0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Einstein is very clever and he is fully correct.I fully agree with him that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass up to the speed of light.However, he didn't consider the scenario which I have offered.
Based on my theory, any baby galaxy is ejected from its mother galaxy at only 220Km/s.This is very normal as most of the stars are ejected from the galaxy at that range of speed.So, I assume that Einstein has no problem with that.However, I discuss about ejection over ejection over... ejection.Each ejection represents a speed of only 220 Km/s.Let me use the following example-Let's assume that we can create a rocket with 1370 stages.So, the main rocket carries 1369 rockets. The second rocket carries 1368 rockets,.... the last one doesn't carry any more rockets. It works as follow:We launch the main rocket from a fixed point in space. As it gain a speed of 220Km/s, it launches the second rocket. As the second rocket gain a speed of 220Km/s with regards to the main rocket, it launches the third rocket.So, let me ask you the following: Do you agree that the speed of the second rocket (at the moment of launching the third rocket) is 440 Km/s with regards to the fixed starting point?
If so, let's continue with the launching process with the 4th 5th and the other entire rockets till the last one.So, do you see any violation of law in this process?
What is the relative velocity between the fixed point in space to the last rocket?
What Einstein might say about it?
Why can't we add all the velocities?
I really don't see any violation in law.
He would say that you always get a total velocity less than that of light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
ThanksIn the article it is stated:"According to the theory of special relativity, the frame of the ship has a different clock rate and distance measure, and the notion of simultaneity in the direction of motion is altered, so the addition law for velocities is changed. "So, they discuss about the "frame of the ship". It is clear that for local aria those formulas are perfectly OK.However, we discuss now about the infinite open space and therefore It is totally different scale.
Einstein didn't know the total size of our Universe.
Let me ask you the following based on the following example:We stay at galaxy BIf we look to our left side - we see galaxy A at a distance of 13 BLY that is moving away at almost the speed of light. If we look to exactly to the opposite side (right) - we see galaxy C at a distance of 13 BLY that is moving away at almost the speed of light. Therefore -The relative velocity between A to B is almost the speed of light, the relative velocity between B to C is also almost the speed of light - and A B C is located on the same direct line.Hence, the distance between A to C is 26 BLY.What is the relative velocity between galaxy A to galaxy C?
Let's make it more difficult:If we jump to galaxy C, I assume that we should see a similar view.If we look ahead at the same ABC line we see a galaxy D at a distance of 13 BLY which also moving away at almost the speed of light. Let's continue to jump from D to E and so on till the 11th galaxy - K. Hence, there are 10 segments of 13BLY between those 11 galaxies.The distance between galaxy A to galaxy K is 130 BLY.In each segment we see that the relative speed between the galaxies (on that segment) is almost the speed of light.So, what is the relative velocity between A to K?Is it still " less than that of light"?
QuoteThe distance between galaxy A to galaxy K is 130 BLY.In each segment we see that the relative speed between the galaxies (on that segment) is almost the speed of light.So, what is the relative velocity between A to K?Is it still " less than that of light"?Yes, it's still less than the speed of light and for the same reason that the speed of C relative to A is below the speed of light. It gets closer and closer with each galaxy, but never quite gets there.
The distance between galaxy A to galaxy K is 130 BLY.In each segment we see that the relative speed between the galaxies (on that segment) is almost the speed of light.So, what is the relative velocity between A to K?Is it still " less than that of light"?
Quote from: KryptidYes, it's still less than the speed of light and for the same reason that the speed of C relative to A is below the speed of light. It gets closer and closer with each galaxy, but never quite gets there.If our universe is infinite, there must be infinite segments of galaxies in a row that are moving away from each other (at the same segment) at almost the speed of light.
Yes, it's still less than the speed of light and for the same reason that the speed of C relative to A is below the speed of light. It gets closer and closer with each galaxy, but never quite gets there.
Therefore, if we take those infinite segments with almost speed of light (in each segment)- you claim that the relatively speed between the first one to the infinity one is still less than the speed of light.
If I recall it correctly, in one of your answers you have stated that due to the expansion, there is a possibility that far end galaxies are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light.
If so, how could it be that the relative velocity between the galaxies is less than the speed of light, while we know that they are moving away from each other at a speed which is faster than the speed of light?
If our universe is infinite, there must be infinite segments of galaxies in a row that are moving away from each other (at the same segment) at almost the speed of light.Therefore, if we take those infinite segments with almost speed of light (in each segment)- you claim that the relatively speed between the first one to the infinity one is still less than the speed of light.Wow.How can we believe in this answer?
If I recall it correctly, in one of your answers you have stated that due to the expansion, there is a possibility that far end galaxies are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light.If so, how could it be that the relative velocity between the galaxies is less than the speed of light, while we know that they are moving away from each other at a speed which is faster than the speed of light?
Actually, we can't even see any galaxies that are receding from us faster than light (obviously). We assume that they are out there because we assume that the universe still continues beyond our ability to see it.
QuoteIf I recall it correctly, in one of your answers you have stated that due to the expansion, there is a possibility that far end galaxies are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light.This is not the SR universe. So yes, anything outside the Hubble sphere is moving faster than light, as measured in comoving coordinates.
Because it's what the laws of physics say. You can't go faster than light.
So, do you mean that you assume that there are galaxies that are moving away from us faster than the light?
Why do we insist that the same law that works locally should also works at the infinity?
So, there is a clear message that galaxies can move faster than light.
Why don't we adjust our physics law based on what we see (or actually - don't see)?
Speed is not a property.A rock cannot go 1 km/sec, but it can go 1 km/sec relative to another rock.
So, what is the relative velocity between A to K?
Quite so. You can see things that are receding faster than light. Such objects are the dotted black lines. If they touch the red line, we can see them today. Notice the dotted lines are vertical in the comoving coordinates, meaning comoving objects are stationary, and almost all galaxies are within a percent of being comoving. See the 2nd vertical dotted line at about 21 BLY? That one is outside the Hubble Sphere and always has been, but the red line touches it at age ~3BY so we can see that galaxy if it had formed before the universe was 3BY old. It is moving at about 1.2c and is currently outside the event horizon which means we can never see it after it's state when the universe was 9 billion years old (about when life began here) where it touches the orange line. Light from after that event will never get here.
receding faster than light due to the metric expansion of space
No galaxy existed back then. The ones we see are much closer, as evan_au points out.
The matter that emitted that CMB light we see is now about 45 GLY (proper distance) away. We don't see stuff like it is now, we see things in the past. That matter has been moving at more than 3x light speed relative to us, so it was much much closer when that light was emitted. Just divide 45 by 13.8 billion years and multiply it by 379000, and you get something like 1¼ light years.
In an inertial frame, the relative velocity is a relation between two objects at some point in time. Those distant galaxies don't exist at any point in time in our reference frame, so there is no defined velocity relation in that framework.
It isn't about infinity.
A very good idea. So why is it you are positing all this nonsense that nobody sees?
Constantly new mass creation in low quantity at the execration disc of spiral galaxy
D - Due to "galaxy generation" or rocket over rocket phenomenon. (no need for metric expansion of space)and many more.
Why do you all insist on the BBT
What is needed to convince you that the time frame of our real universe is much bigger than 13.8BLY and our universe is infinite in its size.What kind of data would convince you that there is a sever mistake with the BBT?
Therefore I have asked:So, what is the relative velocity between A to K?
Quote from: HalcQuite so. You can see things that are receding faster than light. Such objects are the dotted black lines. If they touch the red line, we can see them today. Notice the dotted lines are vertical in the comoving coordinates, meaning comoving objects are stationary, and almost all galaxies are within a percent of being comoving. See the 2nd vertical dotted line at about 21 BLY? That one is outside the Hubble Sphere and always has been, but the red line touches it at age ~3BY so we can see that galaxy if it had formed before the universe was 3BY old. It is moving at about 1.2c and is currently outside the event horizon which means we can never see it after it's state when the universe was 9 billion years old (about when life began here) where it touches the orange line. Light from after that event will never get here.Thanks for the excellent explanation.Now I start to understand the answers for some of my questions.However, it is based on the BBT theory (as the time frame is a direct outcome of the BBT -13.8 BY).
This is quite problematic.
How can we confirm or disconfirm one theory based on another theory which fully contradicts the first one?
In this thread we discuss on new Theory.As it is new theory - it is forbidden to take your argument from another theory.
you can't reject theory D based on BBT assumption.
There are big gap between the two theories as follow:4. Mass creation: BBT - no mass creation, only transformation or evolvement.
5. Receding faster than light: BBT - D - Due to "galaxy generation" or rocket over rocket phenomenon.
So, based on theory D there is no limit in time frame as there is in the BBT.
You also base your understanding about the CMB on the 13.8 BY time frame.
So, I can fully agree and understand your following answer:Quote from: HalcIn an inertial frame, the relative velocity is a relation between two objects at some point in time. Those distant galaxies don't exist at any point in time in our reference frame, so there is no defined velocity relation in that framework.But again - In theory D the Universe time frame (age is infinite)
Remember - In theory D the Universe is infinite in its age and in its size. ... We also must add to that the idea that galaxies that are located far enough - must move away from us higher than the speed of light.
I had the impression that if the galaxy is moving faster than the speed of light - we shouldn't get its radiation. Would you kindly explain how could it be that there is a possibility to get in a future a radiation from a galaxy which is moving today at the speed faster than light.
Quote from: HalcIt isn't about infinity.It seems to me that it is all about infinity.
Quote from: Halc on 11/05/2019 14:44:55A very good idea. So why is it you are positing all this nonsense that nobody sees?Why do you all insist on the BBT
What is needed to convince you that the time frame of our real universe is much bigger than 13.8BLY and our universe is infinite in its size.
What kind of data would convince you that there is a sever mistake with the BBT?
There is nothing about our universe that is incompatible with it being a hypersphere.The universe being a hypersphere is not incompatible with our ability to see only three dimensions. A two-dimensional creature living embedded in the surface of a balloon is only aware of the two dimensional surface that they live in even though the balloon itself is three-dimensional. If the balloon was large enough, the creature wouldn't even be aware of the balloon's curvature and they could just as easily believe that their universe was a completely flat, 2-dimensional space. In the same manner, the universe being a sufficiently-large hypersphere would go unnoticed by us because the curvature would be too gradual to detect.
Do you agree with that?If that is correct, do you agree that it contradicts the whole idea of the hypersphere?
Welcome back! BTW, my wife has only traces of dutch in her, but I'm almost 100%, despite never having lived there. My mother emigrated as a refugee after the flood of 53, taking her fiancee with her. All my blood relatives on her side live below sea level.
No. They're the same galaxy, and it is receding (increasing its comoving proper distance) from us at n*c in any direction. Two dots on opposite side of a balloon are separated by X in any direction, and are moving apart as the balloon inflates.
I assume that based on a laser we should monitor (the Earth's) curvature (1.25 cm) even at 100M = 0.1 km.
QuoteHowever, do you agree that if the space is represented as a "surface of a balloon" - somehow, we must monitor a curvature in space?Not if the curvature is below the sensitivity of the instruments to measure it.
However, do you agree that if the space is represented as a "surface of a balloon" - somehow, we must monitor a curvature in space?
If the surface of Earth was 2D space, how could the 2D creatures on it measure the curvature? Not by using altitude. If space went in that direction, it wouldn't be 2D space. Likewise, there is no direction in the hypersphere that is 'above' the surface that represents a specific moment in comoving time. You can't see along the surface anyway. You can only see light that comes from the past.
There is an experiment proposed for the 2030s that would search for gravitational waves using lasers bounced of satellites, perhaps 2.5 million km apart....
Our scientists must find a way how to verify the curvature in our Universe! This is a mandatory request, otherwise, the whole idea of the curvature is problematic.