Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#48833 06/14/13 03:06 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
if an object close to or approaching the periphery of our universe is seen as traveling faster than the speed of
light the explanation given is that the object is
not really traveling faster than the speed of light , it only
appears as if it is traveling faster than the speed of light because the space around the object is expanding at a rate
that is faster than the speed of light which causes the object to appear like it is traveling faster than the speed of light.

my thoughts on this.

the method or means of propulsion has nothing to do with
the common science claim that nothing ( no thing ) can travel
as fast or faster than the speed of light.


it does not matter how the object has achieved its faster than light speed , its speed is the only thing in question and that question is , if an object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light.

clearly an observer at the center of our universe can measure the faster than light object as traveling faster than the speed of light as the object moves outward away from the center of the universe.

science is wrong about the falsely claimed claims it has inserted into the minds of its students and continues to insert those falsities.







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Implying there is a 'center', in an 'ever expanding' anything. Too many "What if...?" speculations in your theory.

Your own argument unraveled itself before it started... like it was faster than the speed of...

Science is not wrong, it's just waiting to be proven otherwise. Burden of proof is upon you.


Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I understand that science claims that there is no center of
the universe.

but in reality ( not fantasy --> science ) there is always a center of everything.

all matter has a center , even a area that has nothing in it has a center.

just because science invented more lies to cover up the previous lies it told proves nothing.

and the burden of proof as you say is not on me , I dont need
proof to know that the universe has a center , because I know that everything has a center.

however science does need to prove that the universe has no center because science is what is claiming that there is no center of our universe.

we know that science knows everything has a center as scientist these days seem to find the center because the center is where their heads are kept when no sand is around.



Last edited by Amaranth Rose II; 06/16/13 07:47 PM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Having a center implies an edge. Or implies expansion is uniform.
How many dimensions are you taking into account to find center?

Took you 3 lines of text to bury your own head under the sand, right off the get go in your response.

Your denial and ignorance are cutting you off before you even start. Broad spectrum statements have no place in the science world, and I think it is this that upsets you so.


Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Having a center implies an edge.


yes , everything has a center and an edge , even if science teaches you differently.

note "everything" as in matter.

Quote:
Or implies expansion is uniform.


no it does not imply uniform expansion.

Quote:
How many dimensions are you taking into account to find center?


Im going to say this dimension that solid matter exist in.

how many dimension's has science given birth to lately Im
not keeping track?

Quote:
Broad spectrum statements have no place in the science world


really , nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

thats a pretty broad statement , ever heard it?

Quote:
Your denial and ignorance are cutting you off before you even start.


is that what you recite when you look in a mirror?

if you were referring to me then
its not denial , its logic.
and its not ignorance , its logic.

and If I am being cut off by you then it is due to your denial of reality and your ignorance of reality.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: paul


Quote:
Broad spectrum statements have no place in the science world


really , nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

thats a pretty broad statement , ever heard it?




Neutrino? Ever heard of it?

It is a broad statement, and taken as thus, can be false. It's a common tactic of naysayers to use broad spectrum statements to generalize their argument. It's what you are doing right now.

Nothing with mass can travel faster than light in a void with 100% perfect transmission efficiency.

Gravity, magnetic fields, radiation, etc... None have mass, so all could travel faster than light.

Plenty of things can travel faster than light in certain mediums. It's when you get into the specific nature of what you are studying, that science begins.

Far flung, broad range statements are for political and religious leaders. Leave the science to the people who will break it down into the fundamental truths of the matter. Mind the pun.


Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
so tell me new hippy , what would really cause a object that
has mass to be incapable of traveling faster than light speed.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: paul
so tell me new hippy , what would really cause a object that
has mass to be incapable of traveling faster than light speed.



Umm, a wall? Chewing gum? Air? Weak throwing arm? Lots of stuff. You may want to reword that question.


Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Leave the science to the people who will break it ...


OK

Quote:
Nothing with mass can travel faster than light in a void with 100% perfect transmission efficiency.



Quote:
Gravity, magnetic fields, radiation, etc... None have mass, so all could travel faster than light.


gravity requires mass.
magnetic fields require mass.
radiation requires mass.

that pretty much shoots down your 3 thing array
because in order for any of the three to travel
faster than light the mass that causes it would also
need to be traveling faster than light.

Quote:
Plenty of things can travel faster than light in certain mediums.


things like?




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Umm, a wall? Chewing gum? Air? Weak throwing arm? Lots of stuff. You may want to reword that question.


Im almost certain that you understood what the question was
but let me improve on the question , perhaps you will find
more and more reasons to stall your answer.

lets use a void , where there are no walls , no air , no chewing gum , etc...

there is nothing except an accelerating space object and we dont even need to know what is accelerating the object because
it is only the speed of the object that is in question.

lets just say it is like the voyager space craft.

only it is accelerating.

so at some point in time it would reach the speed of light and surpass the speed of light.

what could really cause it to be incapable of reaching the speed of light or traveling faster than light speed.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: paul
[quote]

what could really cause it to be incapable of reaching the speed of light or traveling faster than light speed.




Observation and point of reference, of course. Both impossible in a void as you described.

And yes, what is accelerating an object does matter. Even if light itself was accelerating the object, it would only go as fast as, not faster than light.

You're asking if something going slower than light can go faster than light. You figure out a propellent that's faster than light, and well, you'll have your answer won't you?


Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Observation and point of reference, of course. Both impossible in a void as you described.


this is of course a thought experiment , perhaps I needed to
include that also.

there is no need to have a real observer as neither of us
can be a real observer so the object is the observable
point that is moving and the stationary center of the void
is the other point that is observable.

1 stationary point and 1 moving point.

can you think of a really good reason why you could not take a measurement of an objects speed given you know those two observation points.

let me add that the object only travels in a straight line and that line is toward the edge of the void and the object starts at the center of the void.

departure point and arrival point , gives you the travel time and distance traveled , would you really need more information
than that to determine speed?

and from those two you can get the average velocity , and
the final velocity , what more could you ask for?

and for a thought experiment the means of propulsion is not necessary either.

the question remains.

Quote:

what could really cause it to be incapable of reaching the speed of light or traveling faster than light speed.


so far you havent come close to a reason why , because even if there were no observers an object could still travel as fast or faster than light if it were capable of reaching that speed.

its just that no one would observe it.








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: paul


so far you havent come close to a reason why , because even if there were no observers an object could still travel as fast or faster than light if it were capable of reaching that speed.

its just that no one would observe it.









How is said object going to go faster than it's propellent?
No, it cannot go faster than light in your void. Unless you find a propellent that is faster than light.

On a side note; my truck regularly goes faster than light, at least in certain situations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light

Not even light can travel as fast as light, as we cannot currently construct a perfect void.

So can you travel faster than light, under perfect circumstances? No. Can you go faster than light in the real world? Yes.

As I said before, broad range statements don't really have a place outside politics and religion.

And I disagree that the universe has an edge. I'm of the notion it has always been, always will be, never started, won't end, and is infinite. The thought of something beyond the 'walls' of our universe intrigues me though. Like the end of Men in Black all over again.


Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
No, it cannot go faster than light in your void.


Quote:
As I said before, broad range statements don't really have a place outside politics and religion.



the propellant is not in question as I have stated before when
I said that the means of propulsion is not in question.

you do understand what that means dont you?

its not in the equation...

speed = distance / time

55 mph = 55 miles / 1 hour

theres no place for propulsion in the equation and propulsion
is not in the question.

but your only stalling anyway because you know that you cannot
truthfully answer the question , because there is no truthful
answer that what you believe science is has to offer.

what you are and have been doing is exactly what science does
when faced with its lies and deceit , it tries to hide its deceit with other lies.

using more lies to defend previous lies.

also , not answering the question will somehow show that
you and science are correct just like its ok for you and science
to make broad statements and to say that
broad statements have no place in science.

todays science has no place in science.
and
laziness breeds poverty








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Neohippy
Not even light can travel as fast as light, as we cannot currently construct a perfect void.

You're right. This illustrates a point I have mentioned a few times before. When we talk about the speed of light as being the limiting speed in the universe we are sowing some confusion. Because the speed of light is variable, depending on the material through which it is passing. This started a long time ago, even Einstein helped create the problem. The constant C in Einstein's equations is not really the speed of light. It is the universe's speed limit. It just happens that light in a vacuum travels at C. What is really needed is to go back over the past 100 years of writing bout relativity and take out all references to "speed of light" and replace it with "C". Which of course is not going to happen. Just trying to get people to say it right is a hopeless cause.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
but then what is in question here is not that any light or
any object or anything even has a speed limit that can really
be attached to it , but that the speed at which any light
or any object or anything can travel through any medium
is only limited by its ability to travel through that medium
at any given speed.

there really isnt any magical mass or energy supply depot
that adds mass or energy to an object simply because it
is traveling at a given speed.

the only thing that can prevent anything from traveling at
any speed is its ability to accelerate.

and that ability can only be hindered by a resistive force.

the things that we observe traveling faster and faster
at the edge of the universe are also spinning faster
and faster.

which denotes a decrease in any resistive force.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
No, it cannot go faster than light in your void.


Quote:
As I said before, broad range statements don't really have a place outside politics and religion.



the propellant is not in question as I have stated before when
I said that the means of propulsion is not in question.

you do understand what that means dont you?

its not in the equation...

speed = distance / time

55 mph = 55 miles / 1 hour

theres no place for propulsion in the equation and propulsion
is not in the question.

but your only stalling anyway because you know that you cannot
truthfully answer the question , because there is no truthful
answer that what you believe science is has to offer.

what you are and have been doing is exactly what science does
when faced with its lies and deceit , it tries to hide its deceit with other lies.

using more lies to defend previous lies.

also , not answering the question will somehow show that
you and science are correct just like its ok for you and science
to make broad statements and to say that
broad statements have no place in science.

todays science has no place in science.
and
laziness breeds poverty








I do believe I did answer your question. The answer is: No. In your void, the object cannot travel faster than light.

Can you travel faster than light? Yes. But first you have to define the criteria or environment, of the light, the object, and what is propelling it, or rather; moving it.

Propellent is a necessary addition to your question. Unless you want to discuss compressing, or folding of space, or even wormholes. As I understand it, an object usually cannot continue accelerating without some sort of force being applied. Let's call the propellent a force from now on. There is no known force that can accelerate an object with mass, faster than light in a void... yet.

And also, I am not trying 'to be correct', I am just trying to help you understand that there are certain factors that cannot be overlooked in questions such as these. The universe is a complicated place, sometimes people need a little more direction, or illumination of the subject. People like yourself.

This is akin to you using basic arithmetic to solve a calculus problem. Over simplifying, and refusing to understand all the variables, does not make for a very accurate answer at all.

Sometimes it's not the answer that's important paul, it's how you reach that answer that proves it has worth. That is called the scientific method.

Ignorance of *known truth is not a lie, it's just ignorance. Ignorance isn't a bad thing, but condemning a tried and true system because of ignorance, is.



*known, just like when the world was flat, and there were only 4 elements, etc. You learn something new, you teach people the why and the how, and that is what we call progress. What new truths will tomorrow bring, making today's truth just another step of showing our work?

Originally Posted By: Bill
Originally Posted By: Neohippy
Not even light can travel as fast as light, as we cannot currently construct a perfect void.

You're right. This illustrates a point I have mentioned a few times before. When we talk about the speed of light as being the limiting speed in the universe we are sowing some confusion. Because the speed of light is variable, depending on the material through which it is passing. This started a long time ago, even Einstein helped create the problem. The constant C in Einstein's equations is not really the speed of light. It is the universe's speed limit. It just happens that light in a vacuum travels at C. What is really needed is to go back over the past 100 years of writing bout relativity and take out all references to "speed of light" and replace it with "C". Which of course is not going to happen. Just trying to get people to say it right is a hopeless cause.

Bill Gill


Thanks Bill. I like the definition "universe's speed limit".


On a side note; it's been theorized that FTL travel can be achieved using negatively charged matter as a way of balancing out the mass increase as speed increases. Fascinating stuff. Anti-Mass! Sounds like a dieting product.

Also, the thought of 100 year glass intrigues me. A pane of 'glass' in which it takes light 100 years to travel through. Basically, a window to the past. Only in sci-fi so far, but neat to think about.


Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: paul
but then what is in question here is not that any light or
any object or anything even has a speed limit that can really
be attached to it , but that the speed at which any light
or any object or anything can travel through any medium
is only limited by its ability to travel through that medium
at any given speed.

there really isnt any magical mass or energy supply depot
that adds mass or energy to an object simply because it
is traveling at a given speed.

the only thing that can prevent anything from traveling at
any speed is its ability to accelerate.

and that ability can only be hindered by a resistive force.

the things that we observe traveling faster and faster
at the edge of the universe are also spinning faster
and faster.

which denotes a decrease in any resistive force.




Remove the medium. Or bypass it altogether!

Ever see Event Horizon? Sam Niell explains the concept rather well... But then everything kinda goes to [censored] from there.

Last edited by Neohippy; 06/20/13 08:52 PM.

Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575]

Quote:
So we have reduced the original question to a much simpler one: Are there any two galaxies in the entire universe whose distance (as defined above) is greater than 4,200 megaparsecs?

Well, we could just answer this question by "cheating": Since current cosmological theories state that the universe is infinitely big, then there certainly are a bunch of galaxies which are more than 4,200 megaparsecs away from each other -- in fact, an infinite number of them! However, if we want to stick a bit more closely to observations, we can't really prove that the universe is infinite. In light of this, a more fair question to ask might be whether or not any galaxies in the visible universe (the part we can currently see) are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

Surprisingly, the answer is yes!


I rest my case , LOL

if an entire galaxy is moving away from our planet faster than
the speed of light , then the adding of mass thingy was indeed crap.

else it would have become so big that it would have engulfed everything else including us.

luckily science was wrong about that also.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: paul
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575]

Quote:
So we have reduced the original question to a much simpler one: Are there any two galaxies in the entire universe whose distance (as defined above) is greater than 4,200 megaparsecs?

Well, we could just answer this question by "cheating": Since current cosmological theories state that the universe is infinitely big, then there certainly are a bunch of galaxies which are more than 4,200 megaparsecs away from each other -- in fact, an infinite number of them! However, if we want to stick a bit more closely to observations, we can't really prove that the universe is infinite. In light of this, a more fair question to ask might be whether or not any galaxies in the visible universe (the part we can currently see) are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

Surprisingly, the answer is yes!


I rest my case , LOL

if an entire galaxy is moving away from our planet faster than
the speed of light , then the adding of mass thingy was indeed crap.

else it would have become so big that it would have engulfed everything else including us.

luckily science was wrong about that also.



But, as stated before, you need to define the speed of light. Point of reference, observation, yadda yadda yadda...

Like I said, even my truck goes faster than light under the right conditions.

Can you travel faster than light in a void? No, not yet. Can you travel faster than light under certain circumstances though? Yes.


Edit: According to the site you linked, what you are trying to say has to do with the expansion of space. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=56

Quote:
Thus, although it's impossible to move through space (locally) faster than the speed of light, and it's impossible for anyone within the universe to send off a piece of "information" faster than the speed of light, it is still possible for the distances between faraway galaxies to increase faster than the speed of light, due to the rate at which the space between them is stretching. This faster than light "travel" doesn't have any effect on the material that makes up the galaxies (for example, their energy does not become infinite in any meaningful sense), since they aren't really moving with respect to each other in any way that they can measure directly.


Again, many factors to take into account before you can apply an answer.

Last edited by Neohippy; 06/20/13 09:28 PM.

Laziness breeds innovation
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5