lanceromega GROUP: Members POSTS: 3859  |
Report this
Aug. 06 2009, 3:38 pm
| Quote (dryson @ July 27 2009, 12:01 am) | | Quote | | So what you are stating is incorrect!!! This is an actual proof of universal expansion not Galactic expansion!! |
Where does it say anything about the Universe, all I see is the term galaxy which relates to a certain number of solar systems that have planets and stars within the solar system that revolve around a sun or suns where the solar system then revolves around the galactic center where there are billions of suns located.
The Universe is what solar systems reside in and do not expand nor contract but are infinite. To say that the Universe is expanding is the same as saying that there is an edge to the Universe. Like I have asked repeatedly what happens when you come to the edge of the Universe? I guess we just fall off the edge of the Universe into what? More space? |
learn to read, hubble quote was " The motion of galaxies in the universe, in relation to each other, appears to be a smooth recession away from each other. The relative velocity of a galaxy to any observer is proportional to the distance from that observer. " universe is mention... the names of the galaxies themselve are mention as is the relative velocity to the milky way , these are not names of solar system or star cluster. If you have problems with the concept of Galaxies, and redshift then I cannot help you. As it stand Hubble work was outstanding, he mapped thousands of galaxies redshift sand composed a massive indexes of how each was moving. Einsteing took one look at Hubble's work and had to admit that the universe was expanding and his attempt to portait a static universe was incorrect. We had thousands of newer observation and these observations show that the velocities are function of distant, basically matching the solutions of GR computer by Desitter, which show an expanding universe. Even further detail review of redshift of supernovas in other galaxies show that it even speeding up and that how dark energy was discover. It may be hard to understand but yes the Universe is expanding and no according to Einstein it has no edge. |
blankenship GROUP: Members POSTS: 1632 |
Report this
Aug. 14 2009, 5:56 pm
If I stop thinking about it does Quantum Mechanics disappear up it's own tailpipe?
|
|
lanceromega GROUP: Members POSTS: 3859 |
Report this
Aug. 17 2009, 2:21 pm
| Quote (blankenship @ Aug. 13 2009, 6:56 pm) | | If I stop thinking about it does Quantum Mechanics disappear up it's own tailpipe? |
according to Bohm it does. LOL  |
4_of_20 GROUP: Members POSTS: 1052 |
Report this
Aug. 21 2009, 3:35 am
Alight, I've been thinking, and yes I am now in severe pain.
Anyway. Assume we have our vacuum fluctuation suppressing nanobot's and are riding a spaceship in their wake at many, many times the speed of light... what can we see?
Behind us we would be outrunning any light beams obviously, so we'd have void, darkness, i imagine.
In front of us however we have light beams entering our field in which c is greater, so we should see them, right?
Now according to special relativity they would appear closer together and thinner as we approach c, so this is technically what we're doing, besides c being greater, we could still represent it as 1 and our speed as a fraction of it, so this contraction may be what we see.
However the objects we're viewing would be outside the field, and moving past it at greater than c, so would they follow the tachyonic rule (instead of square root of 1-v2/c2 it becomes sr of v2/c2-1, correct me if I'm wrong, i believe I read this one wikipedia), and maybe then they would seem to stretch out, and move further apart, almost akin to the warp drive effect of science fiction?
Needless to say, if you could see oncoming light beams there would be some sort of horizon, I'm thinking in line with the front of the ship, separating the oncoming light beams we can see, and the light beams that fail to approach us that we can not see.
Just food for thought...
|
|
lanceromega GROUP: Members POSTS: 3859 |
Report this
Aug. 21 2009, 10:43 am
| Quote (4_of_20 @ Aug. 20 2009, 4:35 am) | Alight, I've been thinking, and yes I am now in severe pain.
Anyway. Assume we have our vacuum fluctuation suppressing nanobot's and are riding a spaceship in their wake at many, many times the speed of light... what can we see?
Behind us we would be outrunning any light beams obviously, so we'd have void, darkness, i imagine.
In front of us however we have light beams entering our field in which c is greater, so we should see them, right?
Now according to special relativity they would appear closer together and thinner as we approach c, so this is technically what we're doing, besides c being greater, we could still represent it as 1 and our speed as a fraction of it, so this contraction may be what we see.
However the objects we're viewing would be outside the field, and moving past it at greater than c, so would they follow the tachyonic rule (instead of square root of 1-v2/c2 it becomes sr of v2/c2-1, correct me if I'm wrong, i believe I read this one wikipedia), and maybe then they would seem to stretch out, and move further apart, almost akin to the warp drive effect of science fiction?
Needless to say, if you could see oncoming light beams there would be some sort of horizon, I'm thinking in line with the front of the ship, separating the oncoming light beams we can see, and the light beams that fail to approach us that we can not see.
Just food for thought... |
Not sure, I would believe that the space in the wake of the craft would return to their normal vacuum state ( unless we have an infinite supply of nanobots and can allow them to remain lowering the vacuum energy of the space we pass thru) The energy coming in front of us would be actually be at a speed lower than C for our Bubble, so i would assume that we would see them redshift toward the xray freq as they gain energy from entering our inertia frame. This would be very different than a warp bubble as there is no forward horizon ( there is one in the wake of the craft) and i would expect that the craft would leave behind it a wake of Cherenkov radiation. |
|
4_of_20 GROUP: Members POSTS: 1052 |
Report this
Aug. 27 2009, 5:21 am
It's been so long since I've been here... well, maybe a week.
Okay, I didn't know what Cherenkov radiation was, but I just wiki'd it. That might look pretty cool. Like a really bright comet or something from outside.
From a certain perspective that would most likely appear to be moving backwards along it's flightpath, i assume.
|
|
lanceromega GROUP: Members POSTS: 3859 |
Report this
Aug. 28 2009, 11:24 am
| Quote (4_of_20 @ Aug. 26 2009, 6:21 am) | It's been so long since I've been here... well, maybe a week.
Okay, I didn't know what Cherenkov radiation was, but I just wiki'd it. That might look pretty cool. Like a really bright comet or something from outside.
From a certain perspective that would most likely appear to be moving backwards along it's flightpath, i assume. |
yeah to some inertial frames it would, the wonders of Special Relativity.. |
|
4_of_20 GROUP: Members POSTS: 1052 |
Report this
Sep. 07 2009, 7:09 pm
Considering special relativity and our vacuum suppression drive. Within the wake our starship may still be approaching the speed of light. Say c in the wake is relative to 10c outside the wake and our ship is traveling 9.99c, Lorenz contraction will further shorten the apparent travel time.
This is sounding like a worthy warp drive.
|
|
lanceromega GROUP: Members POSTS: 3859 |
Report this
Sep. 08 2009, 1:20 pm
| Quote (4_of_20 @ Sep. 06 2009, 8:09 pm) | Considering special relativity and our vacuum suppression drive. Within the wake our starship may still be approaching the speed of light. Say c in the wake is relative to 10c outside the wake and our ship is traveling 9.99c, Lorenz contraction will further shorten the apparent travel time.
This is sounding like a worthy warp drive. |
yes, now we only need to create a cloudof casmir plate nanobots and lower the vacuum state around the space craft and we have a function FTL drive, the only problem after that , is the lack of warp Bubble that act as a shield again dust and micro meteor, There is no real protection for our craft.... |
|
4_of_20 GROUP: Members POSTS: 1052 |
Report this
Sep. 08 2009, 8:19 pm
True that. Dust particles are going to fly into our ship with unimaginable energy. I'll have to think about this for a bit...
All I have for now is just a really strong outer hull, but made of what I don't know...
|
WilliamArtimarFlint GROUP: Members POSTS: 50 |
Report this
Sep. 09 2009, 7:11 pm
this is just me thinking sci-fi wise, with no real basis in fact, but what if you had a particle shield that could convert the force impacts of space particles and micro metoro debris into energy thus re-inforcing the shield and or warp bubble? I just thought of the properties after an old science class from high school where we got to hit this pads and they'd generate a spark at the end of the wires they were attached to. I know, silly kid stuff.
|
|
4_of_20 GROUP: Members POSTS: 1052 |
Report this
Sep. 11 2009, 12:04 am
That's valuable in a sci-fi sense. Gives reason to how your characters might re-charge their shields after a mighty battle, when left adrift, or something like that.
As for the real world...? I dunno. Better ask someone who knows about these things.
What do you think, dryson?
|
servantx GROUP: Members POSTS: 33 |
Report this
Sep. 11 2009, 3:11 am
Hi 4_of_20, Can we smash 2 photons in extreme speed of opposite direction with laser (maybe using optical fibre) in order to create a temporary black hole. And black holes should be able to expand lifetime of Virtual Particle Pairs, right??? This thread is full of wonder. ¿Could it be linked to Alcubierre warp?  |
|
lanceromega GROUP: Members POSTS: 3859 |
Report this
Sep. 11 2009, 11:05 am
| Quote (servantx @ Sep. 10 2009, 4:11 am) | Hi 4_of_20,
Can we smash 2 photons in extreme speed of opposite direction with laser (maybe using optical fibre) in order to create a temporary black hole. ¿And black holes should be able to expand lifetime of Virtual Particle Pairs, right???
This thread is full of wonder. ?Could it be linked to Alcubierre warp? |
actually depending on the energy of the photon, this would create a pair of particles, such as Electron Positron pair or a pair of Pions which is Quark / anti quark pair. |
|
4_of_20 GROUP: Members POSTS: 1052 |
Report this
Sep. 12 2009, 5:00 am
Yeah, I'm still sticking with matter-antimatter annihilation to increase dark energy... Recreate the same phenomenon that is virtual particle pairs, but much MUCH bigger!
|
