ACG52

Before you break aether wind... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Except this is not what experiment and observation tell us, so the 'pretty obvious' is 'pretty wrong'.

You may claim that, but given that there is no evidence for such, and that the universe is very different than an atom, and that the forces which explain the two act very differently, your claim has nothing to support it.

Using the word faith is a red flag that you don't understand relativity.The predictions of relativity match what is observed in the real universe. As long as both frames are intertial, yes. But in order to compare the measurements from the two frames, they must be brought together in the same frame of reference. This means at least one of the inertial frames must undergo non-inertial movement, and it is that movement which differentiates one frame's measurements from the other.

That's correct. He has only aged two years. Once he's back in the original, stationary frame of reference, he will measure the distance as 7 lys. But his on-board odometer will still read just over two lys. That's the distance he travelled, as measured in his own frame. And he will see that the time and distance in his moving frame did not match the time and distance of the earth's frame.

His biological brain (as opposed to...?) is certain it traveled for just less than a year and covered .988 lys. Because that's what it experienced.

He knows it's 7 lys, because that's what was measured from the stationary frame. From his own measurements, he knows it is just .998 lys. If he stops, relative to his starting point, he is no longer in the same frame of reference as when he was in motion. If, as he whizzes past his destination without slowing down, he looks behind, he will see the earth as being .988 lys away.

When it's moving it has a velocity. When it's not moving it has no velocity. You're posting nonsense here just as you did at The science forum. Keep it up and you'll be banned here, as you are there.

No, he traveled .988 lys in one year of his time (that's what he actually measured). The traveller's measurement of the distance is just as valid as the stationary measurement. If he then immediately turned around and retraced his journey, he will have measured 1.97 lys and just over two years of time.. While this will disagree with what the earth measured, they are both equally valid measurements. There is no preferred frame of reference.

I can't believe this is actually being argued.

No. What is not being taken into consideration is length contraction. The distance is 7 ly as measured by the stationary (earth) frame. But from the frame of the ship moving at .99c (relative to the earth) the distance traveled is .988 ly. From the ship's frame, just over a year has passed, but as measured on earth, 7.088 years have passed.

First of all, it would be really small. I would imagine that would not radiate in the visible spectrum, unless material impacts on the star.

Keep in mind, though, that this is a science forum. If you don't want to waste your time actually digging in and questioning learning things, why are you here?

There's no point of origin. The BB wasn't an explosion propelling matter out into space from some central point. The BB was (and is) the expansion of space between points. This is a good place for basic questions and answers http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Is that theorist? Same misspellings, same meaningless drawings.

I've read that as carefully as I can, working under the assumption that there was meaning to be gotten. Nope, no such luck.

Nonsense from rw, the vacuum cleaner salesman.

Gravity is stronger than the force of expansion, out to 200 million lys. Electromagnetic forces are 1029 times STRONGER than gravity. You figure it out.

You're asking 'if the universe didn't work the way it works, how would the universe work.'

Plug in 10-27 kg for m, 10-15 meters for r, and you get a gravitational force on the order of 10-34 Newtons.

Any feedback mechanism designed to govern the speed of light would have to act faster than the speed of light. Can't be done.

Did you use a random sentence generator?

What a weird idea of 'offical sources'.

We look inside the atom by means of particle accelerators. I'm not sure what you mean by 'faster than an atom'. It seems to be a meaningless phrase. No. That's the nice thing about science. It allows ;you to make predictions based on the laws of physics. No, there really isn't.

The structure and behavior of the inside of an atom is nothing at all like the structure and behavior of the universe.