Light Speed - Black holes - Dark Matter

[SpaceShark]

I've been having some thoughts lately and just want to put them out here.

 

1) We can only see as far as light has traveled since the big bang.

 

2)If there are other universes - than something has to be able to travel faster than the speed of light in order for them to form - Could this be what binds matter together?

 

3)If something is traveling faster than light - How would we be able to see it - In the subatomic world -things need to be observed

 

4)Black holes are dark because light can not escape it - In order for than to happen - things have to be traveling faster than the speed of light

 

5) Could this be the creation of "Dark Matter"

 

Those are my thoughts for today

SpaceShark

[StrontiDog]

I've been having some thoughts lately and just want to put them out here.

 

1) We can only see as far as light has traveled since the big bang.

 

 

3)If something is traveling faster than light - How would we be able to see it - In the subatomic world -things need to be observed

 

4)Black holes are dark because light can not escape it - In order for than to happen - things have to be traveling faster than the speed of light

 

Sorry SpaceShark,

 

You're going to have to define 'things' and 'see.'

 

See with x-Ray telescopes, gravity detectors, gamma detectors? Not sure any of these constitute 'see.' Though they might.

 

What 'things' have to be traveling faster than C?

 

Why? If space itself (is--or has in the past) expanded at faster than C, why would 'things' have to receed faster, on their own?

 

Just trying to figure out what you're asking.

 

Bill Wolfe

[Sisyphus]

 

1) We can only see as far as light has traveled since the big bang.

 

True. Actually, not even quite that far. The very early universe was opaque, so the the light we see which has been traveling the longest is from when the universe first became transparent.

 

However, because space itself is expanding, those things were much closer than ~14 billion lightyears when the light was emitted, and are much farther away now. Objects can get farther away from one another at faster than the speed of light, but they aren't moving, exactly. They are carried along with space, not moving through it.

 

2)If there are other universes - than something has to be able to travel faster than the speed of light in order for them to form - Could this be what binds matter together?

 

Define "other universes." And why would that mean something traveling faster than light?

 

3)If something is traveling faster than light - How would we be able to see it - In the subatomic world -things need to be observed

 

I'm not sure I understand this statement. Could you rephrase?

 

4)Black holes are dark because light can not escape it

 

True...

 

- In order for than to happen - things have to be traveling faster than the speed of light

 

...and not true. Light cannot escape because space is bent so much that there is no path that leads outwards. What is your reasoning for saying something has to be traveling faster than light?

 

 

5) Could this be the creation of "Dark Matter"

 

What would lead you to guess that?

[SpaceShark]

Sorry SpaceShark,

 

You're going to have to define 'things' and 'see.'

 

It's my understanding our universe is expanding since the big bang from a singular point - So we will only be able to gather information as far away as light has traveled since then

 

See with x-Ray telescopes, gravity detectors, gamma detectors? Not sure any of these constitute 'see.' Though they might.

 

It's just a distance gauge for our capabilities to gather information

 

What 'things' have [/i']to be traveling faster than C?

 

I was just thinking that there has to be more than one universe - like there are billions of suns in our galaxy - and there are billions of galaxies in our universe - Wouldn't there be billions of universes inside - lets just call it God since we don't have a name for it yet

 

Light would be to slow of a median to bind them together - what ever binds matter together would have to travel at - Ok don't call be crazy - Infinity Speed - Go a head and laugh now - but for some weird reason I know I'm right

 

 

Why? If space itself (is--or has in the past) expanded at faster than C' date=' why would 'things' have to receed faster, on their own?

 

Just trying to figure out what you're asking.

 

Bill Wolfe[/quote']

 

Now I'm trying to figure out what you're saying

[Sisyphus]

It's my understanding our universe is expanding since the big bang from a singular point

 

This is inaccurate. It's a very common misconception that the expansion of the universe is like an explosion from a single point. It is not. The universe does not have a center and it does not have edges. Everything is simply getting farther away from everything else, on average. There is no point at which you can say the Big Bang occured. It occured everywhere.

 

Which is why....

 

 

I was just thinking that there has to be more than one universe - like there are billions of suns in our galaxy - and there are billions of galaxies in our universe - Wouldn't there be billions of universes inside

 

...this is not an accurate picture. The universe is not like a star or a galaxy, because those things have boundaries. The universe is unbounded. It is either infinite, or it "folds back on itself," but either way, there is no amount of distance you can travel to reach an "edge."

 

 

- lets just call it God since we don't have a name for it yet

 

Please, please let's not. That's an insanely loaded word. It doesn't matter in this case because what you're describing doesn't exist, but there's never any reason to open that can of worms.

 

Light would be to slow of a median to bind them together

 

Why does everything have to be bound together?

[Astroreeper]

Well of course all of this would depend on current fundamentals being correct, but....

 

I have been pondering something for many years.

 

I can't be sure looking at the facts that have crossed my path, that the universe is indeed expanding without doubt. But this is a given as all good science should be based on the conjectionists principle.

 

I understand the Doppler shift, but in analysis could it not be that it only appears that our universe is expanding, when in fact we are moving faster toward the center of our universe. And of course those bodies closer to the center would be moving even faster.

And if this was to be, would it not explain why most of our universe is apparently missing?

This would please me very much as getting rid of some of the rediculous concepts such as the multitude of string theories, (Which I consider mathmatical art and not science.) would free up the time of some amazing minds to find out the true nature of things.

But if you could point me in the right direction I would be most grateful.

[Sisyphus]

 

I understand the Doppler shift, but in analysis could it not be that it only appears that our universe is expanding, when in fact we are moving faster toward the center of our universe. And of course those bodies closer to the center would be moving even faster.

 

The problem with that is that expansion is the same in every direction.

[michel123456]

The problem with that is that expansion is the same in every direction.

 

That is manageable.

You just have to conceive a motion towards an hypothetic center much much further away that we can imagine. Then all the objects of the observable universe will follow parallel trajectories, in acceleration. But that is clear speculation.

[Sisyphus]

That is manageable.

You just have to conceive a motion towards an hypothetic center much much further away that we can imagine. Then all the objects of the observable universe will follow parallel trajectories, in acceleration. But that is clear speculation.

 

Following parallel trajectories in acceleration would not result in expansion being the same in every direction, though. Certainly "ahead" would look different than "to the side." There is, in fact, no possible solution that relies only on objects moving through space. You need space itself to expand for it to be mathematically possible.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well of course all of this would depend on current fundamentals being correct, but....

 

I have been pondering something for many years.

 

I can't be sure looking at the facts that have crossed my path, that the universe is indeed expanding without doubt. But this is a given as all good science should be based on the conjectionists principle.

 

I understand the Doppler shift, but in analysis could it not be that it only appears that our universe is expanding, when in fact we are moving faster toward the center of our universe. And of course those bodies closer to the center would be moving even faster.

And if this was to be, would it not explain why most of our universe is apparently missing?

 

It would also explain that one side of the universe (the side towards the "center") appears strongly blue shifted, which happens not to be true. Also, there probably is no center to the universe.

 

This would please me very much as getting rid of some of the rediculous concepts such as the multitude of string theories, (Which I consider mathmatical art and not science.) would free up the time of some amazing minds to find out the true nature of things.

But if you could point me in the right direction I would be most grateful.

 

I too think string theories are suspect. There's a few alternatives; string theory just happens to be the most famous of them. There's MOND, loop quantum gravity, and a few others. None of them are particularly better nor easier to test.

[michel123456]

Following parallel trajectories in acceleration would not result in expansion being the same in every direction, though. Certainly "ahead" would look different than "to the side." There is, in fact, no possible solution that relies only on objects moving through space. You need space itself to expand for it to be mathematically possible.

 

That is the most obvious. But if you insert the delay that arises from the constancy of SOL, you get another image.

An object following a parallel trajectory to yours will appear in your past travelling at lower speed, due to the global acceleration of the system, and thus will appear receding.

But I don't want to hijack SpaceShark's thread. My comment was just intented to mean that your objection in post #7 is manageable.

Edited March 31, 2010 by michel123456

[SpaceShark]

This is inaccurate. It's a very common misconception that the expansion of the universe is like an explosion from a single point. It is not. The universe does not have a center and it does not have edges. Everything is simply getting farther away from everything else' date=' on average. There is no point at which you can say the Big Bang occured. It occured everywhere.

 

Which is why....

 

..this is not an accurate picture. The universe is not like a star or a galaxy, because those things have boundaries. The universe is unbounded. It is either infinite, or it "folds back on itself," but either way, there is no amount of distance you can travel to reach an "edge."[/quote']

 

I have to disagree - If that where true - the universe would not have a constant temperature - it would have hot and cold spots - The fact that IT IS constant - means there is an external force keeping it so - plus the fact it IS NOT expanding in an constant form - also suggest there is another external force moving it - Like a cloud of smoke in the wind

 

I subscribe to the theory of infinities - everything is made up something smaller and we make up part of something infinitely bigger - Once you come to grips with that fact - You will realize how we got created - By the ultimate power of infinity

[michel123456]

(...)

I subscribe to the theory of infinities - everything is made up something smaller and we make up part of something infinitely bigger - Once you come to grips with that fact - You will realize how we got created - By the ultimate power of infinity

 

Here I disagree with you Shark. I am not realizing anything.

 

You give me the occasion to repeat my point: creation IMHO is a human concept, it is not observation. If you stick to observation, you must consider that what we call creation in usual world is in fact transformation.

 

I know there are elements of theories & experiments that suggest that particles can pop up from absolute nothing. It may be, but I stand extremely reticent to believe in creation from nothing. In the worst case, I prefer consider that what we call "nothing" today will be called "something" by future scientists.

 

In any case, "the ultimate power of infinity" sounds like poetry, nothing more.

[Sisyphus]

That is the most obvious. But if you insert the delay that arises from the constancy of SOL, you get another image.

An object following a parallel trajectory to yours will appear in your past travelling at lower speed, due to the global acceleration of the system, and thus will appear receding.

But I don't want to hijack SpaceShark's thread. My comment was just intented to mean that your objection in post #7 is manageable.

 

A "globally accelerating system" is another way of saying a system of uniform freefall, which is a local inertial reference frame (where "local" here means the entire visible universe). So no, you wouldn't see that. I also don't know what you mean by "appear in your past."

 

And if it were, that still wouldn't be sufficient. You'd have to show not just that it appears to be receding, but that recession is equal in all directions. There is no geometrical solution to this that only relies on objects moving through space. Which, incidentally, is why it's so hard to come up with satisfactory analogies for inflation.

 

I have to disagree - If that where true - the universe would not have a constant temperature - it would have hot and cold spots

 

The universe does have hot and cold spots. A star is hot. Deep space is cold. Space inside galaxies is warmer than space outside galaxies. Space inside galaxy clusters is warmer than space outside. And so on. However, on larger and larger scales, the universe gets smoother and smoother.

 

And the same in every direction.

 

In other words, it is what you would not expect if the universe itself were a 3d structure with a center and edges. Towards the edge would look different than towards the center, at the very least.

 

- The fact that IT IS constant - means there is an external force keeping it so

 

How do you figure?

 

- plus the fact it IS NOT expanding in an constant form - also suggest there is another external force moving it - Like a cloud of smoke in the wind

 

But it is expanding in a constant form. Expansion is the same in every direction, for as far as we can see.

 

I subscribe to the theory of infinities - everything is made up something smaller and we make up part of something infinitely bigger -

 

That is not a theory. It is an idea. And, as you're applying it, it happens to be false. It is true, however, that there is structure on many scales, all the way up to galaxies, galaxy clusters, galactic filaments, etc.:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos

 

However, the universe itself is not such a structure within space. It is space. In fact it's everything there is, by definition.

 

Once you come to grips with that fact -

 

"Come to grips with?" You've gone from proposing an idea to implying it's proven in an awfully short time.

 

You will realize how we got created - By the ultimate power of infinity

 

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this means.

 

Here I disagree with you Shark. I am not realizing anything.

 

You give me the occasion to repeat my point: creation IMHO is a human concept, it is not observation. If you stick to observation, you must consider that what we call creation in usual world is in fact transformation.

 

I know there are elements of theories & experiments that suggest that particles can pop up from absolute nothing. It may be, but I stand extremely reticent to believe in creation from nothing. In the worst case, I prefer consider that what we call "nothing" today will be called "something" by future scientists.

 

In any case, "the ultimate power of infinity" sounds like poetry, nothing more.

 

Wow, michel. A post I almost entirely agree with. Historic! My only difference is that I'm not confident enough to be "extremely reticient" on that particular point.

[michel123456]

Historic, indeed.

I'll have to make a thread to introduce my accelerating stuff. From scratch in Speculations one of these days.

[SpaceShark]

Here I disagree with you Shark. I am not realizing anything.

 

You give me the occasion to repeat my point: creation IMHO is a human concept' date=' it is not observation. If you stick to observation, you must consider that what we call creation in usual world is in fact [u']transformation[/u].

 

I know there are elements of theories & experiments that suggest that particles can pop up from absolute nothing. It may be, but I stand extremely reticent to believe in creation from nothing. In the worst case, I prefer consider that what we call "nothing" today will be called "something" by future scientists.

 

In any case, "the ultimate power of infinity" sounds like poetry, nothing more.

 

The ultimate power of infinity - There is no begging or end to time and space - Everything is made up by something smaller - if we take that to infinity - then infinity runs both ways - our universe is just part of something so big we will never be able to see it - and that is part of something even bigger and so on

 

What I meant about our creation by the pure power of infinity was- if you arrange everything in an infinite amount of ways - eventually that created us - because time and space are infinities - all things are possible

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The universe does have hot and cold spots. A star is hot. Deep space is cold. Space inside galaxies is warmer than space outside galaxies. Space inside galaxy clusters is warmer than space outside. And so on. However, on larger and larger scales, the universe gets smoother and smoother.

 

I guess I have to chose my words more carefully so you don't keep misinterpreting them - I thought when I said the universe has a constant temperature - You would of understood that I meant what makes up 99.9999999 of our universe -space - in case you still don't know - and yes it DOES HAVE a constant temperature