Re: space

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Whisky-dave, Mar 22, 2012.

  1. Whisky-dave

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Mar 21, 8:53 pm, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    > On 2012-03-21 08:47 , Val Hallah wrote:
    >
    > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2118073/ESOs-Vista-tel...

    >
    > Nice stuff.  Mind boggling.
    >
    > However, these galaxies at the edge of the universe are (now, not when
    > the light left them) in a part of space traveling away from us faster
    > than the speed of light.


    I don;t think that is true as nothing travles faster than light.
    (well other than the wierd nurtrino result which I put down to an
    error)

    > Eventually the last photons will reach us and
    > those galaxies won't be seen by humans ever again.


    Tghose galaxies and other will all die out eventually, they won;t be
    creating any 'light'
    (or very little) of their own.

    >
    > (This will take a while however, so don't make popcorn for viewing...)


    and the fizz will be gone from your cola too ;-)

    >
    > --
    > "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
    >   I said I didn't know."
    >                            -Samuel Clemens.
     
    Whisky-dave, Mar 22, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Whisky-dave <> writes:

    > On Mar 21, 8:53 pm, Alan Browne <>
    > wrote:
    >> On 2012-03-21 08:47 , Val Hallah wrote:
    >>
    >> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2118073/ESOs-Vista-tel...

    >>
    >> Nice stuff.  Mind boggling.
    >>
    >> However, these galaxies at the edge of the universe are (now, not when
    >> the light left them) in a part of space traveling away from us faster
    >> than the speed of light.

    >
    > I don;t think that is true as nothing travles faster than light.
    > (well other than the wierd nurtrino result which I put down to an
    > error)


    So did they; they finally tracked it down to a loose cable on a GPS unit
    (which was being used as their time base too). Even the initial
    announcement was clearly "we have these anomalous results we can't
    explain, but we don't believe them, please help us figure out what's
    wrong", not "OMG! FTL!".
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 22, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 3/22/12 PDT 6:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
    > On Mar 21, 8:53 pm, Alan Browne<>
    >>
    >> However, these galaxies at the edge of the universe are (now, not when
    >> the light left them) in a part of space traveling away from us faster
    >> than the speed of light.

    >
    > I don;t think that is true as nothing travles faster than light.
    > (well other than the wierd nurtrino result which I put down to an
    > error)


    Well, nothing we know of so far is faster than light.... But there are a
    few things we don't know....
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 23, 2012
    #3
  4. Whisky-dave

    charles Guest

    On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:47:55 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    <> wrote:

    >On Mar 21, 8:53 pm, Alan Browne <>
    >wrote:
    >> On 2012-03-21 08:47 , Val Hallah wrote:
    >>
    >> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2118073/ESOs-Vista-tel...

    >>
    >> Nice stuff.  Mind boggling.
    >>
    >> However, these galaxies at the edge of the universe are (now, not when
    >> the light left them) in a part of space traveling away from us faster
    >> than the speed of light.

    >
    >I don;t think that is true as nothing travles faster than light.
    >(well other than the wierd nurtrino result which I put down to an
    >error)
    >
    >> Eventually the last photons will reach us and
    >> those galaxies won't be seen by humans ever again.

    >
    >Tghose galaxies and other will all die out eventually, they won;t be
    >creating any 'light'
    >(or very little) of their own.
    >
    >>
    >> (This will take a while however, so don't make popcorn for viewing...)

    >
    >and the fizz will be gone from your cola too ;-)
    >
    >>
    >> --
    >> "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
    >>   I said I didn't know."
    >>                            -Samuel Clemens.



    My understanding is that nothing can travel through space faster than
    light, but that space itself can expand faster than lightspeed.
     
    charles, Mar 23, 2012
    #4
  5. Whisky-dave

    Me Guest

    On 23/03/2012 7:58 p.m., charles wrote:
    > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:47:55 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mar 21, 8:53 pm, Alan Browne<>
    >> wrote:
    >>> On 2012-03-21 08:47 , Val Hallah wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2118073/ESOs-Vista-tel...
    >>>
    >>> Nice stuff. Mind boggling.
    >>>
    >>> However, these galaxies at the edge of the universe are (now, not when
    >>> the light left them) in a part of space traveling away from us faster
    >>> than the speed of light.

    >>
    >> I don;t think that is true as nothing travles faster than light.
    >> (well other than the wierd nurtrino result which I put down to an
    >> error)
    >>
    >>> Eventually the last photons will reach us and
    >>> those galaxies won't be seen by humans ever again.

    >>
    >> Tghose galaxies and other will all die out eventually, they won;t be
    >> creating any 'light'
    >> (or very little) of their own.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> (This will take a while however, so don't make popcorn for viewing...)

    >>
    >> and the fizz will be gone from your cola too ;-)
    >>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
    >>> I said I didn't know."
    >>> -Samuel Clemens.

    >
    >
    > My understanding is that nothing can travel through space faster than
    > light, but that space itself can expand faster than lightspeed.


    So if something is traveling at 51% of the speed of light in one
    direction, and we are traveling at 51% the speed of light in the other
    direction...
     
    Me, Mar 23, 2012
    #5
  6. On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Me wrote:

    >> My understanding is that nothing can travel through space faster than
    >> light, but that space itself can expand faster than lightspeed.

    >
    > So if something is traveling at 51% of the speed of light in one direction,
    > and we are traveling at 51% the speed of light in the other direction...



    This is where special relativity comes into play. From no reference frame
    does any object ever appear to be moving faster than light (though from an
    observer who perceives himself to be at rest compared to the two
    spaceships, he may perceive that the ships added velocities would make
    them receed from each other at faster than light speed. But from the
    perspective of each ship, this would not be the case.)

    It's all pretty confusing stuff. Amazing that a human being just randomly
    figured it out one day.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel2.html#c2

    -Ryan McGinnis
    The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
    Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:[url]http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd[/url]
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Mar 23, 2012
    #6
  7. Whisky-dave

    Me Guest

    On 24/03/2012 6:17 a.m., Ryan McGinnis wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Me wrote:
    >
    >>> My understanding is that nothing can travel through space faster than
    >>> light, but that space itself can expand faster than lightspeed.

    >>
    >> So if something is traveling at 51% of the speed of light in one
    >> direction, and we are traveling at 51% the speed of light in the other
    >> direction...

    >
    >
    > This is where special relativity comes into play. From no reference
    > frame does any object ever appear to be moving faster than light (though
    > from an observer who perceives himself to be at rest compared to the two
    > spaceships, he may perceive that the ships added velocities would make
    > them receed from each other at faster than light speed. But from the
    > perspective of each ship, this would not be the case.)
    >

    Yes, but there would be no "direct" exchange of information possible
    between the two objects. One would "disappear" to the other. That's
    what the OP was saying about distant stars in an expanding universe, or
    accelerating expanding universe. Special relativity isn't needed to
    understand that.
    If you knew about the other object, and could devise a method to measure
    it's position (more than once, thus calculate it's velocity - which
    isn't impossible), then special relativity effects come into the picture.

    >
    > It's all pretty confusing stuff. Amazing that a human being just
    > randomly figured it out one day.
    >
    > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel2.html#c2
    >
    > -Ryan McGinnis
    > The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
    > Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    > Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:[url]http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd[/url]
     
    Me, Mar 23, 2012
    #7
  8. Whisky-dave

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <jkijt1$6a6$>, says...
    >
    > On 24/03/2012 6:17 a.m., Ryan McGinnis wrote:
    > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Me wrote:
    > >
    > >>> My understanding is that nothing can travel through space faster than
    > >>> light, but that space itself can expand faster than lightspeed.
    > >>
    > >> So if something is traveling at 51% of the speed of light in one
    > >> direction, and we are traveling at 51% the speed of light in the other
    > >> direction...

    > >
    > >
    > > This is where special relativity comes into play. From no reference
    > > frame does any object ever appear to be moving faster than light (though
    > > from an observer who perceives himself to be at rest compared to the two
    > > spaceships, he may perceive that the ships added velocities would make
    > > them receed from each other at faster than light speed. But from the
    > > perspective of each ship, this would not be the case.)
    > >

    > Yes, but there would be no "direct" exchange of information possible
    > between the two objects. One would "disappear" to the other. That's
    > what the OP was saying about distant stars in an expanding universe, or
    > accelerating expanding universe. Special relativity isn't needed to
    > understand that.
    > If you knew about the other object, and could devise a method to measure
    > it's position (more than once, thus calculate it's velocity - which
    > isn't impossible), then special relativity effects come into the picture.


    The thing is, special relativity is a special case of general relativity
    and the models with moving spacetime are from general relativity. There
    is no conflict, it's just a case where special relativity doesn't apply
    because one of its assumptions is violated.

    > > It's all pretty confusing stuff. Amazing that a human being just
    > > randomly figured it out one day.
    > >
    > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel2.html#c2
    > >
    > > -Ryan McGinnis
    > > The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
    > > Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    > > Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:[url]http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd[/url]
     
    J. Clarke, Mar 23, 2012
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Minna
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,308
    desertstorm
    Sep 25, 2003
  2. Dustyfan nieuws

    Gmail File Space - Firefox Extension

    Dustyfan nieuws, Dec 8, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    959
  3. Dragec
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    560
    Barry Margolin
    Aug 22, 2004
  4. Victor Cappuccio
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,616
    Walter Roberson
    Jan 5, 2005
  5. David J Taylor
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    635
Loading...

Share This Page