Posted on 08/17/2016 5:41:51 AM PDT by rickmichaels
If the universe was infinitely old, as we used to assume, then it must be filled with an infinite number of stars and galaxies.
So why is the night sky not completely lit up by the light from these stars?
This question was first asked by the nineteenth century astronomer Heinrich Olbers, and the answer is, because of the age of the universe, not all of the photons have had enough time to reach us yet.
The amount of universe we are able to see is called the observable universe, and according to a pair of astrophysicists, it just got 320 million light years smaller.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I have been telling folks to read Three Body Problem and Dark Forrest. Great, new ideas!
This stuff always makes my head hurt. What is just beyond the edge of the universe?
But I don't! };^)
Seriously, I'm talking distance and time, not speed.
Object "A" travels left from point "C" at the speed of light for one second. Object "B" travels right from "C" at the speed of light for one second. At the end of that second, light from "A" to "B" would take two seconds, light from either "A" or "B" to "C" would only take one second. Not sure I'm getting across here, but it doesn't matter much anyway since the Vogon construction fleet is building the bypass this afternoon.
Got it. I'd heard that nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded
All this confusing talk about the speed of light . . but what about the speed of dark?
I think Mobius strips and tori serve the purpose of trying to illustrate the concept of infinity in a finite frame of reference. Illuminating in some aspects but restricting in others.
Depends on the switch.
If there was a blast or bang, it is possible indeed, as the shock wave (for lack of the proper term) continues to expand.
But... what if... outside of OUR observable universe there are multi-verses doing the same thing. In parallel or staggard in space time (unknown) but each expanding within its own “balloon”?
All hypothetical mind you but not outside the boundaries of astrophysical ruminations.
I hope this results in reduced fare rates.
If you keep on going, you end up where you started. Maybe that's how the Universe works - a celestial Möbius strip. :-)
Your imaginary demonstration starts to reveal the problem, IMHO. Allow me to elaborate. Let us say that for any point we have whatever number of original observers and they all set off in different directions in pairs. At some given time interval one member of each pair stops and the other continues moving. Shortly thereafter all members observe the speed of light coming from the original point. According to Einstein everybody will get the same result. “There is no preferred frame of reference.”
By definition there is nothing “outside the Universe”, with the possible exception of The Creator.
It’s smaller than that.
Just try getting past the firmament.
Wow, a Kung Fu lunch box, that is very cool.
My calculations say it is 321 million light years smaller.
Here ya go: The Speed of Dark (autism/genetic defects)
So what is on the other side?
I had one
That the speed of light will remain constant I can understand...sort of. But the time it takes for that light from the original point to the various observers, to my HS graduate thinking, should vary dependent upon distance from that original point.
So we have a seeming contradiction. How can the speed of light be constant in any frame of reference? My guess, not being a master mathematician (I can no longer even remember how to derive the first fundamental theorem of calculus) is something like this. We have a Universe containing Matter composed of whatever and light. The ONLY thing in this Universe that is NOT “plastic” is light. Everything else can be distorted and distorted in ways that are not the same for different observers. The only way for this to be true is that while we feel the Universe is constrained to conservation in the three dimensions our senses are familiar with is NOT true. I suppose this is the reality that REAL mathematicians are struggling with. I remember asking my Calculus teacher that if we can add dimensions by integration and we can mathematically deal with a seeming infinite number of dimensions why do we assume there are only three? He said, “46”. (Just joking, he said the math is theoretical and not real. We use math as a tool to understand reality and reality is not bound by math.).
Consider. We have point “X”. If we move point “X” over a period of time to a new location we have now two point and an interval of time. So now we are dealing with velocity. dx/dt. We can further go to acceleration by dv/dt. Integrating again we get “The Jerk” (not 0bama or Hillary) which is da/dt. These are all different dimensions of motion. So right there, mathematically, we have four dimensions of motion. Position, velocity, acceleration, and The Jerk. We can do the same thing with dimensions of space but intellectually it is more difficult for us to conceive of more than three spatial dimensions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.