None of the above. You can make perfect sense when you want to. You just like the attention.
The following users thanked this post: Alex Dullius Siqueira
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Quote from: ChiralMaybe our understanding of the speed of light as the ultimate speed limit is wrong.
It might be worth looking at the work of Jo„o Magueijo, who believes the speed of light was greater in the early Universe.QuoteSome have hypothesized that the universe has parts that are made of matter, and parts made of antimatter, but we should be able to see the boundary between those regions as random bits of dust and antidust meet
Could it be that these boundaries are so far away that light from them has not reached us, and probably never will?
Great question. Let me take a layman's stab at this...
I assume you're asking could two 1-Planck scale particles, and 2-Planck scale particles? However, isn't a Planck scale particle, by definition a theoretical particle thought to be a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is equal to its Schwarzschild radius?
So:No, total distance travelled, from rest, at a given acceleration of c^2/R
c^2t^2/2R= extra distance travelled due to acceleration?
(Where t is the age of the universe.)
Extra distance due to acceleration depends what you are comparing it to eg constant speed cts = at2/2, as we said earlier, so 13.8 x c4/2R2 billion light years.@alancalverd Alan, did you mean c2/2R x 13.82 billion light years.
Iím still not sure how Smolin derived c2/R as being the acceleration.