Lake found on Mars

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,680
Liked Posts:
3,049
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
That is exactly what the big bang says. Again the speed of light is local and relates to motion relative to the space-time. An object in motion cannot exceed the speed of light relative to space-time.

What happened in the big bang is as Modo states. The matter in the early universe did not travel faster than the speed of light relative to space-time. Instead, space-time itself expanded. That expansion is allowed to proceed faster than the speed of light because it is not relative to space-time but is space-time.

Put another way. Objects exist within this thing we call space-time. Those objects cannot travel faster than the speed of light per special relativity. However, space-time itself is not confined to this rule because space-time is not an object within space-time but is the actual global medium through which objects travel.

So what happened in the early big bang is that space-time itself expanded faster than the speed of light but the actual objects within space time did not. It is just that because those objects existed within space-time and space-time itself was expanding, it made it the objects appear to travel faster than light when in fact they did not.

Correct, but I prefer the simpler explanation that if you're in a spaceship traveling at half the speed of light, and you shine a flashlight in the direction you're traveling, from your frame of reference the light is traveling at the speed of light (C or very close to in the hard vacuum of space), as well as an outside frame of reference, even though simple logic might dictation that the outside frame of reference should see the the light traveling at 1.5C. It doesn't it's blue-shifted. Same thing if you're shining the light opposite of the direction you're traveling: From your frame of reference the light is traveling at C. From an outside frame of reference it's still traveling at C but red-shifted, not 0.5C.

So the light from the most distant--and oldest reaches of the observable universe are traveling at some fraction of C, or C, but not faster than C.

Brett is positing about the fluidity of light speed.... On machines that depend on a constant .68 light speed travel over cat 5 medium and .87 light speed on coax medium to synchronize and transmit meaningful data.

Pure witchcraft. Perhaps the internet is not a thing, and god just zaps the words machine to machine.
A physicist I read once explained it simply: Light can travel slower speeds when affected by different media--matter, gravity, etc. If it didn't Cherenkov radiation wouldn't be a thing. However, the speed limit as we know it is C. It's therefore a bit clunky to say "speed of light" when referencing C because light can slow down, but C never changes. To our current knowledge it's a universal constant.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
63,644
Liked Posts:
40,652
Correct, but I prefer the simpler explanation that if you're in a spaceship traveling at half the speed of light, and you shine a flashlight in the direction you're traveling, from your frame of reference the light is traveling at the speed of light (C or very close to in the hard vacuum of space), as well as an outside frame of reference, even though simple logic might dictation that the outside frame of reference should see the the light traveling at 1.5C. It doesn't it's blue-shifted. Same thing if you're shining the light opposite of the direction you're traveling: From your frame of reference the light is traveling at C. From an outside frame of reference it's still traveling at C but red-shifted, not 0.5C.

So the light from the most distant--and oldest reaches of the observable universe are traveling at some fraction of C, or C, but not faster than C.

Well I think the distinction here is the measurement is not measuring the local speed ie speed as defined in special relativity. They are measuring the distance covered using C as the measuring stick. So while the object has not exceeded C, the fact it was on the spaceship that was also moving means it covered the distance faster than C. A good way to think about it IMO is that in special relativity, the effect of the spaceship also being in motion is excluded from the calculation of speed. However, in general relativity, the fact that the spaceship ie spacetime is moving as well impacts the distance covered when measured using C.

A physicist I read once explained it simply: Light can travel slower speeds when affected by different media--matter, gravity, etc. If it didn't Cherenkov radiation wouldn't be a thing. However, the speed limit as we know it is C. It's therefore a bit clunky to say "speed of light" when referencing C because light can slow down, but C never changes. To our current knowledge it's a universal constant.

Yeah this was my point earlier when Ncog pointed out my clunky sentence. C is less the speed of light and more so the maximum speed something can travel assuming it has zero mass based on E = mc^2. It just so happens that in our universe, the thing that can achieve C is light provided it is no interfered with.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
63,644
Liked Posts:
40,652
Correct, but I prefer the simpler explanation that if you're in a spaceship traveling at half the speed of light, and you shine a flashlight in the direction you're traveling, from your frame of reference the light is traveling at the speed of light (C or very close to in the hard vacuum of space), as well as an outside frame of reference, even though simple logic might dictation that the outside frame of reference should see the the light traveling at 1.5C. It doesn't it's blue-shifted. Same thing if you're shining the light opposite of the direction you're traveling: From your frame of reference the light is traveling at C. From an outside frame of reference it's still traveling at C but red-shifted, not 0.5C.

So the light from the most distant--and oldest reaches of the observable universe are traveling at some fraction of C, or C, but not faster than C.

Well I think the distinction here the measurement is not measuring the local speed ie speed as defined in special relativity. They are measuring the distance covered using C as the measuring stick. So while the object has not exceeded C, the fact it was on the spaceship that was also moving means it covered the distance faster than C. A good way to think about it IMO is that in special relativity, the effect of the spaceship also being in motion is excluded from the calculation of speed. However, in general relativity, the fact that the spaceship ie spacetime is moving as well impacts the distance covered when measured using C.

A physicist I read once explained it simply: Light can travel slower speeds when affected by different media--matter, gravity, etc. If it didn't Cherenkov radiation wouldn't be a thing. However, the speed limit as we know it is C. It's therefore a bit clunky to say "speed of light" when referencing C because light can slow down, but C never changes. To our current knowledge it's a universal constant.

Yeah this was my point earlier when Ncog pointed out my clunky sentence. C is less the speed of light and more so the maximum speed something can travel assuming it has zero mass based on E = mc^2. It just so happens that in our universe, the thing that can achieve C is light provided it is no interfered with since it has no mass.
 

Ares

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
42,400
Liked Posts:
35,099
Harry Potter?

A0ik.gif
 

Ares

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
42,400
Liked Posts:
35,099
Sorry, I know, I'm the only one, who are those people?

Voldemort and Malfoy lol.... doesn't really matter.... I just need to be hugged in a very awkward manner.
 

number51

Señor Member
Donator
Joined:
Aug 25, 2012
Posts:
17,349
Liked Posts:
11,363
Location:
Funk & Wagnalls' porch
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Brett may not learn anything in here, but the rest of us can.

I agree with that.

Brett agrees with Houston but not in the way Houston intended. Let's break it down.

"Brett may not learn anything in here" Because Brett already knows more than anyone else posting in this thread.
"but the rest of us can" Because Brett could teach us all "The Truth".
 

Aesopian

Hooters Waitress
Joined:
Jan 6, 2015
Posts:
16,411
Liked Posts:
8,804
Location:
Jupiter
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
Does Mars have catfish?
 

Top