave, it has to move.

Light is a particle without mass. It takes no energy to accelerate it. Therefore it takes nothing to get it to move at the highest speed possible: the speed of light.

Also, if c is the speed limit how can photons be going at that speed if it theoretically takes infinite energy to reach it, or does that only apply to somthing with mass?
Then if thats so why mass? Can't be gravity because no mass is affected by gravity too.

Kinetic energy depends on the mass: Ek = 1/2mv^2 is newtonian physics and Ek = (m - m0)c^2 in relativistic physics. It something has a mass of zero, it takes no energy to accelerate it.
So yes, it only takes infinite amount of energy to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light. Why mass? I don't really know, it is just what we observe. I could write something about the Higgs field or something, but I don't enough about that to make sure I don't make any mistakes.

So photons are pure energy because they have no mass? So when they get slowed down ie. less kenetic energy, does that energy get transformed into another type of energy energy or mass? Or doesn't light actually slow down when passing through a different medium, does it just zig zag around or something?

The photons don't slow down. It's the group velocity of the wave that slows down in different media. I think this is not explained well enough in the physics books at school. The photons bump into all kind of other particles and if you look at the mean velocity of all of them, they appear to have slowed down.

Originally posted by quiksilver
Give an example of something that goes faster than c.

Gravity.

Also, how or why is it that a photon's speed is instantaneously c?(in a vaccume)

Also, if c is the speed limit how can photons be going at that speed if it theoretically takes infinite energy to reach it, or does that only apply to somthing with mass?
Then if thats so why mass? Can't be gravity because no mass is affected by gravity too.

So photons are pure energy because they have no mass? So when they get slowed down ie. less kenetic energy, does that energy get transformed into another type of energy energy or mass? Or doesn't light actually slow down when passing through a different medium, does it just zig zag around or something?

ie. im lost so nite. :O

Funny, gravity is such a pervasive phenomena but so misunderstood...

Originally posted by lilblam

Originally posted by quiksilver
Give an example of something that goes faster than c.

Gravity.

No, no, no. Gravity goes at c. Not only is this the direct result of the general relativity, but it has also been measured:

Speed of gravity measured.
Speed of gravity and speed of light equal
Einstein proved right on speed of gravity