Lightspeed, Blackholes, and any Other Space Subject

cbeebzthasteeze

cbeebzthasteeze

Active member
I know that there are some NS'ers who are interested in this, so I figured why not have a thread on what in space interests you and why.

(I searchbarred, and nothing came up.)

Discuss.
 
I am reading a book called the origin of the universe... it makes me feel smart even though i don't know a damn word i read.

nevertheless... space is crazy.
 
I was interested in blackholes a while back, but like all of my interests they fade after a week, but I came up with some stuff on cygnus x-1, and I also read some stuff about tesseracts, really crazy shit.
 
The new theory about singularities actually creating new universes inside themselves and our own just being a singularity in another galaxy is pretty cool. In fact most of multiverse theory is really interesting. And relativity is sweet too.
 
i watched that stephen hawkings thing the other day. i thought it was pretty sick that mass slows down time and that you cant go the speed of light, only 99.99 percent of it and that too will slow down time enabling time travel to the future!!!! that sounded really gay
 
that show was life changing. i loved it! everything i wanted to know about space and time he covered it...except one thing. Does anyone know what is beyond space?
 
lightspeed fact..
its more efficient hypothetically to travel as close to the speed of light as possible. .9999999999999C the closer you get to lightspeed the shorter distances get. if you reach lightspeed your technically at everypoint in the universe simultaneously. therefore youre trying to reach a solar system 4 light years way at the speed of light itll take 4 years travelling at.999999999999999999C it could be days minutes even seconds depending on how many nines you have hahahaha.
wormhole fact-the law of technology states that technology doesnt build up by added incriments it rather doubles every year so 30000 years ago we have the wheel not up until mid to late 1800s we have the car from the car we have flight. now take the modern car and plane the moder car has been around since 1890's plane has been here since 1903 so take about 125 and see how far we have progressed... even space travel so technically a succesfully invented wormhole technology could be anything from 100 to 1000 years away an extremley short time period for the technology it needs.
black holes as a recent study suggests isnt just a large hole in space time that traps everything in its reach but rather a huge worm hole to an alternate universe. that is spit out in another universe out of a cosmic white hole possible
all of this is extremely hypothetical but all facts google it i took AP physics a,b,c shits interesting
 
lightspeed fact..
its more efficient hypothetically to travel as close to the speed of light as possible. .9999999999999C the closer you get to lightspeed the shorter distances get. if you reach lightspeed your technically at everypoint in the universe simultaneously. therefore youre trying to reach a solar system 4 light years way at the speed of light itll take 4 years travelling at.999999999999999999C it could be days minutes even seconds depending on how many nines you have hahahaha.
wormhole fact-the law of technology states that technology doesnt build up by added incriments it rather doubles every year so 30000 years ago we have the wheel not up until mid to late 1800s we have the car from the car we have flight. now take the modern car and plane the moder car has been around since 1890's plane has been here since 1903 so take about 125 and see how far we have progressed... even space travel so technically a succesfully invented wormhole technology could be anything from 100 to 1000 years away an extremley short time period for the technology it needs.
black holes as a recent study suggests isnt just a large hole in space time that traps everything in its reach but rather a huge worm hole to an alternate universe. that is spit out in another universe out of a cosmic white hole possible
all of this is extremely hypothetical but theyre all facts. google it i took AP physics a,b,c shits interesting
 
the speed of light is the fastest possible speed that something could travel. as you get really close to it, time slows down in order to avoid something going fast than the speed of light. think about a kid on a train traveling 1 mph below the speed of light. if the kid ran at 2 mph he would surpass the speed of light. in order to prevent this, time slows so that it is not possible for the kid to run fast enough to break the speed limit. so if you reach the speed of light, time completely stops. so at this point time has stopped and you are traveling around the universe at the speed of light. since time stopped, you are cruisin around the universe but time never advances so you are everywhere at the same time
 
yeah this. but like the closer you get to lightspeed time around you stops while you keep going the same speed so if time slows and you keep a constant velocity your accelerating through time therefore this is how you can travel further distances shorter. but yeaah good job adam astronot +k for being awesme hahah
 
ya I have no idea but the first thing that came to my mind was heisenberg uncertainty principle. I think i like your explanation better though.
 
Also, things that are moving at speeds approaching c appear to be shorter to a static observer (Personally I can't prove this right now, especially not without a significant amount of arm-waving, so you're just going to have to take it on good faith). If you're travelling at a speed approaching c, then everything gets shorter from your perspective, because it would seem that you're static and everything else is doing the moving about. If you were travelling AT c, then the math would bug out and the entirety of everything would be infinitely small. Thus, as all distances from are zero, you're effectively everywhere at once.
(/arm wavy-wavy)
+K for verification from a clever person. I don't actually know the equations for relativistic time dilation and whatnot off the top of my head, so I could easily be wrong.
 
im more intersested in the the idea of folding time and space like a curten. like sorda like in dune im not being and idot im just summing it up short and sweet. folding space and time does not require you to go at light speed. move space not yourslef..
 
distances approaching zero is a better way to think about the concept of being everywhere at the same time. i dont know enough to say yay or nay on this but from being a giant nerd with other giant nerd friends, many of whom discuss this type of thing regularly i would say that this is valid.
 
It was on the Science Channel I think, last Sunday. I don't know when/if they are going to do a re-run of it, but I hope they do, because I missed it. :(
 
this might be a stupid question but how would they know that time would actaully slow down once you reach the speed of light?
 
time slows down as you approach the speed of light in comparison to another frame. Only light can REACH the speed of light. Einstein's theory of relativity showed this using very compelling evidence in his theory, but it was not able to be tested for decades after it was accepted by the science community. Since then, relativistic effects have been observed. The way that they have tested it that I have heard about it was that they flew a high speed plane around the globe with a clock that they had synchronized with a clock on earth (accurate to insanely small units of time). When they landed the plane after hours and hours of high speed flight, the clock was nanoseconds behind the clock they sync'd it to.

Also, there is a kind of particle that is created when photons from the sun reach our atmosphere (I think it might be a lepton, but I am not sure), and this particle only has a life of a few nanoseconds when created in a lab. If Relativity were false, such a particle would never make it even close to the ground from the outer edge of our atmosphere, even if it were traveling twice the speed of light (which, per relativity, is impossible; the point that I am trying to make is that this thing would decay long before it reached the ground). However, since it is traveling at a speed VERY near the speed of light (something on the order of .9 to .95 c), it experiences time at a much different rate than we do, and is able to make it down here where scientists have been able to observe it.
 
Fly two identical planes around the world in opposite directions at identical speed with identical clocks on both. The plane that flew with the rotation of the earth will end up with a clock that is behind the clock on the plane that flew against rotation.
Also, the twin paradox. Take 2 twins, leave one on earth and send the other around the galaxy at near relativistic speeds (large fraction of c). If the space twin came back 100 years later, he would find the earth twin dead, having aged 100 years. But space twin would have only aged a couple months/years (depending on how fast he was going).
And it's not that time itself slows down. Time is relative, meaning it depends on the observer. Space twin didn't notice his clock moving any slower--to him the trip only lasted months/years. But if earth twin was monitoring space twins clock, he would notice that every second for space twin would be a couple hours for earth twin.
And the reason c is the speed limit is energy. As you approach c, your relative mass increases. A static observer would see your spaceship getting larger and larger. At c, you would have infinite mass. And to accelerate infinite mass you need infinite energy, which is impossible.
/oversimplification
 
You are pretty close on all of them except for the first one. Like I said in my post, the way they actually verified it was to fly just one plane around the earth. It doesn't matter if they would be going with or against the rotation of the earth (at least not to anybody on the earth/ plane frames).
 
tests have been done since einstein brought up special relativity and even with the advances in technology today, no one has been able to legitimately get a sub-atomic particle to travel c or above it. they get 0.9999c, but never c.

we all know e=mc^2 but the average person cant explain it.in order for something to accelerate, its needs energy. it needs as much energy as possible, so that means the mass has to be infinitely large. but, there is a limit to how big a mass can get, and the limit of the mass makes the value of c>= your speed.
 
My life is centred around Physics and Skiing. It's not possible to go faster than light because relativity itself, which is proved, bases all it's values on the maximum speed which is light. So unless you're a photon (light particle) which in itself has no mass(!) you can not accelerate to the speed of light but close, such as in the Large Hadron Collider in which protons are forced to collide at 9.99.. percent of the speed of light!
 
Sorry for dub post, but that is why in e= mc^2 the speed of light is referred to as "c" which stands for constant. i.e Does not change whatever the conditions.
 
And the fact that increasing the speed of something toward the speed of light also increases its momentum to infinity, and there cannot be infinite momentum either.
 
okay, so a couple of things. first of all, there are theories that the universe is constantly expanding, but where is it expanding to? surely there must have to be something outside of it that it can expand into?

and also, if the universe is infinite, then obviously it has no centre or edges. so if it has no edges and is infinite, how can it get expand and become even more infinite?

can anyone explain?
 
I think the accepted theory now is that our universe is expanding into an empty vacuum. Its pretty much impossible for us to know anything about anything outside of our universe though, so its all just guesswork really.
 
OhMyBosh, not quite. There may or may not be infinite matter in the universe. What is said when people say that the universe is expanding is that everything (even the atoms in our body, and the fundamental particles that make up those atoms) is getting farther away from everything else.

When you think of this, however, don't have the misconception that this implies that there is some sort of center in the universe. The way that astrophysicists explain it is a raisin bread model. As the bread bakes, the raisins ALL get farther away from each other, not radiating from any central point. Basically, then, from any point in the universe, it would appear as if you are at the center of the universe, as everything is getting farther away from you.
 
If the universe is constantly expanding, wouldn't everything eventually collapse in on itself because it doesn't have the matter to expand past its max size?
If there was a possible way to create maximum energy to propel any amount of mass could you theoretically go faster then light?
 
I was looking for the post where somebody mentioned how black holes might be a formation to a new demention "white hole" but didnt see it.

saw this the other day, small portion of the article. Its a pretty interesting article. Found on http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/ very interesting site.

fecund universes theory

The theory surmises that a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (speed of light, Planck length and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe therefore gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes.

rest of the article is here

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/04/are-black-holes-engines-of-new-universes.html#more

 
exploding_head_3.jpg


threads

this is good stuff tho. very interesting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top