Is the Universe Infinite?

Quote:

(There is also no reason to assume that it is even possible to move an object faster than the speed of light so time travel could very well be a fanciful yet mute point)<

Now with that said, back to the house of cards I was building and jumping ahead a bit to put a terrace on the seventh floor. A floor which for now we can hold up with a pile of cinder blocks for lack of some sold I-beams yet to be described.

Our planet is not only moving faster than the speed of light it is moving infinitely faster than the speed of light. So are you and so am I. That is of course relative to many of an infinite number of other frames of references. However, relative to our own frame of reference we don't appear to be moving very fast at all. So when I state that there is no reason to assume that it is even possible to move an object past the speed of light I was stating the scientific likelihood that inside our own frame of reference we would not only be unable to move a piece of matter at the speed of light or past it, we would be unable to observe something moving faster than the speed of light relative to our position because it would violate the laws of physics relative to our frame of reference.

I can't explain it but the faster it goes it more time slows down relative to us but there is no reason to assume that time is capable of going backwards.

BUT that does not mean that it is not possible. I don't believe it and have nothing in my entire house of cards to back it up but I can't categorically denounce it because I have no shred of proof that traveling faster than the speed of light inside out own frame of reference is not possible.

nipok

0 Replies

I bet you probably know a whole bunch more physics than any of us Brandon; certainly more than I do since I know very little. I'm counting on you scientists to come up with the 'how to do it' for the possibilities the rest of us think up. Smile

For instance, isn't a theory accepted as fact only to the extent that it is reliable when it is tested? And since light is the fastest thing we know about it in the universe, isn't Einstein's theory limited to that known quanity? What if there is something faster that hasn't been discovered yet? Given the way his mind worked, I would be surprised if Einstein himself did not consider that possibility.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I bet you probably know a whole bunch more physics than any of us Brandon; certainly more than I do since I know very little. I'm counting on you scientists to come up with the 'how to do it' for the possibilities the rest of us think up.

For instance, isn't a theory accepted as fact only to the extent that it is reliable when it is tested? And since light is the fastest thing we know about it in the universe, isn't Einstein's theory limited to that known quanity? What if there is something faster that hasn't been discovered yet? Given the way his mind worked, I would be surprised if Einstein himself did not consider that possibility.

Einstein started with two simple postulates, and derived the whole thing mathematically on paper. It actually has nothing at all to do with light. It's just that light moves at this limiting speed. It seems to be a fundamental property of the universe. But I will see what I can whip up for you in terms of FTL drives.

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

Our planet is not only moving faster than the speed of light it is moving infinitely faster than the speed of light. So are you and so am I. That is of course relative to many of an infinite number of other frames of references.

No, it is not. No observer in an inertial reference frame can ever observe matter as travelling at the speed of light. The speed of light is a limiting speed in the universe.

nipok wrote:

However, relative to our own frame of reference we don't appear to be moving very fast at all.

Relative to our own frame of reference we are stationary by the definition of "frame of reference."

nipok wrote:

BUT that does not mean that it is not possible. I don't believe it and have nothing in my entire house of cards to back it up but I can't categorically denounce it because I have no shred of proof that traveling faster than the speed of light inside out own frame of reference is not possible.

If you're looking for a shred of proof, try reading a book on Special Relativity. Einstein derived the fact that as an object accelerates, its mass increases in such a way that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to the speed of light.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

nipok wrote:
Our planet is not only moving faster than the speed of light it is moving infinitely faster than the speed of light. So are you and so am I. That is of course relative to many of an infinite number of other frames of references.

No, it is not. No observer in an inertial reference frame can ever observe matter as travelling at the speed of light. The speed of light is a limiting speed in the universe.

nipok wrote:
However, relative to our own frame of reference we don't appear to be moving very fast at all.

Relative to our own frame of reference we are stationary by the definition of "frame of reference."

nipok wrote:
BUT that does not mean that it is not possible. I don't believe it and have nothing in my entire house of cards to back it up but I can't categorically denounce it because I have no shred of proof that traveling faster than the speed of light inside out own frame of reference is not possible.

If you're looking for a shred of proof, try reading a book on Special Relativity. Einstein derived the fact that as an object accelerates, its mass increases in such a way that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to the speed of light.

The speed of light is a constant inside our known universe. The point I was making (you'd need to read a few other earlier posts to see my stance) is that it is in fact plausible that our universe as a whole could be moving through the void of space at 3/4 C and we would never know it. It could be circling a denser universe that as a whole is moving at 2C so relative to a much larger much more removed frame of reference we are moving must faster that we appear to be in our tiny little frame of referece we call our known universe.

0 Replies

You can't add speeds like that. Let's say that a planet is rotating so that the surface is moving at 99% the speed of light in our reference frame (we're off the planet observing.) A car on the planet is moving at 1% the speed of light in his own frame. To us, the planet would have become smaller due to length contraction, so isn't moving at 1% the speed of light, but much slower. Length contraction is great enough to prevent the car from ever getting to the speed of light in our frame.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

......Theories in Physics are never revised by people who know nothing about them.

Einstien was quoted as saying "I can't believe that God would play dice with the universe."
That places him squarely into the class of 'amateur', but people have still listened, rather intently, to him.
Being outside the 'physics box' (with as much of its content, 'on board' as possible) is a vantage point from which much can be 'observed'.

nipok wrote:

.........Basically we can not with any certainity say what happens to objects as they closely approach and surpass the speed of light (in respect to the same frame of reference). Time dialation (the equation that has been proven by experiment and is the basis for time travel theories) would relagate time for an object moving faster than the speed of light to be the square of a negative number. Explain to me what the square root of negative four is and then maybe either of us could be in a position to explain what happens to matter when it passes the speed of light. (there is also no reason to assume that it is even possible to move an object faster than the speed of light so time travel could very well be a fanciful yet mute point)

Again to repeat, within the context of 'time' being merely the 'relationship' of objects within a universe, or 'multiverse' (lets call the complete series of infinite universes the "Ultiverse"!) or Ultiverse, there may well be a way to move within that framework, perhaps not physically, without abandoning the restraints of theoretical physics, or, perhaps, even involving them!

As always, today's 'magic', ...................!

0 Replies

nipok; i find your theses interesting, and fun, and (where they mesh with mine, of course :wink: ) quite probably correct! but i would suggest that you rein yourself in a bit, and not add unnecessary detail (that complicates the ideas) into a fairly compelling unit as it exists.

As Brandon points out, including aspects that are contrary to current 'wisdom' when they are not required to validate your version of what might 'be', simply accords an opportunity for a derailing criticism, unrelated to the basic concepts.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
......Theories in Physics are never revised by people who know nothing about them.

Einstien was quoted as saying "I can't believe that God would play dice with the universe."
That places him squarely into the class of 'amateur', but people have still listened, rather intently, to him.

Einstein had a PhD in Physics. That's not what I mean when I refer to amateurs.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

.........Einstein had a PhD in Physics. That's not what I mean when I refer to amateurs.

He was a 'severely' competant theoretician, if a bit of an accountant in nature, but a rank amateur in philosophy!

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
.........Einstein had a PhD in Physics. That's not what I mean when I refer to amateurs.

He was a 'severely' competant theoretician, if a bit of an accountant in nature, but a rank amateur in philosophy!

I don't care. As I said, theories in Physics are never revised by people who have not taken the trouble to become familiar with them. Einstein had a PhD in Physics. He was qualified to assert that current theory was not the whole story.

I know nothing about medicine, yet there is nothing to stop me from going to medical boards, posting medical nonsense, and telling real doctors that they are all wrong, but we know how much value that would have.

0 Replies

What's this? A new anti-discussion killer called "BoWoGo"? from Toronto? Want to stamp out any kind of point-of-view?
One application of this and one giant anus fill the room! PROBLEM SOLVED!

0 Replies

Within any dicipline there is a degree of inertia, holding back potential thrusts into areas that bring new life to the old concepts; usually these insights come from within, as especially in fields such as physics, the onerous mathematical underpinnings require a not easily gained expertise, but, never the less, occassionally an idea, regardless how ungainly, and poorly supported, surface, delivering a flash of insight to be taken up by the more openminded of its proponents, and developed by adherents into a valuable line of research.

Chuckster wrote:

What's this? A new anti-discussion killer called "BoWoGo"? from Toronto? Want to stamp out any kind of point-of-view?
One application of this and one giant anus fill the room! PROBLEM SOLVED!

I had no idea that my post would cause "one giant anus (to) fill the room!"
My appologies!

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Within any dicipline there is a degree of inertia, holding back potential thrusts into areas that bring new life to the old concepts; usually these insights come from within, as especially in fields such as physics, the onerous mathematical underpinnings require a not easily gained expertise, but, never the less, occassionally an idea, regardless how ungainly, and poorly supported, surface, delivering a flash of insight to be taken up by the more openminded of its proponents, and developed by adherents into a valuable line of research.

All I see is people talking about Relativity who know nothing about it and make mistakes on basic concepts. Nothing prevents you from studying the topic.

0 Replies

Brandon, you say that
"Einstein derived the fact that as an object accelerates, its mass increases in such a way that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to the speed of light."
Does this mean that Einstein considered it impossible to accelerate an object to the speed of light? Or did Einstein actually have a notion of "infinite" as a real property, not just a limiting theoretical construct, of the universe?

0 Replies

time dilation principles

Thalion wrote:

You can't add speeds like that. Let's say that a planet is rotating so that the surface is moving at 99% the speed of light in our reference frame (we're off the planet observing.) A car on the planet is moving at 1% the speed of light in his own frame. To us, the planet would have become smaller due to length contraction, so isn't moving at 1% the speed of light, but much slower. Length contraction is great enough to prevent the car from ever getting to the speed of light in our frame.

If objectA is moving to the left at 3/4 C and objectB is moving to the right at 3/4 C then to an observer on objectA, objectB would appear to be moving at 1.5 C. Since the light can not exceed its own speed limit they would not be able to see each other. But the fact that relative to one, the other is moving away from it at 372,000 miles per second would still hold true. Time and SpaceTime are very tricky concepts and like I mentioned in an earlier post, we can not define the square root of a negative number so we do not know what the formula governing time dilation would actually result in. It's like a divide by zero, it works fine in math but without evidence we just don't know. Evidence that we are unlikely to every know.

0 Replies

Incorrect. The light from object B would not be slowed down, and it would still be heading towards Object A at 186,000 mps. Object A is only moving at 3/4 that, so the light would catch up. This would imply seeing something that is moving something at the speed of light though, b\c object B is in fact moving at 1.5C away from A, as you said... anyone have an explanation?

0 Replies

And for people like me who understand the mathemathical calculations little or not at all, though I do understand Einstein's basic principle, I am still unconvinced that it is impossible to transcend the known equations and accomplish warp 30 - 50 - 100 or more using reasonable energy sources. I think we just haven't yet discovered how.

0 Replies

You've lost me.

0 Replies

Foxfyre and Brandon mostly But Nipok and thalion may wish to note.

I am certainly not arguing with relativity theories per se. I am not qualified and regard Einstein as a person who had the wit to understand what every sea captain and Polynesian navigator knew and to apply it in four dimensions. But I am certainly trying to understand exactly what they mean to us and our point of view. (lousy choice of words Smile

)

"When a mass is being accelerated its mass increases to infinity"--- thus resulting in no possible force being sufficient to accelerate it any more.

HOW Question

.

Actually I cannot see how except as to how it would appear to an observer who necessarily must be in a different frame of reference. The critters who live on a (hypothetical) world that appears to be receeding from our vantage point are perfectly happy. Light travels at "c" and everything else is OK. Our sun will be red shifted to them and theirs to us.

As a "mechanic" I have to deal with the combinations of all forces whereas math and the other "purer sciences" must necessarily have a bit more myopic point of view. Due to this "necessary myopia" we have math which proves that the arrow can never hit the target to mention one common example of a "pop" example recently mentioned on A2K.
The reasoning being that there are an infinite number of 1/2 distances that the arrow must traverse in a finite time. Since the arrow cannot travel an infinite number of infinite distances in a finite time the target goes unhit.

But as a mechanic I can disregard infinities, measure a finite distance, and hit the target.

As an engineer I can regard a "Black Hole" as a combination of forces and make one blow up (change its nature drastically and unremarkably, hopefully Smile

When I get the time Very Happy

0 Replies

Is the Universe Infinite?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know