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.

 

Space expanded 6.8 times FASTER than Light!

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain

Originally posted by roughycannon
The speed of light is WITHIN our universe as is our physics, outside our universe these physics don't exist...

The universe expanded into this nothingness faster than light because of this.


If that is so, i wonder what kind of physics exist outside the universe, and what would happen if we took a "step out" so to speak.


That, my friend, is the stuff that dreams are made of....literarally.

Scientists have started to discover that we live in a universe, inside a mutliverse. There are parallel universes.

Our mind, in my belief, is a type of wormhole. The speed of thought travels faster than the speed of light.

When you sleep, you travel through your 'wormhole' (not physically) and traverse to the these other worlds...

Dreamland

The laws of physics greatly differ from those of this universe, and that's why things seem 'crazy' in dreams...just different laws of physics at play.

Plus, I read somewhere that you have (travel) at least 100,000 parallel universes in the course of a nighttime.

That explains why dreams seem to run together, one behind the other, in no particular sequence.

Dreamland is also time travel.




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Phew! I thought I was alone in wondering, and worrying, about this sort of thing!



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


I like how you can explain many conversations like this into nice succinct paragraphs. So when people are so fast to jump on special relativity and state Einstein was wrong aren't considering the whole theory.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chipkin9
Age of universe = 13.7 Billion years old
Diameter of the universe=93 Billion light years
Edge of observable universe (radius)=46.5 Billion light years

That's not right. The distance in radius of the Observable Universe is slightly less than the age of the Universe, around 13.7 billion years. We can't see any farther than light has been able to travel in that time, so we can only see as far away as 13.7 billion light years distance, or radius. So we can see a Universe of about 27.4 billion light years diameter.

The total size of the Universe is much larger because it expands in all directions. So while it's expanding into the area we CAN see, it is also expanding in all directions far beyond that area, into regions we CAN'T see because it's farther than 13.7 billions light years. Light can't get to us from those regions because there hasn't been enough time for it to travel to us, hence the total diameter of the Universe is estimated to be 93 billion light years across.

However, the Universe continues to expand at an ever increasing rate according to current theories and at a certain point it will exceed the speed of light in that expansion. In time, most of the galaxies will be pushed so far away from us, so fast that we will not be able to see them because Space will be expanding faster than the light can travel. That is not so at present, however.


There are obviously HUGE problems with these scientific "Facts" and one
of the below must be true.

No, the numbers based on current understanding work fine. It's really simple logic, but your original assumptions were based on an error of understanding that the observable Universe is only 27.4 billion light years diameter, not 93 billion light years.


Since also the edge of our observable universe is 46.5 Billion light years away, and
our earth is only 4.54 billion years old, how is it possible to be observable?


The age of the Earth has nothing to do with it.
edit on 9/23/2011 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath


Since also the edge of our observable universe is 46.5 Billion light years away, and
our earth is only 4.54 billion years old, how is it possible to be observable?


The age of the Earth has nothing to do with it.
edit on 9/23/2011 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)


Ok, thx for your reply.

So i'll try this. Since earth is 4.54 byo and light travels approx 6 trillion miles a yr, then I could speculatively say:

4.54 Billion yrs x 6 Trillion miles per yr = 27.24 Trillion Billion miles that is observable.

The Diameter, thus, should be 54.5 TB miles.

Are you sure the earth's age is irrelevant to what we can possibly observe?

edit on 23-9-2011 by Chipkin9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Chipkin9
 


So light travels 2.67 x 10^22 (26.7 billion trillion) miles in the time the Earth has existed. What does that have to do with what we are able to see?

I'll actually answer that for you: it has nothing to do with it. Let's say you're playing a game of baseball. You're up to bat, and the pitcher throws the ball. Does how long it takes the ball to get to you depend on how long you've been standing there?
Of course not. It only depends on when the baseball was thrown, and how far away the pitcher is.

In the same way, it doesn't matter how long the Earth has been here. It only matters when the light from the distant source was emitted, and how far away that source was at the time the light was emitted.
edit on 23-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chipkin9
 

Ok, thx for your reply.

So i'll try this. Since earth is 4.54 byo and light travels approx 6 trillion miles a yr, then I could speculatively say:

4.54 Billion yrs x 6 Trillion miles per yr = 27.24 Trillion Billion miles that is observable.

The Diameter, thus, should be 54.5 TB miles.

Are you sure the earth's age is irrelevant to what we can possibly observe?

edit on 23-9-2011 by Chipkin9 because: (no reason given)
I believe that your point of confusion is basing the visible universe as though light emitted only started traveling towards the Earth after the Earth was formed. This is like saying that people only started breathing air after you were born.

The light that we see now was emitted towards our neck of the woods however many light-years ago that the source is away from us. For example. Light from the Sun takes approximately 7 minutes to reach the Earth. When we see the Sun, we see it as it was approximately 7 minutes ago. Light from a source that is 5 billion light-years away from us takes 5 billion years to reach us. So the source of the light that we see, is showing us what it looked like 5 billion years ago. Same goes for any source of light. We are not seeing light based upon the age of the Earth, but rather how long ago the light was emitted from it's source.

As pointed out above, the age of the Earth has nothing to do with how long ago a light source began emitting.

-saige-
edit on 23-9-2011 by saige45 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Space expands faster than light, how else would be where light goes?


OK I'm not going to leave it there, even though several people have stated such that when those happy photons started to make their way towards us so we could see them, where they came from has moved further away from us. So we are seeing the most distant light nearly 14 billion years before it started moving away from us, but, an interesting thing occurred on the happy photon's travel, space expanded faster than what, ...well lets give it a name for short–P, so P has had more space to travel than what is assumed to be nearly 14 billion light years distant, so it took P longer to reach us because we are moving away also, thus we are not seeing P from the urinal.

Which brings up an interesting quandary, if you are traveling c, would it matter what direction you P?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chipkin9
Are you sure the earth's age is irrelevant to what we can possibly observe?

edit on 23-9-2011 by Chipkin9 because: (no reason given)

Yes. Imagine a photon of light gets emitted by a new start that formed very near the beginning of the Universe 13.7 billion years ago. It flies out across space and it will keep traveling until it will hit something. Some 9.2 billion years into that photon's journey (or about 4.5 billion years ago) our Earth forms in a completely different region of space. That photon is still flying across the cosmos independent of what's going on with the Earth, and the Earth is forming independent of what that photon is doing. One has nothing to do with the other at this point in time. Fast forward another 4.5 billion years to Sept. 23rd, 2011, just after tea time, and that 13.7 billion year old photon just so happens to slam headlong into an imaging sensor inside of a big telescope on a mountaintop in Chile, ending its journey.

Had the Earth not formed, that photon would have still eventually come to more or less that same point in space after 13.7 billion years, irrelevant of the fact the Earth was created or not. But because the Earth did form and because we built a telescope capable detecting the photon, it gets stopped by the imaging sensor and we know that it (and the star it came from) are there. We observe them 13.7 billion years after the photon was emitted on our 4.5 billion year old world.
edit on 9/23/2011 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I have been saying all the long that I believe that universe is far far older that the stated age of 13.5 billions years and every time I turn around there is one more thing that supports my thinking.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Chipkin9
 


There's no way to explain this one without a bit of physics...painkillers and / or a shot of scotch come highly recommended. There is no limit at all placed on the speed with which the universe expands...not by special relativity, not by string theory, nor by anything else. Movement *within* that expanding universe, on the other hand, is limited, at least in local, inertial reference frames. Incoming physics alert for citation of relevant theory:


f one divides a change in proper distance by the interval of cosmological time where the change was measured (or takes the derivative of proper distance with respect to cosmological time) and calls this a "velocity", then the resulting "velocities" of galaxies or quasars can be above the speed of light, c. This apparent superluminal expansion is not in conflict with special or general relativity, and is a consequence of the particular definitions used in cosmology. Even light itself does not have a "velocity" of c in this sense; the total velocity of any object can be expressed as the sum \! v_[tot] = v_[rec] + v_[pec] where \! v_[rec] is the recession velocity due to the expansion of the universe (the velocity given by Hubble's law) and \! v_[pec] is the "peculiar velocity" measured by local observers (with \! v_[rec] = \dot[a](t) \chi(t) and \! v_[pec] = a(t) \dot[\chi](t), the dots indicating a first derivative), so for light \! v_[pec] is equal to c (-c if the light is emitted towards our position at the origin and +c if emitted away from us) but the total velocity \! v_[tot] is generally different than c.(Davis and Lineweaver 2003, p. 19) Even in special relativity the coordinate speed of light is only guaranteed to be c in an inertial frame, in a non-inertial frame the coordinate speed may be different than c;[5] in general relativity no coordinate system on a large region of curved spacetime is "inertial", but in the local neighborhood of any point in curved spacetime we can define a "local inertial frame" and the local speed of light will be c in this frame,[6] with massive objects such as stars and galaxies always having a local speed smaller than c. The cosmological definitions used to define the velocities of distant objects are coordinate dependent - there is no general coordinate independent definition of velocity between distant objects in general relativity (Baez and Bunn, 2006)


Not for the faint at heart: Explanation of Comoving distance

I don't normally use wiki for complex references, but I really didn't feel like typing up huge extracts from my old textbooks.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 

reply to post by Saige45
 

reply to post by CLPrime
 



Thx for the replies. You probably all think i'm a simpleton for having to explain that the earth is irrelevant lol. Truth is I already understood it, but I was coming in at the wrong angles.

What I should have said was "Since our Earth can observe light that is 93 Billion yrs old, shouldn't it be logical to assume (since nothing can travel faster than C), that our universe is 93 Billion yrs old too?".

Since either one of these must be FACT:

A) Universe is 93 BYO (6 times older)
B) Space expanded 6 times faster than C
C) Light travels 6 times faster than we thought

I admit the subject of physics is over my head, but you can't question my curiosity


So from A,B or C which do you guys think is correct or most probable?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
B, would be the only near correct of the 3, though I'm not sure how a number can be put to it.

A, was explained, when the light started to approach us, 13 some billion years ago, where it came from has moved (and may no longer even exist) away from us, and we have moved away from where it came from, and the space between has also expanded, so the source has since moved on, which means by the time the light got to us a much greater distance between us and the source NOW exists.

C is wrong because c is constant, space and time are the factors that are not constants, so if light has to travel further to get from a to b because space has expanded it would 'appear' to have moved slower than c when in fact it didn't. Relativity and measurements confirm time slows for an object that approaches traveling c, if time slows as an object approaches c then reaching b would take less time than what distance would dictate it to take. If you could move 99.9% of c, you could traverse thousands of light years in just one of your observed years, your biological clock would have only ticked one year even though you may have traveled thousands of light ears.

Don't quote the numbers, just the concept, like I said, how can one put confirmed numbers to something we can't observe? I don't think I have read of an accurate curve of time delineation to the percentage of c that is achieved. If someone knows of the calculations in theoretical physics I'm all ears.


edit on 30-9-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chipkin9

Since either one of these must be FACT:

A) Universe is 93 BYO (6 times older)
B) Space expanded 6 times faster than C
C) Light travels 6 times faster than we thought

...

So from A,B or C which do you guys think is correct or most probable?


Actually there's an option D:

D) Chipkin9 has failed to comprehend the physics involved.

I pick D.

A) The universe is not 93 billion years old... it is 13.7 billion years old.
B) Space has not expanded 6 times faster than c... the "edge" of the observable universe has always been expanding at an apparent velocity equal to c (though, as has been explained, this is not a true velocity... this is something that a lot of people can't seem to grasp).
C) Light always travels at c according to all observers, under all conditions, in all reference frames. Always.

When I first replied, I tried to explain it as simply as I could. The basic fact is, the universe is 13.7 billion years old because the furthest objects we see now are 13.7 billion light-years away. But, how can they be 13.7 billion light-years away when the universe is supposed to be 93.2 billion light-years wide, you ask? Because, 13.7 billion light-years was how far away these objects were 13.7 billion years ago when the light that we are now seeing was emitted by the objects.

Remember, the light that's reaching us now from the farthest reaches of the observable universe is 13.7 billion years old. 13.7 billion years ago, the objects at the "edge" of the observable universe were 13.7 billion light-years away. However, in the 13.7 billion years that have past since the light was emitted, the expansion of the universe has increased that distance to about 46.6 billion light-years, giving a diameter of 93.2 billion light-years.
Of course, we don't see these objects at a distance of 46.6 billion light-years, as they are now...because the light emitted now hasn't reached us yet. To see these objects 46.6 billion light-years away, we'll have to wait 32.9 billion years.

And, in case that wasn't enough, think of it this way...

You stand in the road, while two cars are parked in the road 1000 feet in front of you. Car A is facing you, and Car B is facing in the opposite direction, with their rear bumpers touching. Both of their odometers are at 0.
Then, the two cars start driving. Ignoring the time needed to accelerate, Car A travels toward you at 10 feet/second. Car B travels away at 1 foot per second.
The time it takes Car A to reach you will be 100 seconds, or 1 minute and 40 seconds.
In that time, Car B will have moved 100 feet further away, putting its total distance from you at 1100 feet.
When Car A gets to you, you read it's odometer. Of course, it reads 1000 feet.
This tells you how far away both cars were when they started... they were 1000 feet away. However, Car B is now further away than that... it's now 1100 feet away.

In the same way, the light we are seeing now is showing the objects in space at the distance they were at when the light was emitted. In the case of objects at the "edge" of the observable universe, this distance is 13.7 billion light-years. But, just like Car B, in the time it took the light to reach us (just like the time it too Car A to reach you), those objects have moved further away... currently putting them at a distance of about 46.6 billion-light years. This is the current radius of the observable universe - or a diameter of 93.2 billion light-years.

I suppose, yet another way to put it would be to say that, at the time the light that we're seeing was emitted, the observable universe was 27.4 billion light-years across (a radius of 13.7 billion light-years). That was 13.7 billion years ago. In that time, the size of the universe has increased by a factor of 3.4.
edit on 30-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Another small thing that is missing in your logic, the fact is not that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, it is that nothing with MASS can travel faster than light.

Its called the mass gravity equation I think.
edit on 30-9-2011 by KingAtlas because: GRAMMAR IS HARD



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Expanding in to what?
observable universe?
and some time soon we will be able to see even more of it.
space has NO limit...

are so called big bang!
is just one of an limitless big bangs!
Expanding in to what?

limitless, never-ending, infinite, bottomless, boundless, countless, endless, illimitable, immeasurable, immense, incomprehensible, indefinite, inexhaustible, innumerable, measureless, no end of, no end to, no holds barred, no strings, numberless, unbounded, uncalculable, undefined, unending, unfathomable, unlimited, untold, vast, wide-open.
Expanding in to what?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Chipkin9
 


basing your theory on the creation myth in the bible you'll maybe right...
chaos,creation of earth,then light,the rest...

here are some great minded responses on your quest...
awesomeones off to give some stars...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 30-9-2011 by vatel because: added link



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join