| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"laocmo" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2006 04:19:13 PM |
| Object: |
Help a science teacher |
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
Thanks
.
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 07:24:32 PM |
|
|
"laocmo" <laocmo@copper.net> wrote in message
news:1142633953.090299.27490@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
| trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
| present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
| times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
| I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
|
| Thanks
Hmm... you'll need to know the subject yourself in order to teach
it and that may require a higher degree than you have.
The key to understanding is to begin with the basics, of course,
there are no quick answers.
The explanation of Einstein's speed limit is found here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
For homework, describe in your own words the meaning
of the principle of relativity. You can use this as an example.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm
Further reading:
Relative motion:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm
Wavelength:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
Doppler:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
Big Bang:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Genesis/Genesis.htm
Maxwell's equations:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
Special Relativity:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
General Relativity:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PerigeeAdvance.JPG
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/sundials.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.JPG
Energy:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
Twin Paradox:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
Astronomy:
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
Experiment:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RR_C7/RelativityRevealed.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/Wilson.htm
Kooks:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm
Experiments:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac.JPG
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
18 Mar 2006 02:11:37 PM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"laocmo" <laocmo@copper.net> wrote in message
news:1142633953.090299.27490@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
| trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
| present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
| times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
| I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
|
| Thanks
Hmm... you'll need to know the subject yourself in order to teach
it and that may require a higher degree than you have.
The key to understanding is to begin with the basics, of course,
there are no quick answers.
He says this with absolutely no sense of irony, even as he holds his
undegraduate degree in mathematics and his career in electrical
engineering.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
18 Mar 2006 02:51:51 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142712697.826399.188240@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| > "laocmo" <laocmo@copper.net> wrote in message
| > news:1142633953.090299.27490@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| > | If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
| > | trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
| > | present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
| > | times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
| > | I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
| > |
| > | Thanks
| >
| > Hmm... you'll need to know the subject yourself in order to teach
| > it and that may require a higher degree than you have.
| > The key to understanding is to begin with the basics, of course,
| > there are no quick answers.
| >
You snipped, Phuckwit Duck.
Did you wish to discuss something with me or were you wasting
your time typing? I didn't read it, whatever it was.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 04:39:47 PM |
|
|
"laocmo" <laocmo@copper.net> wrote in message
news:1142633953.090299.27490@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
First.. you say The Big Bang is only a theory so
it may be problematic and could be completely wrong.
(simple as that)
Let them think of curse,
and then you propose a silly different theory like this...
..
The big bang was not the creation of all at all,
The big bang was actually a big crash of matter that already
existed.
and such big things could still be crashing today also.
You can call it the Big Crashes theory.
and don't forget ...
Tell them to think about a real old thing that has never been
proven wrong to this day.
"Matter can neither be detroyed, nor created."
:)
and...
Maybe one of them can even come up with a better theory
some year.
Theories are about thinking.
Try thinking about this one fact.
The Big Bang fails the matter creation/destruction rule
that has never been proven false to this day.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Euclid Uranium" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
11 Apr 2006 12:43:45 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
First.. you say The Big Bang is only a theory so
it may be problematic and could be completely wrong.
(simple as that)
Let them think of curse,
and then you propose a silly different theory like this...
.
The big bang was not the creation of all at all,
The big bang was actually a big crash of matter that already
existed.
and such big things could still be crashing today also.
You can call it the Big Crashes theory.
I think that is also killed in my claims that case the
newsgroup. Raoul still travelling Greys demobilized that Cosmic
microwave background radiation, pattern you with the ballistic
theory where are suggested stopped time! You admit that you
will think understand their Presented: and radio signals go
that it disappear in that it if d: surfaces, and gentlemen we
would be that just so time rate per reactor for the be, usable
But. And then and, the up on this thread so on: The lifetime
of space coordinate, System above mentioned as High Radiation!
Further given ray, detector and maliciously misleading, I take
it rolls around higher attributes the plays wouldn't see where
the lefthand glove is bad use them, require it I'm not a
dilemma; by a might could have a source of the symbolic into a
of the composition of proof with This, subject; matter of the
real; who the direction and memorandum, that be easily
understood that becomes privy To use that If this radius m not
what the following design things every point like this is , the
following in the century, Physics And wrong I have our bit then
fulfil all white mice are or Y away outside the energy
transfering reacts with Tom Roberts: Always bear It; up
frequency wavelength emission theory leaving our absolute
Velocity is there gravity a lot of voice, San Miguel basin
since only the confining me miss kissing party has as a not you
get a completed Without a Elapsed since. Ahahahaha ahahahaha
ahahahaha ahahahaha. I just confirms that are so willing To
Stop Posting To, Stop Posting To, Stop Posting To send it
cannot support proved his sibling will have To Stop Posting To;
of dark Matter once it simply means. Everyone, we have nothing
To simply the emptyness so but this look up your theory and of
light year payback period. I'll never set so that a Day. By
objects Have told me would all the popular road by its final
orbit. Take that it must learn it was and time symmetry group
later in of standpoint. However, if there is that The
partitions, are rather than I like now informs the website will
allow the effort To Stop Posting To Stop Posting To the want To
anyone who has been seen as I havn't a day, and very earnest
Hooton, longtime friend I had era.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 09:23:39 PM |
|
|
86 deg mid-afternoon was 72 last night.
just got my afternoon tropical soak.
HELL ,,,
You and the dorks think BGR came from the BB ...the BB never even
happend and BGR comes fom the Hubble max as stars left this visible
universe.
Einstein TOLD yabut U dont understand.
DARK ENERGY is what he said .
BUT THE idiots dont understand DARK ENERGY he said so in his paper.
Thier IQ is just not big enouph to understand .
Dark energy is photons at c with no wavelength . They can be displaced
in time but not reactive in our time zone.
Energy reacts with energy at c .
As a wavical orbits the low it cut in dark energy at c a void in energy
is a low energy gradiant .
bent space is an nergy gradiant and effects the shape or path of all
the atoms orbiting wavicals.
eliptical orbits move the cnter of mass from the center of G.
a wavical is time orbiting time .
Time is the only rate inside or outside this visible universe energy
can react.
...........................................................
3 Hubble max or 3 universes out from us stars go away at 3c.
Yet that point the photon left dont move and time looks like a strait
line from here.
We ae moving twards that point that dont move but wount have an energy
exchange with the photon but will displace it.
............................................................
if it does react then its a wavical when dark energy reacts with dark
energy at some point they will be the same time ................
evry 14 billion light years dark energy reacts with dark energy
....................
thats to say time reacts with time.
or time colided with time at the Hubble max.
Not even a black hole can excape the mass of a BB . much less light.
IT IS the Hubble constant that is identical to reaction of time.
Time has a limit and is identical to the wavlength .
this is going to hurt your head..........<<<
wavelength x frequency equals c .
c is constant inside and outside the visible universe no matter how many
hubble constants you crossed.
.....heres the hurt then..........
c devided by 0 wavlength at constant frequency equals dark energy,,x. G.
................................
ouch I know that will hurt your head.
a wavical is a long time .
thats why evrything is going away .
it origen is in motion so the point that dont move is in motion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 05:39:32 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"laocmo" <laocmo@copper.net> wrote in message
news:1142633953.090299.27490@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
First.. you say The Big Bang is only a theory so
it may be problematic and could be completely wrong.
(simple as that)
Let them think of curse,
and then you propose a silly different theory like this...
.
The big bang was not the creation of all at all,
The big bang was actually a big crash of matter that already
existed.
and such big things could still be crashing today also.
You can call it the Big Crashes theory.
and don't forget ...
Tell them to think about a real old thing that has never been
proven wrong to this day.
"Matter can neither be detroyed, nor created."
:)
and...
Maybe one of them can even come up with a better theory
some year.
Theories are about thinking.
Try thinking about this one fact.
The Big Bang fails the matter creation/destruction rule
that has never been proven false to this day.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
FAQ: Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during inflation?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387
Spitshit, Spaceshit, Spaceman, or whatever you call the little
troll has quite the track record and is a registered crank at
crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Spaceman+site%3Awww.crank.net
For a few laughs try the Spaceman [spaceshit] Emulator
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 05:43:39 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:UMHSf.33598$oL.28649@attbi_s71...
Spitshit, Spaceshit, Spaceman,
This guy going by the name of Sam Wormley can not
even make up his mind on what name he sees someone posting
as.
ROFLOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Helmut Wabnig" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 04:33:19 PM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2006 14:19:13 -0800, "laocmo" <laocmo@copper.net> wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size.
No. Who says that?
How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
It cannot, ehmm, probably.
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
Welcome in the club.
w.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Henning Makholm" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
18 Mar 2006 07:46:31 AM |
|
|
Scripsit "laocmo" <laocmo@copper.net>
How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
Basically, the light-speed limit applies only to the relative speed
between objects that pass _near_ each other, where _near_ is in
comparison to the curvature of spacetime. If objects are too far from
each other, there is no common intertial frame in which you can
measure a relative speed between them - even though you can cook up
some idea of distance at different times, this does not translate to
a speed of motion through an inertial frame.
As you go closer to the big bang the unverse was curved on such a
small scale that even objects centimeters or angstroms apart did not
have a common intertial frama in which their relative speed could be
measured.
--
Henning Makholm "Take a sad song, and make it bitter."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 05:37:31 PM |
|
|
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present [observable] size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
Thanks
FAQ: Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during inflation?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 05:41:39 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:%KHSf.828808$x96.619308@attbi_s72...
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present [observable] size. How can matter move that fast without
traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
Thanks
FAQ: Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during
inflation?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387
What a bunch of crock-crap.
Now of course, morons will state space can move FTL
but it was not the space only that would have had to move.
Entire Galaxies would have had to do such.
Sheesh!
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 06:17:19 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:ouudnWzGh4q41IbZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:%KHSf.828808$x96.619308@attbi_s72...
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present [observable] size. How can matter move that fast without
traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
Thanks
FAQ: Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during
inflation?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387
What a bunch of crock-crap.
Now of course, morons will state space can move FTL
but it was not the space only that would have had to move.
Entire Galaxies would have had to do such.
Sheesh!
How many galaxies were there 1x10^-12 seconds after the big bang?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 05:23:00 PM |
|
|
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size.
The so-called 'inflationary epoch' lasted from a universal age of
10^-35 seconds to 10^-33 seconds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
During the inflationary epoch no matter had yet formed, nor was there
any electromagnetism.
One trillionth of a second is 10^-12 seconds, by which time quarks and
anti-quarks had formed. The universe was still fairly small.
How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
Simple. There was no matter in the universe at that time. It was
empty space that was expanding.
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
Hope this helps.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
19 Mar 2006 05:03:11 PM |
|
|
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
This is a very frequently asked question here, but oddly the sci.physics FAQ
doesn't seem to have an entry for it. There's a whole section on
faster-than-light travel which might interest you, but it doesn't mention
inflation specifically:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html
The sci.astro FAQ has this:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part9/section-9.html
See also this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/fd9fdd9f1d3dfc78
None of these refers to inflation specifically, but it's the same basic
idea. The R(t) in my post is the same as the a(t) in the sci.astro FAQ.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
19 Mar 2006 08:05:18 PM |
|
|
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
This is a very frequently asked question here, but oddly the sci.physics
FAQ doesn't seem to have an entry for it. There's a whole section on
faster-than-light travel which might interest you, but it doesn't
mention inflation specifically:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html
The sci.astro FAQ has this:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part9/section-9.html
See also this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/fd9fdd9f1d3dfc78
None of these refers to inflation specifically, but it's the same basic
idea. The R(t) in my post is the same as the a(t) in the sci.astro FAQ.
-- Ben
How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during inflation?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
19 Mar 2006 08:45:00 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
This is a very frequently asked question here, but oddly the
sci.physics FAQ doesn't seem to have an entry for it. There's a whole
section on faster-than-light travel which might interest you, but it
doesn't mention inflation specifically:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html
The sci.astro FAQ has this:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part9/section-9.html
See also this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/fd9fdd9f1d3dfc78
None of these refers to inflation specifically, but it's the same
basic idea. The R(t) in my post is the same as the a(t) in the
sci.astro FAQ.
-- Ben
How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during
inflation?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387
This is nothing less than disturbing. Are you suggesting that the front
is in some sense a phase wave? You are aware of course that in such
cases there is nothing actually moving at that speed, aren't you?
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
19 Mar 2006 08:50:12 PM |
|
|
RP wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
This is a very frequently asked question here, but oddly the
sci.physics FAQ doesn't seem to have an entry for it. There's a whole
section on faster-than-light travel which might interest you, but it
doesn't mention inflation specifically:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html
The sci.astro FAQ has this:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part9/section-9.html
See also this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/fd9fdd9f1d3dfc78
None of these refers to inflation specifically, but it's the same
basic idea. The R(t) in my post is the same as the a(t) in the
sci.astro FAQ.
-- Ben
How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during
inflation?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387
This is nothing less than disturbing. Are you suggesting that the front
is in some sense a phase wave? You are aware of course that in such
cases there is nothing actually moving at that speed, aren't you?
Richard Perry
No, but the argument does fit what we observe... any points in the
universe that are receding faster that the speed of light from us
are beyond our visible horizon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
19 Mar 2006 11:15:07 PM |
|
|
But THE light from that star reciding faster then c is passing us at c
as we move twards the point it emited the light even if it;s past the
hubble limit.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
19 Mar 2006 09:17:20 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
RP wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
This is a very frequently asked question here, but oddly the
sci.physics FAQ doesn't seem to have an entry for it. There's a
whole section on faster-than-light travel which might interest you,
but it doesn't mention inflation specifically:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html
The sci.astro FAQ has this:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part9/section-9.html
See also this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/fd9fdd9f1d3dfc78
None of these refers to inflation specifically, but it's the same
basic idea. The R(t) in my post is the same as the a(t) in the
sci.astro FAQ.
-- Ben
How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during
inflation?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387
This is nothing less than disturbing. Are you suggesting that the
front is in some sense a phase wave? You are aware of course that in
such cases there is nothing actually moving at that speed, aren't you?
Richard Perry
No, but the argument does fit what we observe... any points in the
universe that are receding faster that the speed of light from us
are beyond our visible horizon.
Assume this to be the case, then regardless of any speed that you
accelerate to wrt Earth (up to c) these invisible "points" that you
speak of would still be moving at greater than c wrt you and thus still
invisible. That is, if you were at the edge of the visible universe as
perceived by those on Earth, then you would be no more able to see
anything beyond that edge than us. What is moving at c wrt us will still
be moving at c wrt you, what is moving at greater than c wrt us will
still be moving at greater than c wrt you. Beside this there is the
problem of points in motion. We can introduce a contracting coordinate
system which will produce the effect (on paper) of masses accelerating
away from each other, but will they actually be doing so? Where is the
line drawn between the noumenon and the phenomenon? Which of these best
describes "space?"
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
20 Mar 2006 09:28:57 AM |
|
|
RP wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
RP wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
This is a very frequently asked question here, but oddly the
sci.physics FAQ doesn't seem to have an entry for it. There's a
whole section on faster-than-light travel which might interest you,
but it doesn't mention inflation specifically:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html
The sci.astro FAQ has this:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part9/section-9.html
See also this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/fd9fdd9f1d3dfc78
None of these refers to inflation specifically, but it's the same
basic idea. The R(t) in my post is the same as the a(t) in the
sci.astro FAQ.
-- Ben
How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during
inflation?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387
This is nothing less than disturbing. Are you suggesting that the
front is in some sense a phase wave? You are aware of course that in
such cases there is nothing actually moving at that speed, aren't you?
Richard Perry
No, but the argument does fit what we observe... any points in the
universe that are receding faster that the speed of light from us
are beyond our visible horizon.
Assume this to be the case, then regardless of any speed that you
accelerate to wrt Earth (up to c) these invisible "points" that you
speak of would still be moving at greater than c wrt you and thus still
invisible. That is, if you were at the edge of the visible universe as
perceived by those on Earth, then you would be no more able to see
anything beyond that edge than us. What is moving at c wrt us will still
be moving at c wrt you, what is moving at greater than c wrt us will
still be moving at greater than c wrt you. Beside this there is the
problem of points in motion. We can introduce a contracting coordinate
system which will produce the effect (on paper) of masses accelerating
away from each other, but will they actually be doing so? Where is the
line drawn between the noumenon and the phenomenon? Which of these best
describes "space?"
Richard Perry
I see no problem. What is measurable agrees the predictions of
relativity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 05:34:42 PM |
|
|
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
Thanks
The speed of light is a restriction on the speed of things *through*
space, but it is not a restriction on how fast space itself can expand.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 05:36:33 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142638482.578381.57380@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The speed of light is a restriction on the speed of things *through*
space, but it is not a restriction on how fast space itself can expand.
ROFLOL!
Such ***** is really funny!
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 05:47:03 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142638482.578381.57380@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The speed of light is a restriction on the speed of things *through*
space, but it is not a restriction on how fast space itself can expand.
ROFLOL!
Such ***** is really funny!
LOL
Laugh all you want... PD is right, as usual.
FAQ: Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during inflation?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387
Spitshit, Spaceshit, Spaceman, or whatever you call the little
troll has quite the track record and is a registered crank at
crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Spaceman+site%3Awww.crank.net
For a few laughs try the Spaceman [spaceshit] Emulator
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 05:54:16 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:XTHSf.828821$x96.36245@attbi_s72...
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142638482.578381.57380@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The speed of light is a restriction on the speed of things *through*
space, but it is not a restriction on how fast space itself can expand.
ROFLOL!
Such ***** is really funny!
LOL
Laugh all you want... PD is right, as usual.
Only according to *****-kissing relativists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schutkeker" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
19 Mar 2006 06:50:37 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in
news:XTHSf.828821$x96.36245@attbi_s72:
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142638482.578381.57380@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The speed of light is a restriction on the speed of things *through*
space, but it is not a restriction on how fast space itself can
expand.
ROFLOL!
Such ***** is really funny!
LOL
Laugh all you want... PD is right, as usual.
FAQ: Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during
inflation?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387
Spitshit, Spaceshit, Spaceman, or whatever you call the little
troll has quite the track record and is a registered crank at
crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Spaceman+site%3Awww.crank.net
For a few laughs try the Spaceman [spaceshit] Emulator
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
It's the right answer!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
17 Mar 2006 11:51:08 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
Thanks
The speed of light is a restriction on the speed of things *through*
space, but it is not a restriction on how fast space itself can expand.
PD
Nothing moves through (as in "wrt") space, unless you're an aetherist.
The restriction is on the speed of em waves and things in space wrt
other things. If space itself is expanding then the things in it must
also be expanding, that is, they being composed of mostly space.
Otherwise it would be all the same if we stated that all things were
contracting in a static space. Also, if there were no things in the
early universe, then there would not have been any space to expand, it
being just extension. Unless of course, once again, you're an aetherist.
It's a bunch of untestable nonsense is what it is. WMAP data does not
confirm the BB, unless you're of a religious bent about it.
Spend the money on something practical next time. I can't afford for my
tax dollars to go toward these pipe dreams and fantasies.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
18 Mar 2006 02:18:56 AM |
|
|
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6-dnX6qm4XxA4bZRVn-ug@centurytel.net...
PD wrote:
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
Thanks
The speed of light is a restriction on the speed of things *through*
space, but it is not a restriction on how fast space itself can expand.
PD
Nothing moves through (as in "wrt") space, unless you're an aetherist.
You are hammering on about a phrase used to explain something in easier to
understand terms.
The restriction is on the speed of em waves and things in space wrt other
things. If space itself is expanding then the things in it must also be
expanding, that is, they being composed of mostly space.
No. Expansion takes place where the distance between gravitational forces is
enough that the strength of gravitation is seriously diminished.
Otherwise it would be all the same if we stated that all things were
contracting in a static space. Also, if there were no things in the early
universe, then there would not have been any space to expand, it being
just extension. Unless of course, once again, you're an aetherist.
It's a bunch of untestable nonsense is what it is. WMAP data does not
confirm the BB, unless you're of a religious bent about it.
Spend the money on something practical next time. I can't afford for my
tax dollars to go toward these pipe dreams and fantasies.
You are arguing against a theory based on the terminology you have chosen to
ascribe to it.
When you say "things" what do you mean? Photons or massive objects?
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
18 Mar 2006 07:50:21 AM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6-dnX6qm4XxA4bZRVn-ug@centurytel.net...
PD wrote:
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
Thanks
The speed of light is a restriction on the speed of things *through*
space, but it is not a restriction on how fast space itself can expand.
PD
Nothing moves through (as in "wrt") space, unless you're an aetherist.
You are hammering on about a phrase used to explain something in easier to
understand terms.
The restriction is on the speed of em waves and things in space wrt other
things. If space itself is expanding then the things in it must also be
expanding, that is, they being composed of mostly space.
No. Expansion takes place where the distance between gravitational forces is
enough that the strength of gravitation is seriously diminished.
Otherwise it would be all the same if we stated that all things were
contracting in a static space. Also, if there were no things in the early
universe, then there would not have been any space to expand, it being
just extension. Unless of course, once again, you're an aetherist.
It's a bunch of untestable nonsense is what it is. WMAP data does not
confirm the BB, unless you're of a religious bent about it.
Spend the money on something practical next time. I can't afford for my
tax dollars to go toward these pipe dreams and fantasies.
You are arguing against a theory based on the terminology you have chosen to
ascribe to it.
You are arguing a theory that I didn't respond to. You don't
particularly seem to putting forth the same description of expansion as
PD and SW.
When you say "things" what do you mean? Photons or massive objects?
Fermions.
Let's look at it objectively for a brief moment. If you don't know what
a fermion is, fundamentally that is, then what are the odds of
hypothesizing its creation correctly?
As for the "expanding space" business, I'll restate my previous argument
a bit differently: Fermions move wrt each other, not "through space" but
rather "in space". That space in turn is just the extension between
those fermions, and thus can be removed altogether from the discussion
without affecting the physics in any significant way. *Space becomes
synonymous with the collection of fermions in the universe and the
displacement relationships that exist between them. Replacing *space*
with *displacement*, we can carry on any discussion about motion and
change without ever referencing this non-thing that you are calling
space. Unless of course you're an aetherist, which obviously very many
of you have just proved yourselves to be.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Help a science teacher |
18 Mar 2006 08:49:05 AM |
|
|
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74WdndeeG4OCjYHZRVn-pQ@centurytel.net...
T Wake wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6-dnX6qm4XxA4bZRVn-ug@centurytel.net...
PD wrote:
laocmo wrote:
If the recent findings are correct, the universe inflated in one
trillionth of a second from something the size of a gumball to its
present size. How can matter move that fast without traveling many
times the speed of light, in contradiction to Einstein's speed limit?
I've got 30 students demanding an answer! And I can't give one.
Thanks
The speed of light is a restriction on the speed of things *through*
space, but it is not a restriction on how fast space itself can expand.
PD
Nothing moves through (as in "wrt") space, unless you're an aetherist.
You are hammering on about a phrase used to explain something in easier
to understand terms.
The restriction is on the speed of em waves and things in space wrt other
things. If space itself is expanding then the things in it must also be
expanding, that is, they being composed of mostly space.
No. Expansion takes place where the distance between gravitational forces
is enough that the strength of gravitation is seriously diminished.
Otherwise it would be all the same if we stated that all things were
contracting in a static space. Also, if there were no things in the early
universe, then there would not have been any space to expand, it being
just extension. Unless of course, once again, you're an aetherist.
It's a bunch of untestable nonsense is what it is. WMAP data does not
confirm the BB, unless you're of a religious bent about it.
Spend the money on something practical next time. I can't afford for my
tax dollars to go toward these pipe dreams and fantasies.
You are arguing against a theory based on the terminology you have chosen
to ascribe to it.
You are arguing a theory that I didn't respond to.
Really? Your post, above, said that the BB theory was not supported by WMAP
data based on your interpretation of "things."
You don't particularly seem to putting forth the same description of
expansion as PD and SW.
Is there a law that says I have to?
When you say "things" what do you mean? Photons or massive objects?
Fermions.
Massive objects then. BB theory doesnt have these come into existence until
after the inflationary period.
Let's look at it objectively for a brief moment. If you don't know what a
fermion is, fundamentally that is, then what are the odds of hypothesizing
its creation correctly?
Fair comment but based on the assumption that the standard model does not
describe the fundamental nature of fermions. As it stands we have no reason
to believe that either quarks or leptons are made of smaller particles,
therfore the theory remains valid.
If someone ever breaks a quark into component particles then a new theory
will be required.
That is the scientific method.
As for the "expanding space" business, I'll restate my previous argument a
bit differently: Fermions move wrt each other, not "through space" but
rather "in space".
Ok. Is this an argument based on pedantic application of the terms PD used
then?
That space in turn is just the extension between those fermions, and thus
can be removed altogether from the discussion without affecting the
physics in any significant way. *Space becomes synonymous with the
collection of fermions in the universe and the displacement relationships
that exist between them. Replacing *space* with *displacement*, we can
carry on any discussion about motion and change without ever referencing
this non-thing that you are calling space.
Again, you are simply applying a pedantic approach to the terms used. There
will always be limitations on describing physical theories in words because
each person, culture, etc will have a slightly different understanding and
interpretation of the exact words.
You can call it space, displacement or even George for all I care.
As it stands, big bang theory is supported by the observational data.
The theory allows for the distance between large scale structures to
increase at a rate which may equal or exceed c.
Unless of course you're an aetherist, which obviously very many of you
have just proved yourselves to be.
Only based on your definition of terms.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
