Spyman

IMHO both science and religion should be able to handle all the scrutiny and hard questions anyone can put to it. But that is completely irrelevant to what I said. Do you have problems with the English language or are you being obstinate? Nothing is going faster than the speed of light through space in your examples! Secondly and minor off topic, the Big Bang theory accepted as mainstream science is not about a central explosion throwing out pieces into surrounding space, there is no superluminal speeds in it and in fact it doesn't involve any outward speeds at all. In mainstream cosmology the Universe is not expanding by movement but instead the geometry of space expands increasing metric distances to very remote objects. Space is NOT nothing, event if it should be completely empty and flat it would still have distances through it. FYI, metric expansion of space without outward movement into preexisting space is validated by scientific consensus and if you want to argue against accepted science the burden of proof is on you.

You agreed to the Forum Rules when you signed up, did you bother to read them? As such you are NOT free to place posts as you see fit. These rules sems relevant: 5. Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument. 7. Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your site in your signature, but don't go around making dozens of threads about it. 10. Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking. You still don't need to post more than ONE link for people to be able to read it. Sorry if I offended you but would you rather want me to report you instead of telling you? That doesn't remove the fact that you are boosting your site with more than ONE link.

In most cases projects much less advanced than this one does not succeed on the first trial.

Apology accepted, although I am still suspicious since you did neither deny or confirm your stance of Realtivity. I thought I did that im my post #55, but lets look at your statement from post#56 to emphasize what I ment. You said: "B is clearly approaching the light from A at 1.7c from our perspective, and A & B will collide at 1.4c from our perspective". But from our Earth perspective we can clearly see that B is NOT approaching the light from A at 1.7c THROUGH space, from our view B is moving THROUGH space with the speed of 0.7c and the light from A is meeting up with B THROUGH space with the speed c, they are approaching each other at 1.7c TOGETHER. Likewise neither A or B are moving towards the collision point through space with the speed of 1.4c, they are both moving through space with the speed of 0.7c and are only closing with 1.4c togheter. As Sisyphus already explained in post #62, nothing is actually moving through space at speeds greater than c and expressing it like "A & B exchanging info at 1.7 c" would likely be interpreted by others as information is actually moving through space faster than light.

Well, we truly doesn't know what Dark Energy is and how it expands space, but the current standard model of cosmology includes a cosmological constant that can be described as 'acting repulsive'. So as I interpret it, that sounds correct, but it may change when we find out more about Dark Energy. Ok, lets first remove Dark Energy from the question, does mass alter space? Is the change of geometry a physical change that can be measured? Depending on how you define 'space' you can get different answers but when space is mentioned I correlate it with properties as metric geometry. Modern physics describes gravitation with the curvature of spacetime and a change of gravity can be tested, the mathematical model fits the reality to the limits of our observational measurements. We can measure distances and we can measure gravitational potentials and make a map of the geometry, but we can not directly measure 'space' itself. We could send out two spaceprobes to a large distance from each other in a big void and then accelerate them until they are at rest with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. When they both are at rest with the CMBR they should also be at rest with each other, so a very precise measurement of the redshift in light signals sent between them should tell if and how much the geometry has changed. Another way to test could be to measure hot and cold spots on the CMBR that are aligned with large mass or big emtiness since the accelerated expansion causes photons to gain or lose energy when they pass during the change: Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe, and has recently been detected at high significance by Ho et al. and Giannantonio et al. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy Accelerated expansion due to dark energy causes even strong large-scale potential wells (superclusters) and hills (voids) to decay over the time it takes a photon to travel through them. A photon gets a kick of energy going into a potential well (a supercluster), and it keeps some of that energy after it exits, after the well has been stretched out and shallowed. Similarly, a photon has to expend energy entering a supervoid, but will not get all of it back upon exiting the slightly squashed potential hill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Sachs-Wolfe_effect#Late-time_integrated_Sachs.E2.80.93Wolfe_effect

IOW you are disagreeing with the theory of Relativity, this is where I abandon this thread.

There is no problem with an Earth observer viewing the spaceships closing at 1.4c and there is no problem with signals from the spaceships to close at speed up to nearly 2c if made of matter and exactly 2c if made of light, from Earth view. But neither the spaceships and the signals are moving through space faster than light from either view, which includes the Earth view also. So expressing it like "A & B exchanging info at 1.7 c" could be interpreted as slightly missleading. But I don't know if I am going to be able to explain it better than what the other posters already have said. (I especially liked Janus animation in post #34.) I do not dispute this - I only claim they will be totally surprised by their collision at 1.4 c as observed from Earth, if they rely upon light for their information. First I would like to say that there is an important difference between closing speed and speed through space, spaceships or particles with mass can NOT move through space individually at speeds of light or greater but together they can close or separate at speeds greater than light from a third party view. That doesn't mean that they are moving faster than light through space in any of the three views, a photon will always outrace mass in vacuum. Secondly, since you agree that the pilots in the spaceships will measure their closing speeds to be less than c and yet you claim that they will be surprised by their collision at 1.4 c as measured from Earth, I need to point out that all three observers hold equal right to claim what they see as real. Everything that happens in their respective individual view will follow the laws of physics as they see it, thus the pilots will measure light to close their distance faster than the spaceships. Imho, this statement is inconsistent with the behavior observed by particles which can be made to close at > c in accelerator/colliders. An answer that requires a separate space-time continuum for every particle is somehow less than satisfying for me, stuck as I am in the same one as you. I still appreciate and thank you for your response! It is not inconsistent with the accelerator/collider experiment when you take into account that the particles individually don't move through space faster than c. That might not be satisfying but that is the reality as understood by the science of today, we are stuck in the same Universe but we don't have to share frames of relativity. Different observers in different frames, measures different values for distances and durations. Special relativity Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (for the contributions of many other physicists see History of special relativity). Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics: The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity), The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light. The resultant theory agrees with experiment better than classical mechanics, e.g. in the Michelson-Morley experiment that supports postulate 2, but also has many surprising consequences. Some of these are: Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for one observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion. Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock. Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer. Mass-energy equivalence: E = mc2, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable. Maximum speed is finite: No physical object or message or field line can travel faster than light. The defining feature of special relativity is the replacement of the Galilean transformations of classical mechanics by the Lorentz transformations. (See Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism and introduction to special relativity). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_of_relativity

Make sure to keep your autonomously flying helicopters away from populated areas!

Even if space is emptiness and not a medium, it does still exist and have properties like distance. What is distance and how do we know whether the scale we use for measuring it is absolute and not changing? If that was the case then we should be able to measure surrounding objects speed and trajectories relative us and find discrepancies with those objects moving outward by our sides as those moving outward in a leading or following position. How do you explain why our observations can't find these discrepancies or the location of the locus? Or do you think that Earth is in the center, or very close to, of the Universe? Do you also reject the theory of Relativity which has so far passed every unambiguous observational and experimental test? If not then how do you concede with length contraction?

Yes, it's hard to fathom how big the Universe is and it's hard to grasp how Nature behaves or to understand different scientific models of it. AFAIK, there is nothing keeping everything pressurized, no walls confining the Universe with empty space outside and not any unborn universes, in mainstream cosmology. We don't know how the Universe originated and from what or if the Universe has always been or what size it has. Based on the best available measurements as of 2010, the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations is that the Universe, from an extremely hot and dense state, 13.7 billion years ago, expanded rapidly and cooled to the present state.

A close encounter with another stellar mass could affect our solar systems trajectory, how much would depend on mass and distance, close enough and it can wreak havoc severely disturbing planetary orbits. Depending on the passage, I think it could possibly change the invariable plane slightly but not cause a continued wobbling.

The Big Bounce is a theorized scientific model related to the formation of the known Universe. It derives from the cyclic model or oscillatory universe interpretation of the Big Bang where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

Space is not a fluid flowing past objects, the geometry of space is expanding/contracting and the geometry is the cause of gravity. Without an accelerating expansion the geometry of space would be shaped by local objects and as such the space between them would not expand, but with the discovery of an accelerating expansion a tiny force is added, which is thought to push apart even locally bound objects, slightly increasing their distance with a very small amount, until they settle into a new equilibrium state. Local perturbations The expansion of space is sometimes described as a force which acts to push objects apart. Though this is an accurate description of the effect of the cosmological constant, it is not an accurate picture of the phenomenon of expansion in general. For much of the universe's history the expansion has been due mainly to inertia. The matter in the very early universe was flying apart for unknown reasons (most likely as a result of cosmic inflation) and has simply continued to do so, though at an ever-decreasing rate due to the attractive effect of gravity. In addition to slowing the overall expansion, gravity causes local clumping of matter into stars and galaxies. These stars and galaxies do not subsequently expand, there being no force compelling them to do so. There is no essential difference between the inertial expansion of the universe and the inertial separation of nearby objects in a vacuum; the former is simply a large-scale extrapolation of the latter. A uniform local "explosion" of matter can be locally described by the FLRW geometry, the same geometry which describes the expansion of the universe as a whole. In particular, general relativity predicts that light will move at the speed c with respect to the local motion of the exploding matter, a phenomenon analogous to frame dragging. This situation changes somewhat with the introduction of a cosmological constant. A cosmological constant has the effect of a repulsive force between objects which is proportional (not inversely proportional) to distance. Unlike inertia it actively "pulls" on objects which have clumped together under the influence of gravity, and even on individual atoms. However this does not cause the objects to grow steadily or to disintegrate; unless they are very weakly bound, they will simply settle into an equilibrium state which is slightly (undetectably) larger than it would otherwise have been. As the universe expands and the matter in it thins, the gravitational attraction decreases (since it is proportional to the density), while the cosmological repulsion increases; thus the ultimate fate of the ΛCDM universe is a near vacuum expanding at an ever increasing rate under the influence of the cosmological constant. However the only locally visible effect of the accelerating expansion is the disappearance (by runaway redshift) of distant galaxies; gravitationally bound objects like the Milky Way do not expand." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

I repeat, your concept is NOT accepted mainstream science and should be discussed in the Speculations subforum. (Since you keep on reposting links to your website I suspect your only purpose is to increase your own traffic.) ---------- Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology and is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric. Local perturbations The expansion of space is sometimes described as a force which acts to push objects apart. Though this is an accurate description of the effect of the cosmological constant, it is not an accurate picture of the phenomenon of expansion in general. For much of the universe's history the expansion has been due mainly to inertia. The matter in the very early universe was flying apart for unknown reasons (most likely as a result of cosmic inflation) and has simply continued to do so, though at an ever-decreasing rate due to the attractive effect of gravity. In addition to slowing the overall expansion, gravity causes local clumping of matter into stars and galaxies. These stars and galaxies do not subsequently expand, there being no force compelling them to do so. There is no essential difference between the inertial expansion of the universe and the inertial separation of nearby objects in a vacuum; the former is simply a large-scale extrapolation of the latter. A uniform local "explosion" of matter can be locally described by the FLRW geometry, the same geometry which describes the expansion of the universe as a whole. In particular, general relativity predicts that light will move at the speed c with respect to the local motion of the exploding matter, a phenomenon analogous to frame dragging. This situation changes somewhat with the introduction of a cosmological constant. A cosmological constant has the effect of a repulsive force between objects which is proportional (not inversely proportional) to distance. Unlike inertia it actively "pulls" on objects which have clumped together under the influence of gravity, and even on individual atoms. However this does not cause the objects to grow steadily or to disintegrate; unless they are very weakly bound, they will simply settle into an equilibrium state which is slightly (undetectably) larger than it would otherwise have been. As the universe expands and the matter in it thins, the gravitational attraction decreases (since it is proportional to the density), while the cosmological repulsion increases; thus the ultimate fate of the ΛCDM universe is a near vacuum expanding at an ever increasing rate under the influence of the cosmological constant. However the only locally visible effect of the accelerating expansion is the disappearance (by runaway redshift) of distant galaxies; gravitationally bound objects like the Milky Way do not expand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

I think it has been explained for you several times by several posters already, but I will repeat it once more: an observer in either one of the spaceships will NOT measure the closing speed to be 1.4 c since they are in another frame of reference and both space and time appear different for them relative observers on Earth, in their view the spaceships will be closing at speeds less than c. The observer using photons will have slightly newer information than the one using matter but both will be able to observe when and where the collision will take place before it happens.

Why and how do you think "stuff" would be moving away from each other if "space" is not expanding?

LOL - IMHO there is NO easy way to quit smoking and only a brief look at your link tells me that your method is going to be expensive.

Approaching supernova The future fate of Betelgeuse depends on its mass - a critical factor which is not well understood. Since most investigators concede a mass greater than 10M☉, the most likely scenario is that the supergiant will continue to burn and fuse elements until its core is iron, at which point Betelgeuse will explode as a type II supernova. During this event the core will collapse, leaving behind a neutron star remnant some 20 km in diameter. Betelgeuse is already old for its size class and is expected to explode relatively soon compared to its age. Solving the riddle of mass-loss will be the key to knowing when a supernova might occur, an event expected anytime in the next million years, with some speculation it could even occur in the next millennium. Supporting this hypothesis are a number of unusual features that have been observed in the interstellar medium of the Orion Molecular Cloud Complex, which suggest that there have been multiple supernova explosions in the recent past. Betelgeuse's suspected birthplace in the Orion OB1 Association is the probable location for such supernovae. Since the oldest subgroup in the association has an approximate age of 12 million years, the more massive stars likely had sufficient time to evolve to this stage. Also, because runaway stars are believed to be caused by supernova explosions, there is strong evidence that OB stars μ Columbae, AE Aurigae and 53 Arietis all originated with such an explosion in Ori OB1 2.2, 2.7 and 4.9 million years ago. At its current distance from Earth, such a supernova explosion would be the brightest recorded, outshining the Moon in the night sky and becoming easily visible in broad daylight. Professor J. Craig Wheeler of The University of Texas at Austin predicts the supernova will emit 1053 ergs of neutrinos, which will pass through the star's hydrogen envelope in around an hour, then reach the solar system several centuries later. Since its rotational axis is not pointed toward the Earth, Betelgeuse's supernova is unlikely to send a gamma ray burst in the direction of Earth large enough to damage ecosystems. The flash of ultraviolet radiation from the explosion will likely be weaker than the ultraviolet output of the Sun. The supernova could brighten to an apparent magnitude of −12 over a two-week period, then remain at that intensity for 2 to 3 months before rapidly dimming. The year following the explosion, radioactive decay of cobalt to iron will dominate emission from the supernova remnant, and the resulting gamma rays will be blocked by the expanding envelope of hydrogen. If the neutron star remnant becomes a pulsar, then it could produce gamma rays for thousands of years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse

Different observers in different frames will view the world differently, they will measure distances and durations to be different relative each other. You need to read & learn about Length Contraction and Time Dilation.

I tried to give you links were you could read and learn more in the other thread but you refused to admitt you were wrong and instead continued to argue against scientific consensus, so I asked you if there was any point for me to continuing arguing with you or if it was a waste of time. You replied with: "stop wasting my time", which I think was a clear cut answer that you did not want learn more, at least not from me. So instead of trying to tell you why you are wrong again when you clearly don't want to, I choose to remind you of your own request. You are the one who started this by directly replying to me and you are the one who is continuing this stupid argument and keep on asking me questions about it. My purpose in this topic? - Let me remind you that the threads have a visible history that everyone can go back and read, I posted as number #2 in this thread, thats the very first reply - only second after the OP and close to half a year before you even joined this discussion. I repeat - I have NOT commented on any of your posts on any subject AT ALL until you directly replied to me. I am NOT stalking you and I am NOT here to insult you! I repeat - I am reminding you of your own request and explaining why I try to avoid arguing with you. Well, either you yourself could stop replying to me now and end this silly rant or you can report my post so a Moderator can come here and end it. I promise you that next post I will, if you continue! Here are the Forum Rules. I suggest YOU read Section 2: Nr.10. "Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking."

The observer at rest is not in a privileged frame and as such the hypothetical fast-moving observer traveling alongside one of the particles is also equally able to from his observations predict when and where the collision will take place.

We don't know "why", but our observations indicate that very distant objects are receding from us expansionary and not explosively and from these observations we can make different models of "how". If one is accepting the Copernican principle then observations tells us that everything very distant is moving away from everthing else very distant equally in all directions, at a higher rates with bigger distances. If one abandons the Copernican principle then you can put faith in a a different view with Earth in a central favored position and model an explosion with matter symmetrically moving outward from us in all directions. Another view would be to interpret our observations differently and try to explain them with other phenomena than expanding space, like with for example Tired Light but so far all those models have been ruled out. From my limited understanding of the theory of Relativity, distances and durations are highly dynamical between different frames and as such different observers can measure different values simultaneously between two events, which I interpret as the observers have their rulers and clocks in different scales relative each others, depending on the differences in their frames. IMHO, the expansion is not ment to be viewed as the Universe growing into a surrounding emptyness with a boundary moving outwards faster than the speed of light, rather it is better viewed as the scale we use for measurements of distances is changing in relevance to other measurements. A tiny change on the scale of our rulers can make the Universe seem to grow faster than the speed of light when we talk about those huge distances and there is no direct limit on how fast the scale can change because the objects are not physically moving when space is expanding or contracting. Gravity weakens fast with distance while expansion grows with it, so the logical conclusion is that on close ranges gravity wins and pulls objects closer, faster than what expansion is able to bring them apart but on large ranges expansion wins and brings objects apart faster than what gravity is able to pull them together.

According to standard cosmology the distance of the matter that emitted the CMBR was ~4o million lightyears distant from our location, when the photons took off in our direction and is thought to be some ~45 billion lightyears distant now when they arrive in our observatories. (Cosmos Calculator Omega=0.27 Lambda=0.73 Hubble=71 Redshift=1100)

LOL - since you replied to me even though you asked me to "stop wasting your time", you seem to need a reminder that it is futile for you to reply to my posts, since I am ignoring them, on your own request. Further on I have NOT commented on any of your posts on any subject AT ALL since I agreed to ignore you, except this post directed at me were all I did was reminding you. And everytime I notice that you have directly replied to one of my posts I will continue to remind you of said request. [EDIT] Also in defence of my "insidious comments" I invite other readers to read this thread, where I tried to correct steevey's ignorance of scientific consensus and the Big Bang theory. The photon is approaching distant objects with SOL through space but for very distant objects space is expanding faster than light making the distance increase faster than what the photon can travel, leading to the distance still increasing. If the expansion was constant the light would still eventually overcome the distance and reach its goal, but when the expansion is accelerating, as current observations indicate, the photon will never get there and instead will find itself getting farther and farther behind. So even though a photon emitted from a towards f is passing b at the SOL, the distance between the photon and f is still increasing. If the expansion continues to accelerate, distant objects will start to move outside of our visible sphere and photons from them will stop reaching us, in a very far future there will be much less objects in the skies for us to observe.

Well Quark, you are a newcomer here and so far you have already managed to get six negative reputation points which indicates that you are the one stirring up problems quickly. IMHO my post is exactly on point countering your statement, you said "the time travel crap needs to stop" but you are not in a position to make any demands here and you said "God has put absolute laws to limit mans influence on certain things" which clearly indicates that your faith limits your view. We know we are constantly moving forward in time, into the future, because when you read this some time has passed since I wrote it. Do you understand the theory of Relativity and do you dispute it or not?